PDA

View Full Version : one in three Americans now on food stamps


mhgaffney
08-21-2013, 02:48 PM
Last I heard it was one in six. Yikes. Things get worse. MHG

USDA: 101 Million Americans Receive Food Stamps

Susanne Posel

July 9, 2013

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/usda-101-million-americans-receive-food-stamps/

jhat01
08-21-2013, 03:50 PM
It's going to be hard to get that number going in the other direction too..they can make a pretty good living on the government nipple, better than most entry level jobs. Why work?

ak1971
08-21-2013, 05:16 PM
Damn... I sure need a cheeseburger

mhgaffney
08-21-2013, 05:50 PM
One in three does not support the official line that we are in a recovery.

Wait til the next meltdown.....

Picture 100 million hungry people in the streets looking for something to eat.

Not a pretty picture.

This is the result of decades of zero leadership.

MHG

ak1971
08-21-2013, 07:20 PM
One in three does not support the official line that we are in a recovery.

Wait til the next meltdown.....

Picture 100 million hungry people in the streets looking for something to eat.

Not a pretty picture.

This is the result of decades of zero leadership.

MHG

At least you have PCR man chowder do keep you fed

Bacchus
08-21-2013, 07:22 PM
Is anyone surpised about this? All the good jobs have left. America has become a service based industry and minimum wage is at $7.50 an hour.

40% of all workers today make less than what people made in 1960.

Raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour and you would start to see that change.

Arkie
08-21-2013, 07:41 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bP_izYhdehY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rohirrim
08-21-2013, 08:26 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bP_izYhdehY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've seen enough. We have to throw everybody off of food stamps now. Thanks, Fox News. Journalism at its best!
:welcome:

Bacchus
08-21-2013, 09:57 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbDXPXWuR_xoIWO7GLsdK1UfjTbdunc OGWR45VvRBoRSP7Ymi3

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/1014017_10151715156522731_1442331031_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/1005491_10151784089228118_1977408964_n.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//2-25-10fa-f1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ay6gNXX9ER8/UfxURT1aUUI/AAAAAAAAE5A/J0MU7IXQf5o/s400/Food+Stamps+GOP+Shark+Attack.jpg
Life Saver Under Constant Attack and Now Nearly Surrounded

Bacchus
08-21-2013, 10:08 PM
https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/1009785_10151698535772731_1451543526_n.jpg

https://kos.salsalabs.com/o/60000/images/shame%20on%20fincher

http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/graph1.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/1011178_534397836597917_1106783330_n.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTq5zpSdgIqeOBStOQPkihEDgm5ib280 S1aHv3Umy701StN7V0Rvg

Bacchus
08-21-2013, 10:11 PM
need to raise the minimum wage

jhat01
08-21-2013, 10:17 PM
There should be some disclosure regarding the "food" items that are bought on this program, number one. People in need should get assistance, I don't mind my tax dollars helping out. That said, it shouldn't be helping them buy Mountain Dew and twinkles. Everything bought on his program is tracked..why doesn't the USDA let us know what we're paying for?

houghtam
08-21-2013, 11:02 PM
There should be some disclosure regarding the "food" items that are bought on this program, number one. People in need should get assistance, I don't mind my tax dollars helping out. That said, it shouldn't be helping them buy Mountain Dew and twinkles. Everything bought on his program is tracked..why doesn't the USDA let us know what we're paying for?

Doing so will cost more of your taxpayer money, but I agree...there ought to be some restrictions on "luxury items" which are currently considered "food items".

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

Eligible Food Items

Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
-- breads and cereals;
-- fruits and vegetables;
-- meats, fish and poultry; and
-- dairy products.


Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;


Any nonfood items, such as:
-- pet foods;
-- soaps, paper products; and
-- household supplies.


Vitamins and medicines.


Food that will be eaten in the store.


Hot foods.

Additional Information

“Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items


Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items


Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of
Food Stamp Benefits

Energy Drinks
When considering the eligibility of energy drinks, and other branded products, the primary determinant is the type of product label chosen by the manufacturer to conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines:

Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods


Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible

Live Animals
Live animals may not be purchased with SNAP benefits.


Pumpkins, Holiday Gift Baskets, and Special Occasion Cakes
Pumpkins are edible and eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. However, inedible gourds and pumpkins that are used solely for ornamental purposes are not eligible items.

Gift baskets that contain both food and non-food items, are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price.
To read our most recent notice about Gift Baskets, click here.

Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price of the cake.

I'd be more willing to allow someone to use foodstamps to buy a live animal (commonly used for consumption, i.e. chickens) than I would energy drinks, but hey.

Good luck getting Congress to agree on what is and isn't "food" though. More than likely any move in this arena would be used as leverage in the current b**** fit against the ACA.

But as they always say, the best method of getting your thoughts conveyed to Congress is writing your Rep.

Bacchus
08-22-2013, 06:41 AM
The issue shouldn't be how we need to cut back on food stamps. It should be how do we get people off of food stamps.
Raise the minimum wage and people will get off of food stamps. You can work full time at Wal-mart or McDonalds and still be in the poverty range. That is just stupid.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/52124706ecad041e39000028-960/minimum-wages-around-the-world.png

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 07:03 AM
Beef is getting too damned expensive. We should eat the poor.

Meck77
08-22-2013, 07:28 AM
Beef is getting too damned expensive. We should eat the poor.

LOL


Just add Sweet Baby Rays BBQ sauce. It makes any meat taste good!

bronco militia
08-22-2013, 07:46 AM
gluten free!

Meck77
08-22-2013, 07:59 AM
There are hundreds of millions of potential farmers in America. How many billions of square feet of lawns do you suppose we water in America?

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/140/hzak.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/hzak.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 08:12 AM
LOL


Just add Sweet Baby Rays BBQ sauce. It makes any meat taste good!

Their meat is probably stringy, but slow braising ought to work.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 08:23 AM
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. This article says 47 million, or 15% of the population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/11/the-fight-over-food-stamps-explained/

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:35 AM
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. This article says 47 million, or 15% of the population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/11/the-fight-over-food-stamps-explained/

Further study of these numbers is obviously needed before we do anything.

Gotta wait! Let it percolate!

GREAT new slogan!

LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 09:37 AM
Further study of these numbers is obviously needed before we do anything.

Gotta wait! Let it percolate!

GREAT new slogan!

LOL

Shoot first, ask questions later. Progressivism in a nutshell. Glad you own it like a man. :)

houghtam
08-22-2013, 09:43 AM
Shoot first, ask questions later. Progressivism in a nutshell. Glad you own it like a man. :)

You mean shooting first like poo-pooing a discussion on climate change before asking questions like "what is the difference between climate and weather?"

:)

Rigs11
08-22-2013, 10:08 AM
'People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it's just not true'; How the myth of the welfare queen died

By Allison Linn, Senior Writer, NBC News

Here’s one thing both critics and supporters of the modern welfare system agree on: The direct assistance program as we knew it in the 1980s and 1990s is dead and gone.

“It’s a very different program than it was in the past. The comment about welfare queens is much less justified now,” said Ron Haskins, a key adviser of the Republicans’ welfare reform effort who now works at the Brookings Institution.
Two decades after President Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it” -- and nearly four decades since President Ronald Reagan repeatedly derided the “welfare queen” while on the 1976 presidential campaign trail -- far fewer families are receiving cash and voucher assistance, and a larger share of less educated single moms are working.

“People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it’s just not true,” said Heather Hahn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.
Still, experts are deeply divided on how successful tax and welfare reform efforts of the 1990s have been in improving the lives of less educated single mothers, especially in the wake of the Great Recession and weak recovery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About 1.72 million families received direct assistance during an average month in 2012 through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, according to the latest data from the federal government’s Office of Family Assistance. That’s about half the 3.94 million families who received TANF in 1997, according to an Urban Institute report funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In addition, about 62 percent of never-married moms ages 20 to 49 with a high school degree or less were working in 2011, according to an analysis of Current Population Survey data prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. That’s up from about 51 percent in 1992, but down from 76 percent in 2000, before two recessions hit low-skill workers hard.
Welfare-to-work
Welfare has not been the same since the mid-1990s, when the old program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was replaced by TANF. The new program requires that recipients do 20 to 30 hours a week of work-related activities, such as job hunting or community service, among other stipulations.

Most states also only allow adults to collect TANF for a maximum of five years over the course of their lifetime, or less.

“The expectation is that you need to be looking for work,” said LaDonna Pavetti, vice president for family income support policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “And if you don’t, you will either have your benefits reduced or you’ll lose them entirely.”

Many more low-educated single moms did start working soon after the program was introduced, but experts say welfare-to-work cannot take all the credit for that. The late-1990s welfare reform effort also coincided with the expansion of the earned income tax credit, which provides financial assistance to low-wage workers, and a strong labor market.

“There really were three factors: One was welfare reform, one was expansion of the EITC and one was (the) economy,” Pavetti said. “Welfare reform was not the biggest role in that.”

Working, but struggling
These days, Kathryn Edin, a professor of public policy at Harvard University, said the good news is that many single mothers who used to be longer-term welfare recipients are now workers who only need assistance once in a while.

But the bad news for single moms with low education and skills is that in the past decade or so, it’s become increasingly difficult to find a stable, full-time job that pays well. That means some moms may now be working very hard, and still find that their families are at poverty or near-poverty levels.

A person working a full-time, minimum wage job would take home $15,080 a year. That’s below the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 poverty threshold for a family of one adult and two children under 18.

About 41 percent female-headed households with children under age 18 were living in poverty in 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s up from 33 percent in 2000.

Many also fret about a group of women who were not able to make it into employment at all and who may now be in deep poverty.

“What ended up happening … is a lot of families fell through the cracks,” Edin said. Her recent research has documented a sharp increase in extreme poverty among the families with children that have been most affected by welfare reform.

Most experts say that even in a low-wage job, a single mother is better off financially than on welfare because welfare payments are so low. In July 2011, the maximum monthly TANF payment for a family of three ranged from $170 to $923 a month, depending on the state, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But many concede that one optimistic hope for welfare reform – that women who entered low-wage work would gradually get better-paying jobs – has not generally materialized.

“The idea that these moms are going to go into the labor force, they’re going to get skills, they’re going to move up, they’re going to make more money … that did not happen very much,” said Haskins, who also advised President George W. Bush on welfare in 2002.

From homeless to employed
These days, the small group of adults who do end up receiving TANF are often at rock bottom.

Nicole Oman is an example. The mother of three children received $454 a month from TANF after she divorced her husband of 14 years and got into another relationship she described as unhealthy.

That was in 2011, and Oman and her children were staying in a homeless shelter where she was required to do around 30 hours of chores, training and therapy for victims of abuse.

After completing the shelter’s program, Oman used a community job search program offered through TANF to land a position with a residential YWCA facility in Issaquah, Wash., outside Seattle.

She now typically earns about $1,150 a month handling some of the YWCA Family Village at Issaquah’s tax compliance requirements. She also receives several hundred dollars a month in food stamp benefits, now known as SNAP.

Oman, 38, also was able to move into a subsidized two-bedroom apartment in the YWCA community, saving her a long bus ride from another temporary housing facility.

After spending years in homeless shelters, Oman revels in having a job and her own apartment.

“The thing that this process makes you is grateful for the craziest little things,” she said

For Oman, it’s having her own kitchen, which means she can cook meals for her family for the first time in years.

For her 10-year-old daughter, it was learning that the bus route near their new apartment would drop them right in front of a major grocery store, instead of having to walk a long way to a less desirable store.

The family’s grocery trips recently got even easier. A few weeks ago, Oman was able to buy a 2001 Ford Taurus. It’s the first time she’s been able to afford a car in nearly three years.

Oman says the job has helped her get back on her feet by giving her more than just a paycheck.

“The gals that I work with, they’ve helped me so much … in rebuilding myself,” she said.

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/21/20052531-people-think-everyone-who-is-poor-gets-welfare-and-its-just-not-true-how-the-myth-of-the-welfare-queen-died?lite

Rigs11
08-22-2013, 10:08 AM
in before beavis chickens out and call the study irrelevant

Rigs11
08-22-2013, 10:09 AM
Shoot first, ask questions later. Progressivism in a nutshell. Glad you own it like a man. :)

Isn't shooting first what the gun crazies do?

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 10:13 AM
You mean shooting first like poo-pooing a discussion on climate change before asking questions like "what is the difference between climate and weather?"

:)

Yeah, I really asked that. Have you ever heard the old saying, you need to learn to walk before you can run?

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 10:15 AM
Isn't shooting first what the gun crazies do?

Some crazies shoot bullets. Others, Trillion Dollar Wads. :)

houghtam
08-22-2013, 10:25 AM
Yeah, I really asked that. Have you ever heard the old saying, you need to learn to walk before you can run?

Kinda my point. If you had asked what the difference was, you wouldn't have shot off epically dumb blanket statements about weather while thinking you're talking about climate.

And yes you need to crawl before you run. I would recommend you crawl over to the local grade school, pick up a science textbook, and run back over here to continue the discussion.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 10:32 AM
Kinda my point. If you had asked what the difference was, you wouldn't have shot off epically dumb blanket statements about weather while thinking you're talking about climate.

And yes you need to crawl before you run. I would recommend you crawl over to the local grade school, pick up a science textbook, and run back over here to continue the discussion.

Looks like I should bring some friends.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/09/climate-change-drought-texas/2451409/ LOL

houghtam
08-22-2013, 10:38 AM
Looks like I should bring some friends.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/09/climate-change-drought-texas/2451409/ LOL

Looks like someone read the headline and not the article.

Shoot first.

Garcia Bronco
08-22-2013, 10:52 AM
The issue shouldn't be how we need to cut back on food stamps. It should be how do we get people off of food stamps.
Raise the minimum wage and people will get off of food stamps. You can work full time at Wal-mart or McDonalds and still be in the poverty range. That is just stupid.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/52124706ecad041e39000028-960/minimum-wages-around-the-world.png

By that argument more people should already be off.

It's all about motivation. If I can feel content on government assistance, why would I ever go out and change my life?

There is no silver bullet solution here, but there needs to be an incentive to not have people habitually use this stuff. First step IMO is that food stamp can only be used for food items, period.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 10:56 AM
Looks like someone read the headline and not the article.

Shoot first.

uhuh.
Other climate scientists, acknowledging the role of these weather patterns and natural variability, say climate change exacerbated the 2012 drought partly by helping to keep the jet stream north.

Global Warmins controls the Jet Stream! LOL

W*GS
08-22-2013, 10:58 AM
Global Warmins controls the Jet Stream! LOL

Thanks for revealing your ignorance.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 11:01 AM
First step IMO is that food stamp can only be used for food items, period.

Write your Congressman.

It's a perfectly reasonable and logical argument that "food" stamps should be used for "food".

I wouldn't even be opposed to restricting which types of "food" can be purchased, or even making a "food stamp specific" category of foods that are produced through government and/or other subsidies especially intended for consumption for lower income people.

I'm not entirely sure on this, but I also believe certain places (like gas stations) are not allowed to accept food stamps at all unless they carry things like fresh fruit and vegetables ("fresh" is obviously used loosely in this context). Naturally people walk right by that and head for the Monster energy drinks. If that's the case, that needs to stop, as well, although I suppose reclassifying "food" would change a lot of that anyhow.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 11:03 AM
Thanks for revealing your ignorance.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

Arkie
08-22-2013, 11:38 AM
need to raise the minimum wage

Fixing the labor market at higher costs does two things. It makes the selling cost of products and services go up, and it creates more nominal income for consumers. Naturally, the free market side will try to re-balance with higher prices and a higher cost of living. The only way to stop this is with price controls. Might as well fix the entire market instead of keeping one side free. Then the confused people couldn't blame the negative outcomes on a free market that doesn't exist.

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 11:45 AM
Fixing the labor market at higher costs does two things. It makes the selling cost of products and services go up, and it creates more nominal income for consumers. Naturally, the free market side will try to re-balance with higher prices and a higher cost of living. The only way to stop this is with price controls. Might as well fix the entire market instead of keeping one side free. Then the confused people couldn't blame the negative outcomes on a free market that doesn't exist.

Like it exists now?

Garcia Bronco
08-22-2013, 11:46 AM
Write your Congressman.

It's a perfectly reasonable and logical argument that "food" stamps should be used for "food".

I wouldn't even be opposed to restricting which types of "food" can be purchased, or even making a "food stamp specific" category of foods that are produced through government and/or other subsidies especially intended for consumption for lower income people.

I'm not entirely sure on this, but I also believe certain places (like gas stations) are not allowed to accept food stamps at all unless they carry things like fresh fruit and vegetables ("fresh" is obviously used loosely in this context). Naturally people walk right by that and head for the Monster energy drinks. If that's the case, that needs to stop, as well, although I suppose reclassifying "food" would change a lot of that anyhow.

At Walmart, for example, you can purcahse just about anything with EBT. It used to be exactly as we're describing.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 11:51 AM
Fixing the labor market at higher costs does two things. It makes the selling cost of products and services go up, and it creates more nominal income for consumers. Naturally, the free market side will try to re-balance with higher prices and a higher cost of living. The only way to stop this is with price controls. Might as well fix the entire market instead of keeping one side free. Then the confused people couldn't blame the negative outcomes on a free market that doesn't exist.

http://backtofullemployment.org/2013/01/18/minimum-wage-hikes-do-not-cause-inflation/#_ftnref3

Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 10-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one-tenth of one percent of their sales revenue. This cost figure includes three components. First, mandated raises: the raises employers must give their workers to meet the new wage floor. Second, “ripple-effect” raises: the raises employers give some workers to put their pay rates a bit above the new minimum in order to preserve the same wage hierarchy before and after minimum wage hike. And third, the higher payroll taxes employers must pay on their now-larger wage bill. If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent.[1] A price increase of this size amounts to marking up a $100 price tag to $100.10...

This basic conclusion is supported by a 2008 study that reviewed the economic studies on the impact of minimum wage hikes on prices and inflation.[3] The estimates from these studies cover a relatively wide range, suggesting that a 10-percent increase in the minimum causes overall prices to rise somewhere between 0.2 percent and 2.16 percent, with most estimates falling below 0.4 percent. These estimates are larger, but in the range of how much businesses’ costs increase as discussed above. Even the higher estimate of a 0.4 percent rise in price level with a 10 percent minimum wage hike suggests that a typical COLA adjustment to the minimum wage rate would only push up the price level by 0.1 percent.[4] Recall that this amounts to adding just one dime to a $100 price tag.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2013, 12:45 PM
Thanks for revealing your ignorance.

Yeah. "The Jetstream's all fudged up cuz'a Global Warmins" even while global temperatures are flat for a decade.

I'd love to see the AGW scientologist's argument on that one.

mhgaffney
08-22-2013, 03:32 PM
By that argument more people should already be off.

It's all about motivation. If I can feel content on government assistance, why would I ever go out and change my life?

There is no silver bullet solution here, but there needs to be an incentive to not have people habitually use this stuff. First step IMO is that food stamp can only be used for food items, period.

The primary incentive is the availability of work. The crux of the issue is twofold: 1. tens of millions of jobs have gone offshore and 2. Investors are not investing. They are either holding onto their cash -- or engaging in wild speculation. America, indeed, the world has become a casino.

At the root of thee problems is the void of leadership in our nation. That's a top down problem.

Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to effect a change at the ballot box. We are stuck as a nation, terminally dysfunctional. None of the safety valves for change work anymore.

So things must continue to get worse. Sooner or later, the shyte will really hit the fan. MHG

Arkie
08-22-2013, 04:30 PM
40% of all workers today make less than what people made in 1960.

That means ALL minimum wage workers fall in the other 60% because all minimum wage workers make more now than what minimum wage workers made in 1960. This just proves the point that raising the minimum wage lowers average pay for the more experienced employees. It also increases unemployment and underemployment.


Raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour and you would start to see that change.

How did you arrive at that figure? That's ridiculously high. It's $4 higher than average and $2 higher than the all-time high. You would see unemployment and average pay change for the worse.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2013/06/SherkChart1.ashx?h=405&w=600

Rohirrim
08-22-2013, 04:36 PM
Question: Since all America can produce now is the lowest paying jobs in retail sales, who do they expect to do all the consuming that keeps this economy afloat in the foreseeable future? You think the hit Walmart is taking isn't going to spread?

Arkie
08-22-2013, 04:40 PM
Maybe we should just peg the minimum wage to the CPI.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2013, 05:27 PM
Ed Asner hammers the repukes in this short flick...

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/118842" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Mecklomaniac
08-22-2013, 06:01 PM
Raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour and you would start to see that change.


Why only $10.50.... what kind of heartless bastard are you tsk tsk

With all the selfish evil employers, holding hours below the Obamacare threshold of 30 hours. $10.50 only gets you $15,000 a year (before taxes, fica, etc.) You can't buy food, shelter, cable tv for 15K. Why won't the selfish community organizers pay better http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/24/do-you-have-what-it-takes-to-peddle-obamacare/


Why not raise min wage to $50. Why not have min hours too. Mandatory 40 hour week. How about a maximum wage too (with exceptions for gov workers / lobbyists / campaign donors)

Maybe we need a new cabinet secretary, and another bunch of bureaucrats. Ministry of Fairness?

peacepipe
08-22-2013, 06:28 PM
15.00 will be just fine.

Requiem
08-22-2013, 06:35 PM
I used to work for a legal, business and research giant that is a global powerhouse that gets outsourced contracts from Top 25 AmLaw firms, EA Sports and other large corporations. Doing work they cannot do on a 8-5 schedule all on their own. The average project managers for those places easily pocketed 60k+ a year and benefits. I watched as some of our business partners cut off employees there and gave us more work. I felt bad. One, for those people. Two, knowing I was getting paid tens of thousands less for doing hard work.

Long story short, my old location has not given raises, or even cost of living adjustments for their employees. Rent has went up big time and so have goods. My buddy used to save a couple hundred a month and was content with his job. As the years passed, stuff skyrocketed and now he scrapes by.

I got a friend a job there before I left. He is an entry level analyst and makes ~ 13 an hour. Works hard, grades out well in performance reviews and always shows up. Management told him raises and COL are just not in the cards. I call BS because they are making money hand over fist. Multi-million dollar contracts and they do not have the balls to raise people up a quarter or fifty cents in a year?

It is ****ing horse****. A few of just many reasons I got out of Dodge and left for Colorado...

Requiem
08-22-2013, 06:41 PM
15.00 will be just fine.

At my job interview today the company estimated that would be my wage DOE if I was offered the position. Not that it is much, but I would be stoked. I was making $11.00 at 16 years old. The ****.

houghtam
08-22-2013, 07:04 PM
Like I said before, I'd even be for lowering the minimum wage for workers whose parents can claim them as dependents, but something needs to be done about the minimum wage, and it needs to be big, and soon.

Bacchus
08-23-2013, 07:29 PM
By that argument more people should already be off.

It's all about motivation. If I can feel content on government assistance, why would I ever go out and change my life?

There is no silver bullet solution here, but there needs to be an incentive to not have people habitually use this stuff. First step IMO is that food stamp can only be used for food items, period.

how is about motivation? People can work 40 hours at McDonalds and 20 hours at Wal-Mart and I still bring home under $20,000 for my family of 4.

Bacchus
08-23-2013, 07:32 PM
Fixing the labor market at higher costs does two things. It makes the selling cost of products and services go up, and it creates more nominal income for consumers. Naturally, the free market side will try to re-balance with higher prices and a higher cost of living. The only way to stop this is with price controls. Might as well fix the entire market instead of keeping one side free. Then the confused people couldn't blame the negative outcomes on a free market that doesn't exist.

that is silly. McDonalds grossed after expenses last year $10 billion. They could raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour and they would still gross $9.5 billion.

If they decided to pass on the cost of the wage to the consumers we would pay a whopping 5% more on our purchase.

Hell, I would pay 5% more on my purchase from McDonalds so their employees could make $15 a hour.

BroncoBeavis
08-23-2013, 09:29 PM
that is silly. McDonalds grossed after expenses last year $10 billion. They could raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour and they would still gross $9.5 billion.

If they decided to pass on the cost of the wage to the consumers we would pay a whopping 5% more on our purchase.

Hell, I would pay 5% more on my purchase from McDonalds so their employees could make $15 a hour.

Most McDonalds are independently owned franchises. The corporation employs very few "McDonalds employees"