Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-08-2016, 02:51 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,980,893 times
Reputation: 16155

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
That is absolute nonsense. There are no assistance programs that make people so comfy that they prefer to stay home, but I'm sure you will counter that with a Heritage Foundation list of 150 + welfare programs out of which almost no one receives more than 2 or 3 benefits.

I worked with poor women with young children in Nevada and every one of them would have gladly accepted employment if they had transportation and childcare. A family of three in Nevada receives a whopping $383 a month in welfare, subsidized housing has a 6-10 year wait list in most areas so they either sofa surf, share an apartment or live in weekly motels. The only other benefits they receive are SNAP, medicaid and if they have an infant- WIC which has a cash equivalent of about $40. There are real obstacles to overcome for a poor person, especially one with small children to entering the workforce. And there is a 5 federal limit to welfare benefits and many states limit it to 12 or 24 months.
WHY are they having children with no job, no transportation, no childcare, no health benefits? I'll tell you why - because we have made it COMFY to stay home and raise those children with no thought as to how they will support them. Look at the litany of benefits that are available, ALL paid for through the hard work of taxpaying Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2016, 02:57 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,980,893 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Black and white thinking. There are other options besides maximum and minimum altruism.
Naturally. And the "other" option always seems to be "force someone else to give up their hard earned money. But mine will stay safe with me, because that's different somehow."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 02:58 PM
 
18,549 posts, read 15,590,462 times
Reputation: 16235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Naturally. And the "other" option always seems to be "force someone else to give up their hard earned money. But mine will stay safe with me, because that's different somehow."
Are you talking about those who evade their taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:01 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,980,893 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Even if every statement in your post is 100% true, this is only a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. In other words, it does not address what wages workers ought to be paid. The third is possibly an exception.
Wages that a worker ought to be paid is what they, and their employer, decide upon. That decision is based on any number of factors. But NONE of them are based on what an employee needs to survive. THAT'S on the employee.

Do you even realize that this almighty government that decides WHAT WAGED WORKERS OUGHT TO BE PAID is what mankind has fought against throughout history?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:09 PM
 
18,549 posts, read 15,590,462 times
Reputation: 16235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Wages that a worker ought to be paid is what they, and their employer, decide upon. That decision is based on any number of factors. But NONE of them are based on what an employee needs to survive. THAT'S on the employee.

Again, you are only making a descriptive statement. The question is why employees' survival is not something the employer ought to consider.


Use utilitarianism, social contract theory, or Kantian ethics...


Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post

Do you even realize that this almighty government that decides WHAT WAGED WORKERS OUGHT TO BE PAID is what mankind has fought against throughout history?
Some of mankind has fought against it. Others have fought for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
Supply and demand for labor does not guaranty that wages will sustain life.
There is no requirement that it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:24 PM
 
18,549 posts, read 15,590,462 times
Reputation: 16235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
There is no requirement that it does.
Depends on what you mean by "requirement". Legal, moral, short-term, long-term, in the absence of public aid or not, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Your libertarian nirvana is not working out so well for people who have to struggle to feed their families, the deck is very strategically stacked against them.
No it is not. This is fun. Your turn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber View Post
In my view, economics is about heart.
Economics is about property rights and the efficient allocation of resources, and the study of governmental interventions in a variety of cases (e.g., natural monopoly) and government procurement (e.g., police protection and national defense).

Economics doesn't have anything to do with an organ that pumps blood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Not always. Some people don't have the money to move. They are trapped.
Is your observation that GNP would increase if, instead assistance programs that keep people in place, the government offered the destitute a supply of suitcases and bus tickets?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top