Welfare vs. Working. Where's the incentive to work?

[beaslbob]

Minimum wage is another program to take money from some and give it to others because washington does not like what the market provides.
The some total of all these programs is a stagnent economy and high unemployment.
the best thing to do is just to get government out of those programs. So the economy comes roaring back, unemployment falls, wages rise.
And it that process producers make the products the buyers want.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work#post_3500287
It would be interesting if there was a 1 to 1 postive correlation between minimum wage and consumer staple prices.
Since they actually have data on that, we can see that since 1968 to 2012 the minimum wage had gone up 453% while consumer staple prices rose only 200%. Meaning the data does not support your assumption
See, I found something that says the opposite:
The federal minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour, translating to a salary of about $15,000 for a full-time worker. If it had kept pace with inflation since its high in the late-1960s, it would now be more than $10 an hour, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP).
It's all about who wants to make the numbers look good for their specific causes...

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500289
Minimum wage is another program to take money from some and give it to others because washington does not like what the market provides.
The some total of all these programs is a stagnent economy and high unemployment.
the best thing to do is just to get government out of those programs. So the economy comes roaring back, unemployment falls, wages rise.
And it that process producers make the products the buyers want.
Do you REALLY believe that if the government dropped federal minimum wages that businesses would "do the right thing" and compensate their employees likewise? I think you all grossly underestimate what greed and money does to a person...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work#post_3500274
The libertarian candidate got 1.1 million pop votes. True, hardly nothing in the scheme of things, but that vote also doubled since 2008. If the trend continues to increase, as I think it might, then at some point the libertarians will be a viable political factor. The Republicans lost the hardcore libertarians that may have supported Romney if not for the poor treatment of them at their convention.
I recall a time when no one gave consideration to the Independent voters. Now, they determine who is president.
As for the poor, perhaps resources would be better spend on preventing poverty rather then handing out welfare checks, food debit cards, and free health care and housing.
As for Republicans, hopefully, Romney was the last of the old rich white guy who gets to represent the party. The 1950's type candidate has little appeal. Also, running on a platform of advocating for the wealthy is just never going to be popular.
Yeah but in this case that ol Rich white guy was the best man for the job. Platform of advocating for the wealthy? Please explain.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work#post_3500284
And that will continue even with a minimum wage in crease. I shocks me that several here as businesses owners do not grasp this one simple concept. Minimum wage hurts the poor and keeps them poor. If minimum wage goes up...so does the cost of the cheapest goods. If minimum wage goes up 5% cost of everything will also go up 5%. is the minimum wage worker any better off with this?
So true. I'm not the expert, but doing something to prevent poverty, rather than subsidizing it, may be a better way to go. China, for instance. If you do not work your behind off getting schooling and training, then you will live in poverty, or, at least the working poor status for the rest of your life; and you must start those efforts from the time you enter grade school. There are no freebies there. The idea is that you can't just mess around all your life, even as a kid growing up, and then expect anyone to care about your blight.
Public schools in this country should be the best in the world, but, are in fact sub-par and mediocre.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500296
So true. I'm not the expert, but doing something to prevent poverty, rather than subsidizing it, may be a better way to go. China, for instance. If you do not work your behind off getting schooling and training, then you will live in poverty, or, at least the working poor status for the rest of your life; and you must start those efforts from the time you enter grade school. There are no freebies there. The idea is that you can't just mess around all your life, even as a kid growing up, and then expect anyone to care about your blight.
Public schools in this country should be the best in the world, but, are in fact sub-par and mediocre.
So your answer to America's problem is to say "you better bust your butt or you'll end up in poverty, and the government won't be handing you a thing"? While that sounds just lovely on the surface, what and where would this new wave of "educated" people work? There are still not enough jobs for people, and that wouldn't change much just because people are more educated would it?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work#post_3500276
Look, as a BUSINESS person, Mitt Romney was very good at what he did. He made his company, and subsequently the shareholders of the companies he took over, a LOT of money. If you are asking me who I would vote for to make me the most money between Obama and Romney for my OWN personal wealth... that's a no brainer. However, making a company profitable in today's world means finding the cheapest manufacturing possible. That's always going to be somewhere other than the United States. So you want the guy who knows how to perfect the art of shipping jobs overseas to make his companies more money, doing the same thing from the White House? If he were elected, would he somehow have changed everything he used to do over night to help the little guy?
As far as George Soros I was under the impression he made most of his money when England's bank was screwing with it's own currency and he made a smart and powerful bet against it? I also know he made a bunch of money in Asia, and I believe was also charged with insider trading back in the 90's if I remember correctly. He's also clearly a democratic supporter, who made it his job to see that W was not reelected. Am I missing something Im sure?
You really should do a little research rather than buy into your party's propaganda about Romney. But again, lets assume he was this great outsourser. THAT WAS HIS JOB. As president he has a different job. Who better to solve the problem of outsourcing than someone who has been in the position to be forced to do it?
Who do you think has a better grasp on what the government can do to help with job creation. The guy who has ran businesses, identified troubled businesses that could be turned around with an 80 percent success rate and worked with the government and private Businesses to save an Olympic games that had been given up for dead, and took his state from dead last in Job creation to 28th in just 4 years. Or 0bama who never practiced his vocation, had an undistinguished legislative career in both the State and US Senate and hasn't set the world on fire as president?
George Soros is a currency manipulator. He took actions to crash the Bank of England and one in Asia. He's a world class scumbag.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work#post_3500277
Unless the Feds created a minimum wage that someone could actually live on, Welfare will never go away. A person can't live unassisted on $15,000/year before taxes. $1100/month can't pay for housing, food, utilities, and basic mandatory expenditures. Factor in a couple of kids, and it's worse. Get sick and you're done. Small businesses cried foul when they raised it to $7.25 a few years ago. Imagine what they'd say if they bumped it up to $10 or $12.
And what would happen if all those wages were raised? Fast food, GONE. Movie Theaters, GONE, Convienience stores, GONE, Sure, people working unskilled jobs would be better off but what about the tens of millions you just threw out of a job?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500293
Do you REALLY believe that if the government dropped federal minimum wages that businesses would "do the right thing" and compensate their employees likewise? I think you all grossly underestimate what greed and money does to a person...
You're in business. Do your employees do a good job when they are in a pissy mood? The overwhelming majority of businesses do right by their employees cause it makes sense. Not only will they have unproductive employees they risk losing them to someone else if they don't treat them right.
What minimum wage messes up is the ability of that kid out of high school to get a low paying job to learn a skill while they still live at home and don't need the money as much. I was in high school during the dark days of Jimmy Carter. I offered to work for a guy for 2.00 an hour under the table just to be able to get a job. After a couple days his slimy witch of a secretary found out and and turned him in. He found out and let me go before he got caught. I was happy to work for 50 cents an hour below minimum. I lived at home and was just earning some spending money and learning how to work on cars. Sure, I did more trash dumping and sweeping than wrenching but it was a start.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500299
And what would happen if all those wages were raised? Fast food, GONE. Movie Theaters, GONE, Convienience stores, GONE, Sure, people working unskilled jobs would be better off but what about the tens of millions you just threw out of a job?
You people live in this jaded world that every able-bodied American has the capability to grow up to be another Mitt Romney or Donald Trump. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a sectror of our population that is to put it bluntly - STUPID. You can try to educate them with every available means possible, and they still don't get it. They are destined to work the menial and labor intensive jobs. So what's a viable wage to pay these people? You want to have all businesses set the rates based on ability? Some guy is dumb as a rock, but can flip burgers, push a mop, and turn out all the french fries you want. But hey, this is China now. Just pay the guy 10 cents/hour and provide him free meals and a parking spot at night where he can pitch a tent. Don't forget to give him a key so he doesn't have to go down to the local 7-Eleven to go to the bathroom.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500290
See, I found something that says the opposite:
The federal minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour, translating to a salary of about $15,000 for a full-time worker. If it had kept pace with inflation since its high in the late-1960s, it would now be more than $10 an hour, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP).
It's all about who wants to make the numbers look good for their specific causes...
In my case did the numbers myself, using the $1.60 federal min, wage from 1968 (not the lower $1.15 value, although that would show an even greater increase in min. wage over time and the cost of consumer staples would still be the same.) and the current min. wage.
Of course there are many ways to evaluate it, but basically there does not appear to be a correlation between raising the min. followed by inflation. (They do appear to be correlate, however, that is more by design of the min. wage being raised to 'catch up' with inflation.)

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500293
Do you REALLY believe that if the government dropped federal minimum wages that businesses would "do the right thing" and compensate their employees likewise? I think you all grossly underestimate what greed and money does to a person...
First you have to determine what exactly the "right thing" actually is.
I think that you grossly underestimate what "greed" and money does to a society where all the people are free to act in thier own best interests.
for example do you want to live under a society where the all powerful federal government sets the wages on all jobs to insure everyone is equal?
Under that system everyone making the same amount would be in the "middle class".
there would be no poverty because everyone makes the same amount.
equalty would be assured.
no uber rich
So is that what you really really want?
to me it is better to let the market made up of individuals acting in thier own best interests decide.
Which is why capitalist societies have such stronger economies, less poverty, lead the way in inovation, are so productive, and no long term shortages.
And why socialists, communists, and (as in our country) fascists have so much constant poverty, rationing and so on.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500302
You people live in this jaded world that every able-bodied American has the capability to grow up to be another Mitt Romney or Donald Trump. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a sectror of our population that is to put it bluntly - STUPID. You can try to educate them with every available means possible, and they still don't get it. They are destined to work the menial and labor intensive jobs. So what's a viable wage to pay these people? You want to have all businesses set the rates based on ability? Some guy is dumb as a rock, but can flip burgers, push a mop, and turn out all the french fries you want. But hey, this is China now. Just pay the guy 10 cents/hour and provide him free meals and a parking spot at night where he can pitch a tent. Don't forget to give him a key so he doesn't have to go down to the local 7-Eleven to go to the bathroom.
I am beginning to think you are a charter member of STUPID LOL! If someone is too stupid to earn it with their brain and too lazy to earn it with their back then we are supposed to pay them a
"living wage" for flippin burgers? As you've pointed out in other threads there are plenty of jobs in the oil patch. They pay good and most don't require more than basic math skills and a little common sense. Warehouse work pays pretty well too. If someone is willing to work hard they can make up for a lack of education. If not let em starve. No reason to pay a person of sound mind and body a higher wage than they are willing to earn.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500303
In my case did the numbers myself, using the $1.60 federal min, wage from 1968 (not the lower $1.15 value, although that would show an even greater increase in min. wage over time and the cost of consumer staples would still be the same.) and the current min. wage.
Of course there are many ways to evaluate it, but basically there does not appear to be a correlation between raising the min. followed by inflation. (They do appear to be correlate, however, that is more by design of the min. wage being raised to 'catch up' with inflation.)
One problem with jacking up the minimum wage to "living wage" is you have to lift everyones wages that are within a few bucks of the new minimum.
I've always favored a sub minimum training wage where if you are teaching a person a trade you can pay them say 5 bucks an hour the first year.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500310
I am beginning to think you are a charter member of STUPID LOL! If someone is too stupid to earn it with their brain and too lazy to earn it with their back then we are supposed to pay them a
"living wage" for flippin burgers? As you've pointed out in other threads there are plenty of jobs in the oil patch. They pay good and most don't require more than basic math skills and a little common sense. Warehouse work pays pretty well too. If someone is willing to work hard they can make up for a lack of education. If not let em starve. No reason to pay a person of sound mind and body a higher wage than they are willing to earn.
That is rather cruel, I personally would rather pay a little more tax then watch people starve, or have even more people begging me for money on the street.

 

[jerthunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500313
One problem with jacking up the minimum wage to "living wage" is you have to lift everyones wages that are within a few bucks of the new minimum.
I've always favored a sub minimum training wage where if you are teaching a person a trade you can pay them say 5 bucks an hour the first year.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that raising the minimum wage will solve poverty, or even significantly reduce the numbers of people on well-fare. But I also don't see anything to back up the claim that raising minimum wage causes prices to go up proportionally.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500298
You really should do a little research rather than buy into your party's propaganda about Romney. But again, lets assume he was this great outsourser. THAT WAS HIS JOB. As president he has a different job. Who better to solve the problem of outsourcing than someone who has been in the position to be forced to do it?
Who do you think has a better grasp on what the government can do to help with job creation. The guy who has ran businesses, identified troubled businesses that could be turned around with an 80 percent success rate and worked with the government and private Businesses to save an Olympic games that had been given up for dead, and took his state from dead last in Job creation to 28th in just 4 years. Or 0bama who never practiced his vocation, had an undistinguished legislative career in both the State and US Senate and hasn't set the world on fire as president?
George Soros is a currency manipulator. He took actions to crash the Bank of England and one in Asia. He's a world class scumbag.
So let me get this straight... Someone like George Soros used currency manipulation to make his fortune and he's a scumbag. Someone like Mitt Romney made (some) of his fortune by putting hard working Americans out on the street to line his own pockets, and those of the owners and shareholders of the companies he took over; and you want him as president of the United States. By your logic, they both did whatever they could within the law, and even though both were morally corrupt decisions, which they profited from handsomely. However one guy is bad, and the other is good?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500310
I am beginning to think you are a charter member of STUPID LOL! If someone is too stupid to earn it with their brain and too lazy to earn it with their back then we are supposed to pay them a
"living wage" for flippin burgers? As you've pointed out in other threads there are plenty of jobs in the oil patch. They pay good and most don't require more than basic math skills and a little common sense. Warehouse work pays pretty well too. If someone is willing to work hard they can make up for a lack of education. If not let em starve. No reason to pay a person of sound mind and body a higher wage than they are willing to earn.
Using your logic, let's just throw all the mentally challenged, the disabled, and anyone else that's living on the government teat out on the street to fend for themselves with the rest of the wild pack animals out there. Let me know where you want me to toss my old bones and trash. You can probably make a pretty good meal out of it.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500304
First you have to determine what exactly the "right thing" actually is.
I think that you grossly underestimate what "greed" and money does to a society where all the people are free to act in thier own best interests.
for example do you want to live under a society where the all powerful federal government sets the wages on all jobs to insure everyone is equal?
Under that system everyone making the same amount would be in the "middle class".
there would be no poverty because everyone makes the same amount.
equalty would be assured.
no uber rich
So is that what you really really want?
to me it is better to let the market made up of individuals acting in thier own best interests decide.
Which is why capitalist societies have such stronger economies, less poverty, lead the way in inovation, are so productive, and no long term shortages.
And why socialists, communists, and (as in our country) fascists have so much constant poverty, rationing and so on.
My only question is this: Let's say you throw minimum wage out the window, and allow businesses to pay whatever they damn well please. What makes you think these greedy SOB's who already make millions (or billions) of dollars off the hourly labor force, are going to want to pay their employees a living wage? With no regulations or minimum wages, the middle class disappears, we more or less become China, and the rich get reeeeeeeeeeeeally rich, and everyone else descends into poverty or worse based on the fact their old job that paid $22,000 a year now pays $4,000 a year. Not to mention that if it's now a level playing field, and everyone gets paid s**t wages, you thought you had an immigration problem before?!? Oh you just wait...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500315
That is rather cruel, I personally would rather pay a little more tax then watch people starve, or have even more people begging me for money on the street.
Until some of these people are forced to make it on their own they wont. I resent paying two cents to help people who refuse to help themselves.