[Split] "Welfare"

[callmeslick]

equally ridiculous, Thorne, is the bizarre notion that 'welfare' is a 'failed program'. Millions of individuals and families have literally been saved by it.

[LEON]

equally ridiculous, Thorne, is the bizarre notion that 'welfare' is a 'failed program'. Millions of individuals and families have literally been saved by it.

Welfare is a failed program, because it make people stuck in their situation in two ways. First, it skews peoples incentives to get out of their situation. 2, Such programs are very expensive. Not only because of the number of people who need help, but, also because demand for such help will increase, which require more tax revenue, and as the Government tries to increase their revenue, market are left with less money to create jobs. And jobs, are what people really need.

Yes, you can say welfare help people, but, that's a first level observation, which leave out the whole picture. Like; Government break one's legs, but, gives one crutches, and say; -See? Without Government one wouldn't have crutches.

[Sergeant Thorne]

equally ridiculous, Thorne, is the bizarre notion that 'welfare' is a 'failed program'. Millions of individuals and families have literally been saved by it.

You and I know there's nothing "bizarre" about the claim. If you want to argue semantics, and get into a positives versus negatives debate, I wish you would be so forgiving about gun carry and high mid-range-capacity, semi-automatic gun ownership. Welfare is a bad idea, as it is, even if it serves to help some people who would otherwise not be "saved", whatever the alternative to that so certainly is... LEON nailed it. Welfare, despite it's "successes", is a failed program by any measure outside of political theater. It is easily demonstrated that it is a really bad idea, and politics is the only reason to turn a blind eye to something so terribly obvious.

[callmeslick]

equally ridiculous, Thorne, is the bizarre notion that 'welfare' is a 'failed program'. Millions of individuals and families have literally been saved by it.

Welfare is a failed program, because it make people stuck in their situation in two ways. First, it skews peoples incentives to get out of their situation. 2, Such programs are very expensive. Not only because of the number of people who need help, but, also because demand for such help will increase, which require more tax revenue, and as the Government tries to increase their revenue, market are left with less money to create jobs. And jobs, are what people really need.

Yes, you can say welfare help people, but, that's a first level observation, which leave out the whole picture. Like; Government break one's legs, but, gives one crutches, and say; -See? Without Government one wouldn't have crutches.

Leon, US 'Welfare' is far different. It is limited in time and has other restrictions upon eligibility. I can see your nation as a different situation.

[Spidey]

Welfare is a “flawed” program.

[Foil]

I think there is some truth to the idea that welfare programs can save families, and also cause a rise in dependency. With that said, which of the following is preferable?

A. Use of welfare - programs to rescue almost all, at the cost of others becoming dependent
B. No welfare - prevents dependency for almost all, at the cost of others falling through the cracks
C. Something else? (feel free to explain)

[Will Robinson]

C. stop making welfare an entitlement characterized as restitution for wealthy people having stolen the opportunities away from the lower classes. It takes the negative aspects of being on welfare away and reduces incentive to get yourself off of it.
I think the Welfare to Work program that Guillianni put in place demonstrated how the people who would just sit back and survive on welfare can be made to seek work. I don't think a bunch of children starved in New York during that time....although I remember some people saying they would.

[CobGobbler]

Or D - make mandatory increases in all types of wages. Why would people get off welfare when they make more than they would in a job? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know it's a better deal. You can work two full time minimum wage jobs and STILL be under the poverty line. That's the part that is ★■◆●ing sick. Will, just because your tiny little head didn't hear about something, does not mean it did not happen. Lots of kids eat one meal a day, even with parents that work.

The compassion of the so-called christians on this board is hilarious.

[callmeslick]

I'd love to see Cob's selection D, but will settle for a welfare program that protects folks in dire circumstances and do NOT see any evidence that MOST people wish to not work, whether welfare is present or not. Thus, I suppose I lean to Foils choice A, but have problems with his description......

[Will Robinson]

Or D - make mandatory increases in all types of wages. Why would people get off welfare when they make more than they would in a job? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know it's a better deal. You can work two full time minimum wage jobs and STILL be under the poverty line. That's the part that is **** sick. Will, just because your tiny little head didn't hear about something, does not mean it did not happen. Lots of kids eat one meal a day, even with parents that work.

Do they only eat one meal a day because Giuliani's program moved them from welfare to work? If not then your pointing that comment at me is foolish.

The compassion of the so-called Christians on this board is hilarious.

Who are you calling a Christian? Most of the Christians I know wouldn't call me that.

And when did suggesting people move up from dependency to self sufficiency become associated with a lack of compassion? I hope you become self sufficient too one day and it isn't because I have no compassion for you.

[Tunnelcat]

Unfortunately, we're almost right back to the way things were just before the Great Depression, the accumulation of most of the wealth by the very few. Half of all American households hold only 1 percent of the wealth. Most of this wealth sitting at the top isn't being put back into our economy in the form of decent wage jobs that can sustain a large middle class either. A large middle class drives a vigorous and stable economy. But with few decent wage jobs, no spending will happen. The majority of jobs we have in this country now are low paying service jobs where people can't make ends meet. 280,000 college grads had minimum wage jobs after getting their degree and many ended up living in their parent's home. These same grads have a huge loan debt as well. Just going into any fast food joint in my town, I see more adults than teenagers nowadays. They don't look happy either. I'd like to know where all that profit is going that's being made off the backs of these low paid workers?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/opinion/h ... nimum-wage

Adults who now have to support a family and work long hours at those wages, if they can even find that precious job at all. Self sufficiency is a wonderful goal, IF you can find it. Getting a job nowadays does not necessarily mean obtaining self sufficiency. Maybe 2 or 3 jobs................

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... der-charts

[Spidey]

Welfare changed the very habits of Americans…

Before welfare people migrated to where the work was, and/or were forced to do the lowest paid jobs, that we now have plenty of immigrants to do.

The Republicans ran this city for something like 50 or so years, during that time there were more jobs here in the city then you could shake a stick at, thus we had the great southern migration, to fill those jobs. Somewhere along the line the racial balance shifted, and the Democrats took over the city, and they have been in control for fifty or so years…major difference…crime…no…corruption…no…jobs…yes! And no further migrations…why…no need.

Never give people an excuse not to adapt!

[Tunnelcat]

First of all, I agree that welfare is one of those ideas that fosters entitlement. It works for some who really need help, but it's usually abused by people who find it a convenient alternative to work.

So OK, to ask you a question, adapt to what new normal? You say your town flourished under Republicanism. Did your town by any chance have a large manufacturing base when those Republicans were in power? Did those manufacturers move to cheaper labor overseas when it became feasible due to Republican ideas of cheaper foreign labor and the enticement of lower taxes to do it? In fact, didn't Republicanism from the last 30 years set the whole future U.S. economy up so that the eventual job failure would end up on the Democrats watch? Give me examples of any new jobs that pay as much as all those lost manufacturing jobs lost to global arbitrage. Even most college students aren't seeing it. As for immigrants taking jobs that Americans don't want, I dare you to live the lifestyle you're presently accustomed to on an agricultural migrant's wage. The pay is less than the pay at most fast food restaurants. And I dare you to even try to afford a place to live and eat meals on minimum wage period.

[callmeslick]

First of all, I agree that welfare is one of those ideas that fosters entitlement. It works for some who really need help, but it's usually abused by people who find it a convenient alternative to work.

So OK, to ask you a question, adapt to what new normal? You say your town flourished under Republicanism. Did your town by any chance have a large manufacturing base when those Republicans were in power? Did those manufacturers move to cheaper labor overseas when it became feasible due to Republican ideas of cheaper foreign labor and the enticement of lower taxes to do it? In fact, didn't Republicanism from the last 30 years set the whole future U.S. economy up so that the eventual job failure would end up on the Democrats watch? Give me examples of any new jobs that pay as much as all those lost manufacturing jobs lost to global arbitrage. Even most college students aren't seeing it. As for immigrants taking jobs that Americans don't want, I dare you to live the lifestyle you're presently accustomed to on an agricultural migrant's wage. The pay is less than the pay at most fast food restaurants. And I dare you to even try to afford a place to live and eat meals on minimum wage period.

as I know exactly what city he is talking about, you are exactly correct. Philadelphia has lost thousands of heavy manufacturing jobs to companies in Asia and Europe, along with the usual movement of domestic industries to lower wage locales(domestic and foreign). It had nothing to do with which party ran the city, it had nothing to do with welfare or other social benefits. Anyone who tries to sell you that line is either mistaken or misleading on purpose.

[Tunnelcat]

They're partisan, close minded and not looking at the whole sordid picture. The new "service industry" does not pay anywhere near what people used to make in manufacturing. Never will either. The next outsourcing will be in high paying engineering jobs. Foreign is cheaper.

[Spidey]

Well first off, you of all people know I already disagree with this premise that companies moved their entire manufacturing overseas to make a few more dollars…most have done it to SURVIVE, the proof of that is all of the thousands of smaller businesses that have gone under because they didn’t have the resources to move.

Most of my peers (businessmen and women would rather stay right here)

Your Republicanism is pretty funny tho, I’ll give you that. (you need to use that on someone else, I gave up my political affiliation with that party)

And, yes this city had the largest single manufacturing base in the entire damn country, everybody was here, from Stetson to Baldwin Locomotives. And no they didn’t move overseas to make a few dollars more…this was long before the trend to move overseas.

They left the city for a multitude of different reasons.

As far as adapting to the “new norm” that’s not what I said so I can’t really say anything.

[callmeslick]

Philadelphia had OLD industries, and, in fact, you cite two perfect examples. How's that mens formal hat business doing these days, or for the past 40 years? Oh, and steam locomotives are big sellers, too, and Baldwin didn't really get into diesel technology as some competitors did. Look, businesses leave, for various reasons, fold for countless more, but the bottom line is that it seldom has a damned thing to do with welfare or party politics.

[CUDA]

Or D - make mandatory increases in all types of wages. Why would people get off welfare when they make more than they would in a job? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know it's a better deal. You can work two full time minimum wage jobs and STILL be under the poverty line. That's the part that is ★■◆●ing sick. Will, just because your tiny little head didn't hear about something, does not mean it did not happen. Lots of kids eat one meal a day, even with parents that work.

HELLO MASSIVE INFLATION, and welcome to the $25.00 McDonalds hamburger.. you will not solve ANY problems by increasing all types of wages. everything will just go up in price to compensate.

The compassion of the so-called christians on this board is hilarious.

Zuruck, school not going well for you today?

[callmeslick]

CUDA, I used to be in your camp regarding wage inflation, but have read a couple of stories in respected business journals that indicate that labor is currently a pretty low portion of fast-food expenses, compared to a lot of businesses. One study said that a rise to $11 per hour minimum at Mickey D's would bump a Big Mac by less than 70 cents. If so, then I'd say it is something to consider.

[Spidey]

That’s a lot for a hamburger…..

Were not "all" rich you know...
.........................

So that’s why this country’s trajectory towards serfdom has nothing to do with Republican policies, funny but you seemed to push that point in quite a few of your posts.

Of course the degrade in manufacturing had something to do with the party in power…lol…the Republican party here in Philadelphia was rife with corruption, mostly to do with being in bed with the business community.

Republicans got kickbacks...errr lobby money from the business people for favors (like low taxes, and prime locations)…the Democrats simply consider business as a revenue source, and someone to blame for everything.

And really, the idea that a party in power can’t change the trajectory of the business, and other communities…is a joke right? (why the hell even bother to vote) that’s just about the worse spin you have ever tried.

Oh…and the last time I checked…Stetson was doing just fine.

[LEON]

Business doesn't move overseas due to low wages. That is to confuse low wages with low wage expenditure. Countries overseas have low wages because they haven't much accumulated capital, their productivity is therefore lower. To compensate for low productivity one must hire more workers, which will increase wage expenditure again.
Business moves overseas to escape rules, regulations and taxation.

[Tunnelcat]

Well first off, you of all people know I already disagree with this premise that companies moved their entire manufacturing overseas to make a few more dollars…most have done it to SURVIVE, the proof of that is all of the thousands of smaller businesses that have gone under because they didn’t have the resources to move.

Bull. All that's transpired in the past 30 years in this country is the pattern of union breaking and the cheapening of labor costs, all for those greater and greater profits. All this at Wall Street's behest. Why else move any manufacturing out of country in the first place? It's expensive initially and shipping ain't cheap, so it must be for some long term gain, like tax dodges, cheap labor and especially lax environmental regulations. I see that China and many Asian countries are polluted dumps right now. Most small U.S. businesses have gone under because there are not as many customers with enough disposable income to even buy the products small businesses make and sell. And even if some small business is lucky enough to make it big, they'll get on someone's radar, be scooped up, split up, cored and pared and the production jobs will be sent overseas by some shark conglomerate.

Between 1978 and 2011, average annual worker compensation rose a measly 5.7%. During that same period, CEO annual compensation rose a whooping 726.7%! The S&P itself only rose 349.1%, not even close! That's like giving the captain of the ship a 726.7% pay raise, while the crew has to choke down 5.7% and still keep the ship moving efficiently for less pay than is inflation adjusted. And they're having to do it for more hours than they did previously. But who keeps the ship going? It's the crew. Who usually wrecks the ship, the damn captain. You can't tell me that companies had to move out of the U.S. just to survive, when the corporate captains made a killing, for themselves, doing it. Now these captains of industry are sitting on mountains of cash, not hiring or creating jobs right now and whining about lackluster sales figures and high taxes. Poor babies. Well, the workers who used to make up the middle class are now in the poverty class and thus have no disposable income anymore. CEO's want confidence in the economy before spending the trillions of cash they're sitting on? Pay workers a decent wage and they'll have some customers.

As far as adapting to the “new norm” that’s not what I said so I can’t really say anything.

You said: "Never give people an excuse not to adapt". I asked: "What's there to adapt to?" In the present job market, we have nothing in the present job selection and wage scale that even approaches what we had back then. And this idea that working people are the only ones with a sense of entitlement is preposterous! Wealthy people can also be afflicted with that same disease, in fact more so because they have more to lose!

[LEON]

One cannot prove economics with statistics (i.e. laboratory economics). There's way too many parameters operating in the real world. One will lose overview on what causing what, or what the numbers even communicate -- like so called stagnating wages since the 70's. No, wages haven't stagnated since the 70's, household income has. Those two are very different. Since the 70's, household income have rose 6%, but, over the same period of time, income in term of wages have rose 51%. The difference lies in how many people there is per household, and how that differ over time. Over the same time frame, there's been a decline in household sizes. (If a household of 3, has a income of 150,000, and 40 years later, a household of 2 still have 150,000, it has been a stagnation in household income. But, income per capita have increased by 50%.)


To give workers higher wages to boost the economy, is like pulling oneself up by the boot straps. One doesn't make money by giving one's customers money so they can buy one's stuff. If one can earn more money by that method, why haven't so called greedy capitalists found out about that long time ago? A boost in wages will make job creation even more expensive, and make demand for labor go even further down.
Wages are connected to productivity, thus only way to increase wages is to first increase productivity. Other way around -- wages first -- will lead to a situation where there isn't enough goods in the market, thus prices increases instead. Or, more likely, instead of inflated prices, unemployment will increase.

Demand doesn't create jobs, production does. To try otherwise is a violation of Say's law; It's one's production which drives one's demand. A principle which is clarified in Bastiat's The Broken Window Fallacy.

[Sergeant Thorne]

CUDA, I used to be in your camp regarding wage inflation, but have read a couple of stories in respected business journals that indicate that labor is currently a pretty low portion of fast-food expenses, compared to a lot of businesses. One study said that a rise to $11 per hour minimum at Mickey D's would bump a Big Mac by less than 70 cents. If so, then I'd say it is something to consider.

So we should do it because it wouldn't hurt McDonald's? How about establishments that don't serve as many people per day as McD's does? Sure, a Big Mac may only go up .70 to accommodate labor, but with how many hundreds of customers they have going through there in a day that's actually a big number! I think this study succeeded in pulling a fast one over on slickster. A move like this would put the final nails in the coffin of small business. There's no question about it.

Let's look at some numbers...
- Economist.com says the average price of a Big Mac in the U.S. in 2013 is $4.56
- $0.70 of $4.56 is 15%
- BurgerBusiness.com says the average number of customers per day is 1,584
- If a business serves half as many people this number must double--30%
- If a business serves one quarter as many people in a day--or 400--then you could be looking at as much as a 60% increase.

Obviously an establishment which serves only 400 will employ less people, but it won't be 1 to McD's 4. I haven't even accounted for how much longer it takes to make something that's not fast food. I don't think many diners could touch how long it takes to throw together a Big Mac. But anyway you need a certain number of people to keep a business going no matter how many you serve.

So congratulations! You've hiked minimum wage and now my average steak dinner costs $40-$50. Screw it, I'm going to McDonald's...

[Spidey]

Not to mention that fast food and pizza joints have a massive profit to employee margin, which is not typical of most businesses, or where labor is usually the single largest cost.

TC I did the math on several companies during the Hostess thing, and as I said before…you can take the pay of the typical CEO and divide it amongst the employees, and it only equals a few bucks a week.

So you could fire virtually every CEO in the country and distribute their pay, and almost nothing would change for the workers.

It wasn’t the drive for profit that forced companies to move overseas…it was international competition, something you seem to be blind to. I can give you cases like Dayton, that tried everything possible to stay here, but ultimately failed.

You think every business is exactly the same…dumb and greedy, well I have news for you…some businesses that have moved are owned by liberals.

How does that fit into your little box tc?

[Sergeant Thorne]

I checked McD's and Outback Steakhouse (on a whim). Both had labor between 23% and 25%.

[CUDA]

I'll tell you. In my business 6 of my 20 employees are paid hourly about 9.50 an hour
I did 3.4 million is sales last year. You want to know my net profit? 62k that is a profit margin of .02% or about 2cents on the dollar. So ya lets raise everyones wages

[Jeff250]

that is a profit margin of .02% or about 2cents on the dollar

That's a profit margin of 2%, not .02%.

[callmeslick]

that's still a lousy profit margin, though.

[CobGobbler]

You make more than 9.50 an hour Cuda? And yeah dude, that's a ★■◆● profit margin, maybe learn how to run a business better instead of increasing the size of your litter.

I'm 31 Cuda, been out of school for quite awhile now. I do get to do some work on campus though, Clemson is a beautiful one! Thanks for your concern though!

[CUDA]

You make more than 9.50 an hour Cuda? And yeah dude, that's a ★■◆● profit margin, maybe learn how to run a business better instead of increasing the size of your litter.!

Well jack ass the size of my family is no concern of an arrogant prick like you now is it? Since you have no say in the matter and do not help support them now do you Zuruck

31 huh, I find that hard to believe since you act like you're 13.
Maybe you should re-evaluate the direction of your life. Just an observation

As for running a business I don't own it. and my upper management seems to think I do a good enough job at it to keep mine. And yes I make more then that. But in your delusional world you'd have me pay someone that washes cars the same as someone responsible for managing 20 people and 3.5million dollars a year. YA you'd stay in business a long time if you did that. I'm guessing you're not majoring in business in college huh. It shows. So please enlighten us all with your business and management qualifications.

[CUDA]

that is a profit margin of .02% or about 2cents on the dollar

That's a profit margin of 2%, not .02%.

ya well I quickly banged it out and didn't put my decimal point in the right place

[callmeslick]

that is a profit margin of .02% or about 2cents on the dollar

That's a profit margin of 2%, not .02%.

ya well I quickly banged it out and didn't put my decimal point in the right place

go back and check the books at work......perhaps, you misplaced a decimal point and are making a massive profit. Then ask for a raise!

[CUDA]

that is a profit margin of .02% or about 2cents on the dollar

That's a profit margin of 2%, not .02%.

ya well I quickly banged it out and didn't put my decimal point in the right place

go back and check the books at work......perhaps, you misplaced a decimal point and are making a massive profit. Then ask for a raise!

Lol ya.be nice right

[callmeslick]

CUDA's bad math aside, back on topic:

How does COSTCO survive? Employees make around $14-18 per hour, the CEO only makes around 500K per year? Hmmmmm. Also, someplace above, I read the dubious math around dividing the CEO pay over the hourly employees. At most companies I am aware of, the issue isn't just the CEO or President.....it's the scads of VP/Director titles floating about, all making $250,000 or more. That is just inefficient management, and moreover, tend to exacerbate problems by spreading responsibility so thin that it's hard to get to the bottom of corporate shortcomings.

[CUDA]

It doesn't hurt that Costco collects $55 a year from each of its 64 million members in fees. Thats lets see 3 to the 4th times the hypotenuse <sp> move the decimal point.

$3, 520, 000, 000 in annual dues paid. That will help the bottom line

[Will Robinson]

CUDA's bad math aside, back on topic:

How does COSTCO survive? Employees make around $14-18 per hour, the CEO only makes around 500K per year? Hmmmmm. Also, someplace above, I read the dubious math around dividing the CEO pay over the hourly employees. At most companies I am aware of, the issue isn't just the CEO or President.....it's the scads of VP/Director titles floating about, all making $250,000 or more. That is just inefficient management, and moreover, tend to exacerbate problems by spreading responsibility so thin that it's hard to get to the bottom of corporate shortcomings.

If all these corporations are paying a hundred times too much for all their management positions why aren't there qualified people stealing those jobs that 'Country Club Americans' aren't willing to do...for so little?

How did we get to a place where the stockholders aren't hiring 'cheap' upper-management labor?
I'd love to sell my business and go finish out my years as the CEO of some mega corp for a paltry sum of $500,000 per year!

[Spidey]

Dubious math my ass, what is dubious here is the notion that you can meaningfully change the pay of many employees by reducing the pay of a few.

The real issue isn’t the million/s or so that the upper management makes, it’s the total payroll/benefits that counts, and at a company like Hostess that would be something in the order of hundreds of millions (give or take, as I have no way to post actual numbers)

This is just more bull★■◆● like claiming that someone that pays a million dollars in taxes per year isn’t paying their fair share.

My point as always is not to make a statement about the “fairness” or “morality” on the subject, but only to point out the brainwashing.

..........................

And I wouldn’t be all that quick to tout a company like Costco, even if they have a better business model for their company, because they are part of the business culture that has led to the loss of many many good paying jobs in the overall economy.

Debating the difference between Costco and Wal-Mart is like debating which poison is better for you.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'd love to sell my business soul and go finish out my years as the CEO of some mega corp for a paltry sum of $500,000 per year!

The answer is that stockholders or companies are willing to pay as little as possible to have the menial tasks taken care of, but when it comes to the overall success of their business I would imagine that saving pennies takes a side-seat to perceived expectation of profitable results. If you ask me it's silly and perhaps disingenuous to fault a business for hurting themselves by employing and overpaying people who do not effectively do the job.

[callmeslick]

It doesn't hurt that Costco collects $55 a year from each of its 64 million members in fees. Thats lets see 3 to the 4th times the hypotenuse <sp> move the decimal point.

$3, 520, 000, 000 in annual dues paid. That will help the bottom line

that's their business model....the same as Sam's Club and others, by the way. And, CUDA, don't frighten me and attempt math in public again!