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.
I had been thinking when responding to another thread about poverty, that poverty is too big of industry for there to be a true incentive to end it. Look at all the associated jobs and services, good paying ones, that the poverty industry entails. Here, I have heard that people are encouraged to have more children to increase the size of their monthly checks if they don't find them adequate, seriously. More people on the case load means more positions and more supervisory personnel. At this time with so many people uninsured, Medicaid recipients fill those gaps and although reimbursement may be low, money is still money and some is better than none. I have son with developmental disabilities who is an adult and he recently received a "recruitment" card from the contractor for the state that handles mental health services in a mass mailing to anyone with a Medicaid card. Think about all the governmental food assistance in the school like free breakfast and lunch and all the extra programs for those "at risk". In a country with so few industries except for health care and the prison system, poverty is an industry that we cannot do without. What a sad state of affairs.
The average salary for a social worker is $47K, and most social work positions require a Masters degree. The job has a ceiling of around $56K. The average salary for a human services worker is around $25K. Yeah, they are raking in the money for sure. More people on the case load does not mean more people hired to take care of their needs. In fact, their is only so much money that can be doled out and if more and more people attempt to gain benefits, then the more and more people will be denied. You do not get GA, welfare, etc., just because you ask for it.
You heard? From who? Any person with two working brain cells can see that the more kids a woman has, the more money she gets. Some women work the system in this manner, but no social worker will never suggest to anyone to have more kids. Anyone who believes that is a straight up fool.
Medicaid and the like do "guaranty" money, but the hospitals and doctors who accept it are limited.
So few industries? Serious? Do you even live in America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyyfanatic85
No. On what basis do you make these claims? It is a serious error to see economics as a zero-sum game, where the rich get rich at the poor's expense. The successful corporations with money are the ones who have taken risk to develop a product that other people want- and buy. If they are profitable, it is because the consumer - who has the ultimate authority on the success of the company by way of his choice - has selected that company's product. There isn't a finite level of cash or wealth in this country; everyone is free to create his or her own. I would strongly encourage you to visit the following webpage for more on the zero-sum fallacy, which you are evidently falling for:
When comparing two separate societies, then yes, one cannot compare things like wealth and poverty using individual countries as the base[s].
But, within one particular society, where everyone shares the same base social and economic ideologies, there is a need for poor in order to have rich. To put it in its simplest term, there needs to be contrast in order for both to exist. If everyone in the U.S. had $10 billion, then $10 billion would not be considered rich, since everyone has it. It would only be when there is a gulf between $10 billion and the top money holders when you have a rich/poor society.
Look at the Yen, 780,000 yen sounds like a lot of money, right? It's a big number. But in Japan it's not that much. A good amount of money, sure, but not rich by any means. 780K yen is roughly $10,000.
No. On what basis do you make these claims? It is a serious error to see economics as a zero-sum game, where the rich get rich at the poor's expense. The successful corporations with money are the ones who have taken risk to develop a product that other people want- and buy. If they are profitable, it is because the consumer - who has the ultimate authority on the success of the company by way of his choice - has selected that company's product. There isn't a finite level of cash or wealth in this country; everyone is free to create his or her own. I would strongly encourage you to visit the following webpage for more on the zero-sum fallacy, which you are evidently falling for:
the only way to end poverty is by having a mass culling.
The we would have to close the borders and live a more simple kind of lifestyle.
Allowing the private sector to build minimal houses the poor could buy would be a great start. But then conservatives would lose billions of tax dollars and slumlords would lose a goldmine as well.
Jim Cuddy, who as the executive director of the South Middlesex Opportunity Council is about as polarizing a figure in town as one will find, will, like last year, make a salary of $260,000 in 2010.
A Globe analysis shows that in the final year of Liquarry's life, government agencies spent at least $314,000 on his family, about half for social services and government benefits, in an extraordinary effort to save the family, especially the children.
I had been thinking when responding to another thread about poverty, that poverty is too big of industry for there to be a true incentive to end it. Look at all the associated jobs and services, good paying ones, that the poverty industry entails. Here, I have heard that people are encouraged to have more children to increase the size of their monthly checks if they don't find them adequate, seriously. More people on the case load means more positions and more supervisory personnel. At this time with so many people uninsured, Medicaid recipients fill those gaps and although reimbursement may be low, money is still money and some is better than none. I have son with developmental disabilities who is an adult and he recently received a "recruitment" card from the contractor for the state that handles mental health services in a mass mailing to anyone with a Medicaid card. Think about all the governmental food assistance in the school like free breakfast and lunch and all the extra programs for those "at risk". In a country with so few industries except for health care and the prison system, poverty is an industry that we cannot do without. What a sad state of affairs.
Good insight and doubtless true. In Washington state we're going to have a ballot initiative this Nov. to legalize possesion of small amounts of marijuana (I think it's 1 oz or less). The assoc. of sheriffs and Police Chiefs is opposed, naturally. One less law to enforce means less work for them, less overtime, and and a smaller bureaucratic empire.
You can see this with the war on tobacco too. The gov't now rakes in mega bucks in tax dollars from smokers, so it's not really in their interest to have people quit. Most people over 25 or so would love to quit smoking, so the solution from the state has been to make sure the smoking cessation efforts out there are as ineffective as possible. Here in WA the best they could do was to put in an 800 number so that people who wanted to quit could call in and talk it out with a counsellor.
how many poor people did Apple and Microsoft create?
I"m sure many of their competitors were put out of business over the years, with the resulting negative knock on effect to other sectors.
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.