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.
Why? Why can't low-income earners live with roommates to split living expenses and eliminate unnecessary spending to live within their means?
Now. Let's see maybe we should just make camps,,, can't tell people how to live or but many do that and the apt managers go nuts!!!
You can't just out some person with your family.
If taxes would actually take food off your table, you wouldn't owe any taxes. Redistributions of income and wealth are meanwhile part of the core functions of any society. It's all supposed to flow from the more fortunate to the less fortunate of course, but the right-wing and selfish sociophobes have been doing everything they can think of to reverse the direction of those flows -- to the disgrace and detriment of American society as a whole.
So to restate this, is it your contention the role of society is to transfer wealth from those who created it, to those who don't?
When people argue about low wages and a $15 minimum wage, the typical response is the low wage employee should just go back to school and learn a trade so they can earn more. Great idea but the low wage menial job still needs to be done by someone, so the newly trained worker will just be replaced by someone else.
Maybe 30% of full time jobs pay less than $15 an hour. Someone has got to do the low pay work, SO: Should the government pay welfare to the people who support a family on low income?
When I was in junior and senior high then college I worked for minimum wage. When I became an adult I moved to wherever I needed to in order to make a better living. I made it into the top 5-10% wage bracket that way. Yet, millions of people earning minimum wage refuse to accept responsibility and follow a similar path that millions and millions have followed. What do they do instead? They live in the same depressed neighborhoods, stay uneducated in the same job pissing and moaning about how others should pay them more for non-skilled jobs. I am beginning to think Zuckerburg is right about wanting more H-1B visa workers. Look it up, he and other CEOs are crying that we don't have enough skilled workers. Stop and think about that, a entire class of Americans are crying about wages yet American corporations are begging for foreign skilled workers.
Either two things are happening. The liberals beloved government is over looking its base in favor of cheap foreign labor or the low wage American worker is afraid to fail and is more comfortable blaming someone else for their lack of meaningful wages and lifestyle.
My suggestion, get off your ass, quit being fearful of failure and go wherever and do whatever it takes. That is how you make 6 figures a year. Just a warning, there is a price you pay for money and sometimes the price is very very steep. Those on this forum who make 6 figures will know what I mean.
Last edited by Crossfire600; 11-01-2015 at 05:05 PM..
That is absurd-- all service incomes are about the same-- Publix --Winn Dixie, Macy- Dillards -- movie theaters -- restaurants - the military --ask them what they earn__
I don't have the figures, but I'd be willing to bet that all these companies (not the military) have significantly fewer employees combined than Wal-Mart does. I stand by my comment - Wal-Mart is a huge beneficiary of welfare.
The military shouldn't be included in this - it pays very well, has lots of tax-free benefits, along with great health care, educational benefits during and after your tour of duty, housing, even a subsistence allowance if you don't eat in the dining hall. Even has a really great life insurance policy if the ultimate should happen, and provides veteran benefits after you leave.
Your argument has an underlying hypothesis: "If welfare wasn't a thing, low-wage employers would need to pay more." You are then assuming that it is true, however are offering no proof that it is, and frankly we have no clue whether or not it is true. Your guess might be that it is, but you have no basis in data or fact to back it up. My guess is that it is true in high-cost parts of the country but not true elsewhere - but you know what, that like your opinion is also just a guess not backed up by data. You're taking a very strong view on this, but you shouldn't, because it's based on a very shaky hypothesis which none of us can say with certainty whether it's true or false, not on fact.
If I saw clear unequivocal evidence backing up your hypothesis on a nationwide scale I would take the position you bemoan fiscal conservatives not taking, but either it doesn't exist or I haven't seen it.
Here's a rather long article that supports my view: The key point is that: “Over the past 30 years, decisions made by the U.S. Congress have had the impact of legalizing jobs with wages far below the levels [needed] to sustain a breadwinner and a typical family of four,” Mr. Slater said. The increased welfare spending “made employment at such wages economically sustainable.”
and another article which claims:"When 73 percent of people who benefit from major public assistance programs live in a working family, our economy isn’t operating the way it should – and could – be. From 2003-2013, inflation-adjusted wages fell for the entire bottom 70 percent of the workforce. Over the same time period we have also seen a large decline in the share of Americans with job-based health coverage"
This is a recent study from UC Berkeley that claims: "Higher wages and increases in employer-provided health insurance would result in significant Medicaid savings that states and the federal government could apply to other programs and priorities.14 In the case of TANF—a block grant that includes maintenance of effort (MOE) provisions that require specified state spending—higher wages would allow states to reduce the portion of the program going to cash assistance while increasing the funding for other services such as child care, job training, and transportation assistance. Higher wages would also significantly reduce federal expenditures on the EITC and SNAP.15 Overall, higher wages and employer provided health care would lower both state and federal public assistance costs, and allow all levels of government to better target how their tax dollars are used"
The premise of this article is exactly what I suggested "An increase in labor supply is exactly what the evidence suggests the EITC does. However, this program increases labor supply because it is a wage subsidy that pays workers more if they work more. This operates through what is known as “the substitution effect,” which is a change in hours worked—for example, a substitution of work for leisure that results from a higher marginal benefit of working." Which would presumably make a larger work force available and allow employers to continue paying low wages. It goes on to mention how EITC at higher wage levels is a disincentive toward working longer hours, which again benefits employers who generally are quite happy with part time help.
Wow, subsidize them or they'll kick your ass and take your things. It never occurred to people like this to "actually earn what they need". Sounds a little like blackmail. And then you wonder why people arm themselves. How about getting a second job like many of us did when we needed more money.
I don't think the poor would kick your ass, but I do think that without government welfare subsidies to low wage workers you would see them become far more vocal about the issue of low wages and it would probably serve as an impetus for unionization - which I suggest is one of the reasons politicians support the EITC, it keeps the working poor from becoming 'restless' and starting trouble for their employers
So to restate this, is it your contention the role of society is to transfer wealth from those who created it, to those who don't?
Absolutely, those higher on the ladder only got there through cronyism, corruption and outright thievery. It should flow down to me. Of course, those below me are there through their own laziness and poor life decisions. So the buck stops at me.
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.
can't tell people how to live or but many do that and the apt managers go nuts!!! 
