01-29-2014 01:57 PM
140 1234 ...
tools
  1. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Do you really think the left doesn't hand out the same welfare you claim the right is notorious for. Do you think a candidate could possibly raise the money necessary to be a viable candidate from people on food stamps? Have you not heard of the money the WH pissed away handing millions if not billions to Solindra?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    They do and I think it needs to be rained in but at the same token they are no where close to the same degree as the gop.

    We need reform across the board but corporate welfare is the best place to start. Solve 2 issues. Reduces number on welfare and would raise more funds.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 07:50 PM
  2. SteveISU's Avatar
    They do and I think it needs to be rained in but at the same token they are no where close to the same degree as the gop.

    We need reform across the board but corporate welfare is the best place to start. Solve 2 issues. Reduces number on welfare and would raise more funds.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Yet you conveniently pin it to only the GOP. It happens equally, like I said, go run for office and raise campaign contributions via food stamps. Unless you have some cold hard numbers to back up your claim?

    Lemme ask why is that the best place to start? Considering these are the same businesses we need to employ people and pay that mythical "livable wage". You think the single mom popping kids out like tic tacs is contributing more to society? You don't think getting that person a skill set to get off welfare would be the route to go?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 07:57 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Does anyone think it's weird that we went from a paradigm where almost everyone thought that one parent should be able to support their family comfortably with one job to where two people working full time, with overtime and sometimes multiple jobs can barely make ends meet?

    As technology advances and things become easier for mankind to accomplish, food, homes and necessary materials become cheaper to accumulate, distances take less time to traverse, etc.... shouldn't the opposite have happened? Why is it getting harder to get by, given the abundance of ability, rather than easier? Our retirement age is going up, rather than down, when we have (or logically ought to have) less demand for human intervention in most processes? When automation caused less demand for manual work, why did that cause an increase in unemployment, rather than just a logical decrease in the amount of hours required by each employee to maintain productivity? We're doing things exactly backwards and then wondering why it isn't working for most of the population. think about how much easier survival should have become.
    As women entered the workforce willingly because they no longer liked being a stay at home mom, the supply of labor went up. With people living longer, they typically want to work longer. Again increased supply if labor. That keeps wages down, assuming demand remains the same.

    But demand hasn't remained the same. As you pointed out, automation has reduced the need for as many workers. So when you have excess workers for fewer jobs, that increased competition on the side of the workers is what allows companies to pay less. It's also why unemployment goes up.

    You got your law of supply and demand backwards.
    Aquila likes this.
    01-23-2014 07:59 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    As women entered the workforce willingly because they no longer liked being a stay at home mom, the supply of labor went up. With people living longer, they typically want to work longer. Again increased supply if labor. That keeps wages down, assuming demand remains the same.

    But demand hasn't remained the same. As you pointed out, automation has reduced the need for as many workers. So when you have excess workers for fewer jobs, that increased competition on the side of the workers is what allows companies to pay less. It's also why unemployment goes up.

    You got your law of supply and demand backwards.
    I disagree that I have it backwards I understand why demand is low and it's impact.. I'm suggesting that we should have then changed how we think about employment's role in our economy and society. Both the influx of potential employees and the lessened need for more employees should have resulted in us finding a better way to utilize resources.
    01-23-2014 08:02 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I disagree that I have it backwards I understand why demand is low and it's impact.. I'm suggesting that we should have then changed how we think about employment's role in our economy and society. Both the influx of potential employees and the lessened need for more employees should have resulted in us finding a better way to utilize resources.
    Well if you find a better way, let us know. Lol
    Aquila likes this.
    01-23-2014 08:05 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    Well if you find a better way, let us know. Lol
    Seems simple. We need a giant project again. Like the interstates, the Hoover Dam, the mines, etc.... we're (our society) at our best when we're doing the difficult work to prepare for a better future. Many people will point to the internet as the next place for this innovation to take place, but we could do something as simple as a giant project, funded mostly by donations like some previous projects, to clean up pollution, or plant a billion trees or to teach science or whatever to children who are getting shafted by the poor education system we have... there are all sorts of things we do could keep people busy, and more importantly productive ....
    01-23-2014 08:12 PM
  7. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Yet you conveniently pin it to only the GOP. It happens equally, like I said, go run for office and raise campaign contributions via food stamps. Unless you have some cold hard numbers to back up your claim?

    Lemme ask why is that the best place to start? Considering these are the same businesses we need to employ people and pay that mythical "livable wage". You think the single mom popping kids out like tic tacs is contributing more to society? You don't think getting that person a skill set to get off welfare would be the route to go?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    You have 2 choices and you can not have both.

    Either get corporate welfare reform in raise people income or well you get to keep paying for all the people stuck on welfare because they are paid Slave wages.

    Choose one. As you scream welfare reform but it is crystal clear you do not want to attack the root of it.
    If people could are livable wages then yeah it would be easier to track down the abuse but we have Walmart helping people get welfare. So choose one the the choice above.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 08:31 PM
  8. SteveISU's Avatar
    You have 2 choices and you can not have both.

    Either get corporate welfare reform in raise people income or well you get to keep paying for all the people stuck on welfare because they are paid Slave wages.

    Choose one. As you scream welfare reform but it is crystal clear you do not want to attack the root of it.
    If people could are livable wages then yeah it would be easier to track down the abuse but we have Walmart helping people get welfare. So choose one the the choice above.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    So you think cutting corporations tax breaks will cause them to raise peoples wages? Not sure if you're serious?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 08:33 PM
  9. Timelessblur's Avatar
    So you think cutting corporations tax breaks will cause them to raise peoples wages? Not sure if you're serious?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    It is a mixture of saying Walmart having a tax increase to cover the fact that they have more employees on welfare.
    It also increases revenue.

    As you said you want welfare reform. Look at corporate welfare.
    Mom and pop stores do not get tax breaks. Walmart does.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 08:37 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    So you think cutting corporations tax breaks will cause them to raise peoples wages? Not sure if you're serious?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    I may be mistaken, but I think he means the underhanded welfare, where Walmart passes their expenses on to the public by encouraging people to take public assistance instead of paying them the difference between their hourly wages and the cost of living. The subsidies, tax breaks, etc are also a form of welfare, and probably are a much bigger issue than the other two combined, but you're also right, cutting subsidies would probably not result in voluntary spending increases by companies currently receiving said breaks unless their investing in high return income opportunities to help offset the new tax burdens, etc.
    01-23-2014 08:37 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You have 2 choices and you can not have both.

    Either get corporate welfare reform in raise people income or well you get to keep paying for all the people stuck on welfare because they are paid Slave wages.
    I choose option 3: We start DIScouraging welfare (like it or not, having a social stigma attached to it will have people working harder to get off it instead of flaunting it), and start ENcouraging healthy families (already happening on a small scale) and self reliance for people to want to actually make something of themselves. And also instill those values into our kids so they don't fall into those same types of traps their parents may have fallen into. Teaching good work ethic and good financial skills will be one of the best ways to get people off welfare and keep them off. It won't be an immediate silver bullet, but these problems didn't happen yesterday. It's been decades in the making and gonna take time to shift our culture away from thinking the government will always be there for them.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    01-23-2014 09:14 PM
  12. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I choose option 3: We start DIScouraging welfare (like it or not, having a social stigma attached to it will have people working harder to get off it instead of flaunting it), and start ENcouraging healthy families (already happening on a small scale) and self reliance for people to want to actually make something of themselves. And also instill those values into our kids so they don't fall into those same types of traps their parents may have fallen into. Teaching good work ethic and good financial skills will be one of the best ways to get people off welfare and keep them off. It won't be an immediate silver bullet, but these problems didn't happen yesterday. It's been decades in the making and gonna take time to shift our culture away from thinking the government will always be there for them.
    If you want option 3 this would require ending corporate welfare and increase wages.
    So we are again back to option 1 or 2 like above.
    You can not have both. You are trying to have both.
    Option 3 pretty much means you have to accept option 1.

    So do you accept that requirement.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 09:26 PM
  13. llamabreath's Avatar
    Seems simple. We need a giant project again. Like the interstates, the Hoover Dam, the mines, etc.... we're (our society) at our best when we're doing the difficult work to prepare for a better future. Many people will point to the internet as the next place for this innovation to take place, but we could do something as simple as a giant project, funded mostly by donations like some previous projects, to clean up pollution, or plant a billion trees or to teach science or whatever to children who are getting shafted by the poor education system we have... there are all sorts of things we do could keep people busy, and more importantly productive ....
    The Keystone Pipeline (which was subsequently turned down) would've fit that shoe (to some extent).




    >>> Sent from Coldlanta
    01-23-2014 09:39 PM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    If you want option 3 this would require ending corporate welfare and increase wages.
    So we are again back to option 1 or 2 like above.
    You can not have both. You are trying to have both.
    Option 3 pretty much means you have to accept option 1.

    So do you accept that requirement.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Raising wages and cutting subsidies (I agree with the subsidies part, but not limiting myself to JUST that) will promote keeping fathers in the family, convince women that having babies for welfare money isn't a wise career choice, and teach kids how to be good workers and handle money wisely?

    I'll have what you're drinking. :beer:
    01-23-2014 09:48 PM
  15. SteveISU's Avatar
    It is a mixture of saying Walmart having a tax increase to cover the fact that they have more employees on welfare.
    It also increases revenue.

    As you said you want welfare reform. Look at corporate welfare.
    Mom and pop stores do not get tax breaks. Walmart does.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

    Ok lets take all of the "evil corporate welfare" away from Walmart. Suddenly their full-time work force gets cut from 3/4 to 1/2 (there's less benefits we have to pay)and trim the night crew by 10%. If I were running the show there I'd take it one step further and yank every manual checkout lane out of the stores and install all self-service checkouts. I may leave one manual for the elderly and handicap. That would allow me to lay off cashiers ( cha-ching....savings).

    What you fail to understand is party of the Wal-mart problem is they hire a enormous amount of part-time employees, in which you'll never be able to force a business to hire more full time. Coupled with the fact that 70% of those who start working at Wal-mart leave within a year. I think the people have realized it's not a good place to work and that the problem (evil Wal-mart) is less of a problem then you think. The REAL issue is they have gone out of their way to prevent the IFCW from organizing there.
    01-23-2014 10:04 PM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    Raising wages and cutting subsidies (I agree with the subsidies part, but not limiting myself to JUST that) will promote keeping fathers in the family, convince women that having babies for welfare money isn't a wise career choice, and teach kids how to be good workers and handle money wisely?

    I'll have what you're drinking. :beer:
    I'm a firm believer that paying a drive thru clerk $15/hr will limit the amount of baby mama drama we have in our world.
    01-23-2014 10:05 PM
  17. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Ok lets take all of the "evil corporate welfare" away from Walmart. Suddenly their full-time work force gets cut from 3/4 to 1/2 (there's less benefits we have to pay)and trim the night crew by 10%. If I were running the show there I'd take it one step further and yank every manual checkout lane out of the stores and install all self-service checkouts. I may leave one manual for the elderly and handicap. That would allow me to lay off cashiers ( cha-ching....savings).

    What you fail to understand is party of the Wal-mart problem is they hire a enormous amount of part-time employees, in which you'll never be able to force a business to hire more full time. Coupled with the fact that 70% of those who start working at Wal-mart leave within a year. I think the people have realized it's not a good place to work and that the problem (evil Wal-mart) is less of a problem then you think. The REAL issue is they have gone out of their way to prevent the IFCW from organizing there.
    So you want option 2?

    You have 2 choices. 1 or 2. You can not have both.

    Walmart is a job killer. Cut their welfare and more mom and pop stores would stay alive as guess what walmart would not move in.

    Also if it would "save" so much money why has walmart not done that yet?
    It is sad but people screaming for welfare reform are all for corpate welfare and handouts.

    Option 1 or 2. Based on your post you want option 2 as clearly you do not want to target the root of the problem.
    01-23-2014 10:08 PM
  18. llamabreath's Avatar
    I'm a firm believer that paying a drive thru clerk $15/hr will limit the amount of baby mama drama we have in our world.
    How?
    The guys will suddenly become more than just sperm donors?




    >>> Sent from Coldlanta
    01-23-2014 10:08 PM
  19. Johnly's Avatar
    I'm a firm believer that paying a drive thru clerk $15/hr will limit the amount of baby mama drama we have in our world.
    4 year college grads sometimes barely achieve this lol. Most places pay more than minimum wage, but 8 or 9 bucks an hour is not going to buy a house, that is for sure. Stay in SCHOOL!

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-23-2014 10:08 PM
  20. SteveISU's Avatar
    So you want option 2?

    You have 2 choices. 1 or 2. You can not have both.

    Walmart is a job killer. Cut their welfare and more mom and pop stores would stay alive as guess what walmart would not move in.

    Also if it would "save" so much money why has walmart not done that yet?
    It is sad but people screaming for welfare reform are all for corpate welfare and handouts.

    Option 1 or 2. Based on your post you want option 2 as clearly you do not want to target the root of the problem.
    Oh I get it, your world is black and white.

    Go with option 2, limit welfare to recipients, take the savings from that and build more jails to house the influx of criminals your friend who refuses to define what a livable wage is claims we are bound to be overrun with.

    - - - Updated - - -

    How?
    The guys will suddenly become more than just sperm donors?




    >>> Sent from Coldlanta
    I was being sarcastic because of what mooncat wrote.
    01-23-2014 10:15 PM
  21. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Oh I get it, your world is black and white.

    Go with option 2, limit welfare to recipients, take the savings from that and build more jails to house the influx of criminals your friend who refuses to define what a livable wage is claims we are bound to be overrun with.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No not black and white. But in your world is that way.

    Your post started off thinking most people abuse welfare. It is more the other way around and very few. But omg touch corpate welfare you scream OH NO THE JOBS.
    You started off when that. When ask about corporate welfare you defended it. WHen pointed out that the biggest abuse is walmart.

    Question ask why can Costco pay livable wages offer good insurance and make a health profit yet walmart has to live off corporate welfare? Tell me what is wrong here. Costco is a prime example that walmart could pay livable wages and still make a very healthy profit.

    I was being sarcastic because of what mooncat wrote.
    01-23-2014 10:20 PM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I was being sarcastic because of what mooncat wrote.
    I'm glad I saw this before I responded to that post. Lol.

    Still wondering what a livable wage is. Maybe it's like Big Foot. Everyone has some general vague idea what it is, but no one can truly define it.
    01-23-2014 10:45 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm glad I saw this before I responded to that post. Lol.

    Still wondering what a livable wage is. Maybe it's like Big Foot. Everyone has some general vague idea what it is, but no one can truly define it.
    Lets call it 401% of the poverty line, for the sake of argument. Therefore, it adjusts based on family size and location to an extent, but at a federal level we generally use the following table:

    Household Size 100% 133% 138% 150% 200% 300% 400%
    1 $11,490 $15,282 $15,856 $17,235 $22,980 $34,470 $45,960
    2 15,510 20,628 $21,404 23,265 31,020 46,530 62,040
    3 19,530 25,975 $26,951 29,295 39,060 58,590 78,120
    4 23,550 31,322 $32,499 35,325 47,100 70,650 94,200
    5 27,570 36,668 $38,047 41,355 55,140 82,710 110,280
    6 31,590 42,015 $43,594 47,385 63,180 94,770 126,360
    7 35,610 47,361 $49,142 53,415 71,220 106,830 142,440
    8 39,630 52,708 $54,689 59,445 79,260 118,890 158,520
    For each additional person, add $4,020 $5,347 $5,548 $6,030 $8,040 $12,060 $16,080

    To clarify, these values indicate the line where you are generally not eligible for most state and federal income based assistance programs. If you are making 401% or more, then officially, you're deemed to make enough that responsible behavior will be enough to keep you afloat and reasonably accommodated.
    Johnly and msndrstood like this.
    01-23-2014 10:56 PM
  24. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm wanting the people calling for a "living wage" to describe what their ideal is, but your numbers will work for demonstrative purposes.

    The people calling for livable wages also lump in that everyone should be paid at least that for a standard work week. So if we bump the numbers up to what you suggested, that means the lowest paying jobs would be at those rates. Why? Take my career, or that of any skilled job. I'm a trucker and make a pretty decent living at what I do. But it's also a lot of work keeping up with regulatory changes, equipment changes, some pretty bad weather and road conditions, it cost extra to renew my licence, staying away from my family, and on and on. If a burger flipper or cashier, who pretty much does one thing day in and day out, is brought up to a "livable wage," they aren't making much less than me. Suddenly my career is less appealing because I'm not doing much better in wages for all the extra work I do and skills I've gained. To keep people like me driving, my rates would have to go up enough to compensate. So would every other job to keep workers. That means prices go way up to compensate the expenses.

    So the bottom stays at the bottom, the top stays at the top, and the only thing that changed was how much money is counted at payday and the store. No one can define what a living wage is because it's an elusive myth. To put everyone at that wage would only result in the scenario above and the burger flippers and cashiers would still be wanting a higher, mythical, living wage because they are at the bottom and don't want to improve on themselves.
    toober likes this.
    01-23-2014 11:20 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Suddenly my career is less appealing because I'm not doing much better in wages for all the extra work I do and skills I've gained. To keep people like me driving, my rates would have to go up enough to compensate. So would every other job to keep workers. That means prices go way up to compensate the expenses.
    If you're logging 70 hours a week on duty then I know you're actually working 80-84 and the concept of a living wage would have obvious implications for industries that pay based on other criteria, such as mileage, stop-off, etc. If we're saying 40 hours per week = roughly $884 gross (using the example numbers), then your 80 hours prior to overtime considerations ought to be around $1768 gross to be comparable, however if you were in any other industry at the minimum 1.5x for the 40 hours of overtime would be around $2209 gross.

    While I have several drivers that are already in the range of the 2nd number, I don't think I have any that are being paid for all of the hours they actually put in, like the latter number. Obviously, the driving industry has to have incentive tied to productivity and so a straight hourly consideration cannot be tied to it easily, but if your account can obtain 2000-2500 miles per week and we say that's worth $x, it's easy to derive a comparable mileage rate that translates to the same pay for work performed.

    To put it another way, would driving cover all of your expenses if you only worked 35-40 hours per week during daylight hours and spent every night at home?
    msndrstood and Johnly like this.
    01-23-2014 11:37 PM
140 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Education Reform
    By Darth Spock in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-13-2013, 04:29 PM
  2. Confessions of a reformed OS tweaker
    By LeoRex in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2013, 03:32 PM
  3. Reformed Apple User - Love Android!
    By pwake in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 12:40 PM
  4. reformateing the internal 2G/B memory?
    By Lehocki in forum Verizon Droid Charge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 06:15 PM
  5. Greetings from a reformed geek
    By expatCanuck in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 01:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD