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 guess a better measure would be intergenerational economic mobility: if you are born poor, you live poor and die poor. If you're born rich, you live and die rich. Moreso in the US than pretty much any other first world country. So when you say "poor people should work harder" what you mean is "...to be born as a rich person."
IMO...it means get off of your ass and get to work.
Our guys start working at $18 a hour.
I am a middle age female and can do this work.
Many new hires walk off the job the first day....to hot...hard work...to dirty...
Explain how welfare keeps people poor, then. Is it because people just love lounging around their luxurious cardboard box, living off $5 in food stamps? It discourages them from going out and applying for all those jobs that don't exist? Do you know what "unemployment" is? Do you know what "work requirements" are?
Explain how welfare keeps people poor, then. Is it because people just love lounging around their luxurious cardboard box, living off $5 in food stamps? It discourages them from going out and applying for all those jobs that don't exist? Do you know what "unemployment" is? Do you know what "work requirements" are?
Please cite for me ONE neighborhood which has created economic prosperity due to high number of welfare recipiants living in the neighborhood..
JUST ONE..
Come on, if you think it doesnt keep people poor, then clearly neighborhoods flush with welfare should be booming with jobs and tons of economic stimulations taking place.. That after all, was the Democratic argument, that welfare stimulates, so list for me one town stimulated by it..
The entire country was stimulated by increased welfare spending after the recession started; without welfare unemployment would have been even higher. Nobody is suggesting that the meager welfare we give people now should be enough to turn any town into a boomtown. But it's more than nothing. Or are you asserting that welfare recipients spend less money than they would if they had no money at all?
Edit: if Welfare recipients were receiving more than the average person's income, then yes those neighborhoods would be flush with jobs and so on. That's obvious. How come you haven't yet explained how any of your right-wing theories are supposed to work out in real life, except by way of unverifiable anecdotes?
You're reading your graph wrong, by the way; it proves my point, not yours. Intergenerational income elasticity is a measure of a generation's income depending on their parents, i.e. the UK and US have the least class mobility and Denmark has the most.
Or are you asserting that welfare recipients spend less money than they would if they had no money at all?
False dichotomy.
I've met people who were reluctant to take a job because it didn't pay enough. The problem is that the job may lead somewhere if you look further than next week, welfare does not.
Explain how welfare keeps people poor, then. Is it because people just love lounging around their luxurious cardboard box, living off $5 in food stamps? It discourages them from going out and applying for all those jobs that don't exist? Do you know what "unemployment" is? Do you know what "work requirements" are?
Think about federal game parks.....and all the "do not feed the animals" signs.
Feed them and in time it will lead to them not knowing how to hunt and over population of some prey.
That makes them dependent....and controllable.
What to think the government is really doing here???
I've met people who were reluctant to take a job because it didn't pay enough. The problem is that the job may lead somewhere if you look further than next week, welfare does not.
Not taking a job because it doesn't pay enough? Not in my free market!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1
Think about federal game parks.....and all the "do not feed the animals" signs.
Feed them and in time it will lead to them not knowing how to hunt and over population of some prey.
That makes them dependent....and controllable.
What to think the government is really doing here???
It's... treating people differently from animals? Is that the right answer?
So... the signs that say "don't feed the animals" are a feint? The gov't is actually feeding the animals?
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.
