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.
Work where? You've seen these people. So have I. Would you hire them? I thought not. Nor is it their fault that they are unemployable. You'd have to go back two generations if you wanted to get a better outcome. And what about black men, 50% of whom are touched in some way by the taint of the Justice System and its life long chilling effect on future employment forever thereafter. I think at last count there were some 3 million (total) jobs in all labor categories open in this country. 75% will be filled through networks or promotion or other non-competitive avenues. The rest are open to the best qualified, best fit candidate. You do the math: 750,000 open positions, 50 million (at least) Americans need one. Again, you've seen the long term unemployed, the indigent, the dysfunctional... do I need to go on in this vein?
One of the advantages of being a black person in one of the whitest of cities is that even the down and out tend to leave me completely alone. If someone actually asks me for money, I usually give them a little. I figure they must really need it badly to approach me. Once in awhile I see someone who wants to take a panhandler to McDonalds and watch them eat what they buy for them. Makes me furious. Why the need to strip all the essential dignity from a person because they have come to you in need. Don't give it to them if you need to micro-manage how they use the gift. Or give it to them and don't look back. Going forward there is going to have to be some kind of 'Basic Income' for the maintenance of people who have been made redundant by dint of innovations in automation, or corporate greed, or pandemic illness.
I do agree with the gist of your post, but my main point is that while I don't think anyone should have to "live on the streets" and worry about the basics like food and shelter, I just object to all the waste that occurs in our present "welfare system" and the fact that very little has been accomplished -- despite very sincere and worthwhile attempts in the past -- to encourage people who CAN work to be self-supporting. (I am very much aware that for many people, for various reasons, that is virtually impossible.) So what I am advocating is a reduction in waste, a "safe place" for the those who cannot work, and a real incentive and encouragement for those who COULD better themselves given a real chance and plenty of motivation.
And although neither you nor I have touched on this, I also object to the amount of money on administrative costs, and how many people benefit (though salaries and company profits) by keeping the poor, poor. I know this because I actually volunteered at an organization that operated a food bank, and I could swear that much more money was spent on salaries and their office space than on food for the poor!
So what I am advocating is a reduction in waste, a "safe place" for the those who cannot work, and a real incentive and encouragement for those who COULD better themselves given a real chance and plenty of motivation.
One thing I like about this proposal is it doesn't punish someone for working harder by yanking their welfare benefits. Right now the level of income which disqualifies a person from receiving welfare is pitifully low. With the current system a poor person who wants to better himself can face a Hobson's choice: work harder and develop some more job skills, get a job which pays slightly more than their current one - and end up economically worse off because they lose their benefits, and the pay from the better job isn't enough to offset that; or stay on welfare and not lose any income, but not improve their chances of someday getting a MUCH better job by steadily working their way up the income ladder. It's a nasty trap!
So if you eliminate welfare what are the disabled & the elders going to do? The pension system here is non existent! Do you want to kill off all be disabled ppl????
We need to offer abortions to those who multiply rampantly and who shouldn't be multiplying at all!
You need to start at the root!
If companies outsource our jobs, where do you expect those who live here, the illegals, the refugees, the stay at home moms returning to work, and those who migrate here legally to work at????
The disabled and elderly deserve welfare. Welfare for parents for their babies and children, um no. Stop breeding so many damn scrubs, humans! That said, I would quit my job IMMEDIATELY if I was guaranteed 20K (tax free) a year and just move to a low cost of living area (although would low cost of living areas become dodo if everyone had 20K??)
In the USA, we have a huge bureaucracy of civil servants in federal, state, county and municipal agencies who are employed to deal with poverty & its consequences.
Let's imagine for a moment that I have a magic wand that can be used only one time for one specific purpose: to eliminate all poverty and its consequences. Let's imagine I give this wand to a senior government bureaucrat and explain its use to her.
Of course, if the government bureaucrat actually uses it, poverty would be eliminated (yay!) and of course there would be no need for the plethora of federal, state, county and municipal agencies and all their employees who deal with poverty (wait - what?) That is, she would instantly make herself and her organization irrelevant. She would instantly lose her job because, of course, poverty has been eliminated.
Do you think this government bureaucrat would wave the wand to eliminate poverty? Would she in essence fire herself? Oh - she has a mortgage, and 2 kids in college and 1 in high school and has to provide some support to her elderly parents. Would she wave the wand to eliminate her own job?
Clearly not.
Imagine instead we compensate government bureaucrats based on actual reduction of poverty. Imagine that 100% of the pensions of government bureaucrats is based on the reduction in poverty.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 12-10-2015 at 08:25 PM..
In the USA, we have a huge bureaucracy of civil servants in federal, state, county and municipal agencies who are employed to deal with poverty & its consequences.
Let's imagine for a moment that I have a magic wand that can be used only one time for one specific purpose: to eliminate all poverty and its consequences. Let's imagine I give this wand to a senior government bureaucrat and explain its use to her.
Of course, if the government bureaucrat actually uses it, poverty would be eliminated (yay!) and of course there would be no need for the plethora of federal, state, county and municipal agencies and all their employees who deal with poverty (wait - what?) That is, she would instantly make herself and her organization irrelevant. She would instantly lose her job because, of course, poverty has been eliminated.
Do you think this government bureaucrat would wave the wand to eliminate poverty? Would she in essence fire herself? Oh - she has a mortgage, and 2 kids in college and 1 in high school and has to provide some support to her elderly parents. Would she wave the wand to eliminate her own job?
Clearly not.
Imagine instead we compensate government bureaucrats based on actual reduction of poverty. Imagine that 100% of the pensions of government bureaucrats is based on the reduction in poverty.
Then how do you explain the existence of poverty before those programs?
My explanation - when we urbanized as a society we started out with about a 25-30% "poverty rate." Most of the old-style factory jobs, etc... were inexorably poor by our standards. Thanks to the New Deal and WWII we dropped that down to around 20%. The 1960s Great Society which is where most of our welfare programs, combined with Cold War era spending and jobs, reduced it down to around 11-12%. Then when we cut some of that it went back to 13-15% where it sits today at 14.5% and is pretty static since the late 1970s.
I think there are around ~10% of people in any society that just cannot hack modern life for whatever reason. Success in an urbanized society has more prerequisites than agricultural societies. You've got to be able to hack some schooling. Some people just can't do that. In agricultural societies, there is very little unemployment - everyone is working on farms to make their food and you don't need much educational pre-requisite to do it.
Conversely, there are some people (the majority, really) that can adapt and do alright or better than alright in urbanized societies.
However, without a social safety net, that poverty percentage will be more in the 20-30% range. India at 29% poverty is a good example of what happens when you have a very minimal safety net and just tell people to go get jobs as best they can.
Then how do you explain the existence of poverty before those programs?
My explanation - when we urbanized as a society we started out with about a 25-30% "poverty rate." Most of the old-style factory jobs, etc... were inexorably poor by our standards. Thanks to the New Deal and WWII we dropped that down to around 20%. The 1960s Great Society which is where most of our welfare programs, combined with Cold War era spending and jobs, reduced it down to around 11-12%. Then when we cut some of that it went back to 13-15% where it sits today at 14.5% and is pretty static since the late 1970s.
I think there are around ~10% of people in any society that just cannot hack modern life for whatever reason. Success in an urbanized society has more prerequisites than agricultural societies. You've got to be able to hack some schooling. Some people just can't do that. In agricultural societies, there is very little unemployment - everyone is working on farms to make their food and you don't need much educational pre-requisite to do it.
Conversely, there are some people (the majority, really) that can adapt and do alright or better than alright in urbanized societies.
However, without a social safety net, that poverty percentage will be more in the 20-30% range. India at 29% poverty is a good example of what happens when you have a very minimal safety net and just tell people to go get jobs as best they can.
Well, then let's get rid of poverty with basic income, then reinvest in fresh organic farming of fruits and vegetables and organic free range/open pasture farming of livestock and poultry. No more factory farms or imported fruits and veggies. Move the processing plants back here as well. Now we have created jobs, cleansed our diet.
I think it makes perfect sense, I don't know about the amount, I think 20k sounds high but I like the concept of a cash grant rather than what we are doing now. I used to do volunteer work with poor women with young children. This was in Nevada, rent is pretty cheap; a motel room can be found for about $150 a week. But a mom with 2 kids only gets $383 in cash benefits. The only way she can pay rent is to sell almost all of her food benefits for 50 cents on the dollar. That would leave her with less than $80 to spend on food, transportation, diapers, and any other incidentals. As a result few were in stable housing for an entire month, they would usually end up sleeping on friends sofas or sharing a motel room with another mom- or even worse, in good weather trying to find a place to sleep outside where the cops wouldn't spot her.
If these women received a monthly check of even $1100 or $1200 a month they would be able to pay for housing and feed the kids, it would still be very difficult but it would be better than the way it is now. Many of the women were getting some child support but never saw a penny of it, the state would keep it as reimbursement for the welfare benefits.
Proof of this. You are just making use accusations based on false stereotypes.
The people who truly **** money away are the rich. Walmart pays more money into fighting raising wages then it would cost them to actually raise wages, because it's not really about the individual dollars, it's about creating modern day slavery (which is what paying someone an unlivable wage is). Billions of dollars have been wasted in failed military experiences over the past decade or so. Corporations get millions of dollars in subsidies every year that they just stock pile in foreign countries while avoiding taxes. At least poor people put their money back into the economy.
You don't think it's a big deal when someone like Donald Trump or Bank of America files for bankruptcy, costing us millions of dollars, but if a mom gets behind on her bills one month because she bought her kid a birthday present or wanted to take her kids to the zoo on her day off, you think she is the problem and have no problem vilifying her.
Facts are hardly "vilifying". And those rich, that you love to hate, aren't the ones flooding the welfare lines, SNAP offices and Section 8 housing.
I never said every person on welfare is a lazy loser, but some are. And it's morally wrong to take from hard working people to give to those that don't.
And yes, a woman that chooses to buy her kid a luxury or take them somewhere she can't afford, and as a result is behind on her bills, is exactly who I'm talking about. Giving her that money will only mean she spends it on things she doesn't NEED to, and in the end will start demanding food stamps and healthcare because she doesn't have the money for it.
Just an FYI - Donald Trump never applied for welfare, and Bank of America never filed for bankruptcy, so your examples are just hogwash.
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.
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.
