Dependence on Food Stamps

[BridgeTroll]

The supply of these workers appears to be inexhaustable.  Roughly 30% of our high school aged people... do not even graduate.  They just drop out.  Add a steady influx of undocumented workers and voila!  Plenty of perfectly qualified folks for these jobs.  Why should pay go up when the supply is so huge?

[finehoe]

Why should pay go up when the supply is so huge?

It works for CEOs.  Or do you believe there is no one qualified to run McDonalds who would take less than $13.8 million a year.

[southsider1015]

The point that's being missed here is we are talking about low-wage jobs. Service industry jobs that by and large are meant to be stepping stones into something better, not life-long pursuits. Arguably these jobs are meant for teenagers and retired part timers. not adults in the prime of their lives. There are other jobs , just look in the trades, hell, vocational school is even option in most school systems now. Not all of us can be phd's , quite a few of us can be tradesmen however. Mastering a trade increases your time-value and can lift you out of poverty.

The thing I don't understand is why do we think increasing the wage of cashier will make things better? all that'll happen s that prices will adjust to the new bottom and those extra costs will be passed on others, with no marked affect on the earnings of walmart.

the point that you are missing is that you are paying a subsidy to the company (which can well afford to pay its workers itself) to support the full time workers of Walmart for no other reason than to guarantee the profits of the employer.

Why cant the business learn to pay the costs of its own operation?

I think everyone understands your point.  The taxpayers are subsidizing these low income workers, and Walmart makes their profit.  Its a valid point, but what's the solution?  Government intervention to set the market?  Raising minimum wage? 

Let's say that you pay these workers more and give them less food stamps.  How will the uneducated spend these dollars?  Will they continue to purchase the simple foods such as  milk, cereal, juice, meat, etc. similar to the food stamps?  Or will they purchase alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets, cigs, etc?  I'm not saying that ALL low income earners use their money unwisely.  But if any money is redirected from the basic nutritional needs and wasted on something else, then this is a problem, no?

There's are reasons why the lowest earners make what they make.  Stay in school, stay clean, stay out of trouble, obey the law, wear protection, don't have children out of wedlock, make sound financial decisions, don't divorce, raise your children correctly, and don't live paycheck to paycheck.  You follow these basic principles (and a few others) and you can escape poverty in the US in the 21st century.  And when you don't, you end up at the bottom. 

Working a low income job should always be temporary for anyone.  Taking personal responsibility and accountability for your life by improving it will prevent you from ending up at the bottom.

[finehoe]

Taking personal responsibility and accountability for your life by improving it will prevent you from ending up at the bottom.

Sage advice.  But the point you guys refuse to acknowledge is that there is always going to be people on the bottom.  If every single low-income worker stayed in school, stayed clean, stayed out of trouble, obeyed the law, wore protection, didn't have children out of wedlock, made sound financial decisions, didn't divorce, raised their children "correctly" (whatever that means), and didn't live paycheck to paycheck, there would still be people at the bottom of the income distribution.  This isn't Lake Wobegon.  We can't ALL be above-average.  In a country as rich as the United States, should not the companies that employ these people pay them enough so that the rest of us don't have to make up the difference via food stamps and the like?

[southsider1015]

you dont like a government requirement to pay the workers a living wage, but you dont mind the rest of us paying for walmart's profits?

Does that even make sense to you?

I think we need to find other ways of raise the quality of life for the bottom earners because research shows that it doesn't help as intended:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/02/22/the-minimum-wage-debate-should-be-about-poverty-not-jobs/

Many argue that raising the minimum wage also raises unemployment.  Walmart can't afford the same number of workers (and I'm sure you'll argue that the Walton family give up their profits), so they fire or freeze hiring.  Is it better to have 1 worker make $40,000 with another making $0?  Or two workers making $20,000? I don't know, just asking the question.  Maybe we have too many uneducated, low-motivation workers, and that would reduce the unemployment rate and the number of Americans in poverty?

I think raising the minimum wage, although noble, won't provide the intended consequences.  I'm not in favor of having more poor Americans and more profits for Walmart. I don't believe anyone is.   

[southsider1015]

Taking personal responsibility and accountability for your life by improving it will prevent you from ending up at the bottom.

Sage advice.  But the point you guys refuse to acknowledge is that there is always going to be people on the bottom.  If every single low-income worker stayed in school, stayed clean, stayed out of trouble, obeyed the law, wore protection, didn't have children out of wedlock, made sound financial decisions, didn't divorce, raised their children "correctly" (whatever that means), and didn't live paycheck to paycheck, there would still be people at the bottom of the income distribution.  This isn't Lake Wobegon.  We can't ALL be above-average.  In a country as rich as the United States, should not the companies that employ these people pay them enough so that the rest of us don't have to make up the difference via food stamps and the like?

Right, there has to be a bottom level in order for there to be a middle and upper class, right?

Not sure where I lost you with your confusion on raising children "correctly". 

Are we really that rich?  Why is our national debt so high?  I agree that the income equality problem is growing, but I don't believe that raising the minimum wage well have the same outcomes as many would think. I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty well-informed.  I think raising the minimum wage is the knee jerk reaction when we talk about poverty levels and the income inequality gap. 

Look, we all want to combat poverty.  If it were a simple problem, then a simple solution would be obvious. 

[finehoe]

Are we really that rich?  Why is our national debt so high? 

This may provide a clue:

[southsider1015]

I completely agree that we need to significantly increase public infrastructure because we are severely lagging behind the rest of the world.  All citizens benefit from this type of spending. I've seen estimates that say for every dollar spent on infrastructure, we see 2+ dollars in return.  The ARRA was not enough, as we need to continue this funding.

Im not disagreeing with the videos, I just don't see how they address combating poverty in the US.

[southsider1015]

Are we really that rich?  Why is our national debt so high? 

This may provide a clue:

I've seen the latest proposals from the SECDEF, and I generally agree with them.  We definetly need to address our military spending.  One small part to remember is that China/Russia don't provide the same pay/benefits to its soldiers on a level close to the US.  My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

[finehoe]

My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Actually I work for the DoD, so I see first-hand why spending trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily result in "a strong American military."

I brought it up to answer your question "Why is our national debt so high?".

[BridgeTroll]

My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Actually I work for the DoD, so I see first-hand why spending trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily result in "a strong American military."

I brought it up to answer your question "Why is our national debt so high?".

I certainly agree that we need to drastically cut the civilian DOD workforce...

[fsquid]

My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Actually I work for the DoD, so I see first-hand why spending trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily result in "a strong American military."

I brought it up to answer your question "Why is our national debt so high?".

I certainly agree that we need to drastically cut the civilian DOD workforce...

I've heard they are going to.  Our DCAA auditors are worried

[spuwho]

Listen to real stories about people living in poverty, learn the facts about poverty in the United States, understand the root causes, and — just as important — how people are helping themselves and others out of Poverty USA.

http://www.povertyusa.org/get-involved/#learn

[spuwho]

Poverty statistics are measured using census data.

The US Census Bureau has a whole section dedicated on just the measurements on poverty.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/index.html

[IrvAdams]

^^very educational posts. The problem is more widespread than I thought. The southeastern US seems to have the greatest percentage of people living in poverty. The northeast has the least.