Food-stamp use doubles

Dittohead not! said:

It is much more difficult to earn a living now than it was when I was just starting out.
Having so many earning low wages and making do with part time jobs is a drag on the economy and results in low tax revenues.

But, just exactly what is it that the federal government should or could do about it? That's the real question.

Click to expand...

Nothing. It should be a market exercise....The problem we have now is too much government meddling.

muciti said:

I am sure that is the sentiment we need to get our country back on track.

Click to expand...

Well since that track is why we are where we are, you might want to consider that might now work out as well for you as you think.

Dittohead not! said:

But, just exactly what is it that the federal government should or could do about it? That's the real question.

Click to expand...

It's not about what the government can do, consumers are in control. Companies do what consumers tell them to do. And not verbally, but with our spending.

If company A can make a $10 item for $3 by moving employment overseas, company B can make that part for $5 by reducing wages, and company C makes the part for $10 but pays their employees well, who are consumers going to buy from? By buying from company A, we are telling other businesses that they need to move production overseas, buying from B we are telling companies to cut wages. Nothing the government does will change that.

muciti said:

It's not about what the government can do, consumers are in control. Companies do what consumers tell them to do. And not verbally, but with our spending.

If company A can make a $10 item for $3 by moving employment overseas, company B can make that part for $5 by reducing wages, and company C makes the part for $10 but pays their employees well, who are consumers going to buy from? By buying from company A, we are telling other businesses that they need to move production overseas, buying from B we are telling companies to cut wages. Nothing the government does will change that.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that back when when it was foreign capital AND foreign labor, we had no problem whatsoever with protective policies, but when it is domestic capital and foreign labor, we have a completely different view of protectionist policies.

The solution to foreign labor is simple is theory, but nearly impossible politically, simply make rules for imports regarding the quality of life of foreign laborers, either the virtual slave conditions would have to improved (at substantial cost that would translate into higher import prices) or tariffs that would do the same.

There is nothing wrong with saying that we will not financially support exploitation.

The only other option would be for us American workers to accept conditions such that Chinese workers are forced to accept. Is that what we wish to become?

CaptinSarcastic said:

It's interesting that back when when it was foreign capital AND foreign labor, we had no problem whatsoever with protective policies, but when it is domestic capital and foreign labor, we have a completely different view of protectionist policies.

The solution to foreign labor is simple is theory, but nearly impossible politically, simply make rules for imports regarding the quality of life of foreign laborers, either the virtual slave conditions would have to improved (at substantial cost that would translate into higher import prices) or tariffs that would do the same.

There is nothing wrong with saying that we will not financially support exploitation.

The only other option would be for us American workers to accept conditions such that Chinese workers are forced to accept. Is that what we wish to become?

Click to expand...

I agree mostly but I would add a third option. We can, as consumers, make the choice not support those businesses that exploit the poor.

muciti said:

I agree mostly but I would add a third option. We can, as consumers, make the choice not support those businesses that exploit the poor.

Click to expand...

In theory, but the effect of foreign labor and other policies affecting labor work to reduce buying power such that for many they can only afford the foreign products. Another aspect is that SO much of our manufacturing has been outsourced to foreign labor that many products are not even available as made in American.

Still, wouldn't it be great if online retailers added a filter for American made or brick and mortar retailers put little flags on everything made in America? Of course that would embarass the hell out of Walmart and make Sam Walton spin like a dredel when we could plainly see how few American products Walmart sells.

iliveonramen said:

So Conservatives are against minimum wages that allow people to take care of themselves and against programs that alleviate the pain of low wages. It's amazing that "Go **** youself" Conservatism doesn't gain more traction with the voting public.

Click to expand...

Maybe some workers aren't worth $9 an hour. These will be the first to go, leading to more food stamps, welfare and debt.

Grant said:

Maybe some workers aren't worth $9 an hour. These will be the first to go, leading to more food stamps, welfare and debt.

Click to expand...

Better yet maybe some jobs are not worth $9 per hour...Take N. Dakota for example...My son who works at the Wal Mart around here, makes about $9.50 per hour, while in N. Dakota the same job is hiring at $15 per hour....Wages are fungible with what markets bear for the job. If a business is abusing their pay scale, they won't be in business for long because quality employees will not work for them.

Grant said:

Maybe some workers aren't worth $9 an hour. These will be the first to go, leading to more food stamps, welfare and debt.

Click to expand...

Sure...and what's the conservative answer to your statement? Let them make 5 dollars an hour and try and survive on that?

muciti said:

I agree mostly but I would add a third option. We can, as consumers, make the choice not support those businesses that exploit the poor.

Click to expand...

Those 'poor' are actually getting better off every because they have foreign investment. It is the locals who generally exploit the poor, not the multinationals.
All these people in third world countries would much rather work for Volvo, Nike, GE, etc. then in one of the sweat shops in their neighborhoods where conditions are really primitive.

After WW!! Europe was devastated and then communism took over and also made life miserable for much of the world. During that period, until the turn of the last century, the US was No. 1.

Now with the collapse of communism, and more free enterprise, Europe's recovery etc, there is far more competition then there used to be. Just being American and expecting success because of a circumstance of birth no longer applies. Americans, like everyone else, have to compete , educate themselves and work hard, something they once did better than anyone else anywhere.

Rather than erecting barriers they can, like everyone else, educate themselves, work harder, and meet the competition head on. This doesn't seem to be a satisfactory idea to many who would prefer shortcuts, but that has always been the only way.

iliveonramen said:

Sure...and what's the conservative answer to your statement? Let them make 5 dollars an hour and try and survive on that?

Click to expand...

People can probably survive on that if they are very cautious with their budgeting, but the idea is to work your way up from a $5 an hour job to one with more value. In order to do that some ambition is required, along with some education and vision.

Grant said:

People can probably survive on that if they are very cautious with their budgeting, but the idea is to work your way up from a $5 an hour job to one with more value. In order to do that some ambition is required, along with some education and vision.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what poor folk need, the knowledge on how to budget less than 900 bucks a month and the typical platitudes on how to better themsleves.

iliveonramen said:

I'm sure that's what poor folk need, the knowledge on how to budget less than 900 bucks a month and the typical platitudes on how to better themsleves.

Click to expand...

Nope. They "need" to be able to live a (lower?) middle class lifestyle on any full time employment, but generally must have minor children to "qualify". This is what we are constantly told by the left is "fair". They "need" to be able to buy medical care insurance for the "fair" price of 2% to 4% of their income and to spend no more than 33% of that income on "housing" expenses. Most of our income based social programs seek to turn ANY wage into a living wage - so long as dependents are involved.

Grant said:

Those 'poor' are actually getting better off every because they have foreign investment. It is the locals who generally exploit the poor, not the multinationals.
All these people in third world countries would much rather work for Volvo, Nike, GE, etc. then in one of the sweat shops in their neighborhoods where conditions are really primitive.

Click to expand...

Those people want to be working there because they have no other alternatives. You can make $0.10 at one sweat shop and $0.20 at another. Yes, the $0.20 an hour is better than the $0.10 but that doesn't make it good nor does it make it right.

Now with the collapse of communism, and more free enterprise, Europe's recovery etc, there is far more competition then there used to be. Just being American and expecting success because of a circumstance of birth no longer applies. Americans, like everyone else, have to compete , educate themselves and work hard, something they once did better than anyone else anywhere.

Click to expand...

Please explain to me how one "competes" with slave shop wages and labor in other countries. Are you suggesting that in order to maintain employment that American workers should be working under the same conditions?

Rather than erecting barriers they can, like everyone else, educate themselves, work harder, and meet the competition head on. This doesn't seem to be a satisfactory idea to many who would prefer shortcuts, but that has always been the only way.

Click to expand...

You really believe that Americans should lower themselves to horrors taking place around the world rather than support the values we fought for?

iliveonramen said:

I'm sure that's what poor folk need, the knowledge on how to budget less than 900 bucks a month and the typical platitudes on how to better themsleves.

Click to expand...

You don't agree budgeting is important?

Which 'platitudes' do you follow?

muciti said:

Those people want to be working there because they have no other alternatives. You can make $0.10 at one sweat shop and $0.20 at another. Yes, the $0.20 an hour is better than the $0.10 but that doesn't make it good nor does it make it right.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately neither you or I can decide what is good and right in this world as far as a persons value is concerned. Whenever we hire someone we are hiring them in the expectation that we will profit from their labors, thought not necessarily in financial sense. If that profit, or satisfaction, isn't there than we will simply not hire them. You'd probably react the same way if someone said they wanted you to pay them more than you felt they were worth. Therefore its not a matter of good or bad but of value.

Please explain to me how one "competes" with slave shop wages and labor in other countries. Are you suggesting that in order to maintain employment that American workers should be working under the same conditions?

Click to expand...

Not at all. You compete by having a better educated and motivated work force. The better treatment a person receives the more likely they are to respond with benefits to the employer. Most successful employers know and understand that. It is counterproductive to mistreat good employees.

You really believe that Americans should lower themselves to horrors taking place around the world rather than support the values we fought for?

Click to expand...

No.

Grant said:

You don't agree budgeting is important?

Which 'platitudes' do you follow?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not important I don't think that's the issue with folks in poverty. Even if you're eeking out a living and budgeting perfectly you have zero lattitude for stuff life inevitably throws at you. Your radiator goes out, a pipe busts, you get injured or sick whatever. When you're treading water things like that drown you.

Well I generally follow the idea of helping thy neighbor.

ttwtt78640 said:

Nope. They "need" to be able to live a (lower?) middle class lifestyle on any full time employment, but generally must have minor children to "qualify". This is what we are constantly told by the left is "fair". They "need" to be able to buy medical care insurance for the "fair" price of 2% to 4% of their income and to spend no more than 33% of that income on "housing" expenses. Most of our income based social programs seek to turn ANY wage into a living wage - so long as dependents are involved.

Click to expand...

It's not that you need minor children to qualify it's just that the number of dependents you have is taken into consideration. Raising yourself on 14,000 a year is drastically different than raising yourself and a depedent on the same salary don't you agree?

Ultimately...what do you advocate ttwtt? No minimum wage (force employees to pay livable wage) and no assistance? I could see being for one and not the other, no minimum wage but government assistance to balance out or minimum wage that's a livable wage but no assistance. Having neither though?

iliveonramen said:

I'm not saying it's not important I don't think that's the issue with folks in poverty. Even if you're eeking out a living and budgeting perfectly you have zero lattitude for stuff life inevitably throws at you. Your radiator goes out, a pipe busts, you get injured or sick whatever. When you're treading water things like that drown you.

Well I generally follow the idea of helping thy neighbor.

Click to expand...

Good for you. It's a good philosophy and certainly not a platitude.

I'm sure this has been mentioned (and ignored by partisans), but this is normal in the wake of a major recession. Welfare rolls and recipients are going to continue to go up as long as we cling to the trickle down fantasy. For 3 decades, wealth and money have been moving to upper income brackets and then moved out of the country. With the gutting of the manufacturing sector, moving assembly lines overseas, 10%-20% unemployment is to be expected. Why would companies hire here, when they can find labor for pennies elsewhere?

Standard wholesale markup is 40%, iPhone 5 is selling for a 50% wholesale markup in China, but Apple makes a killing over here. American consumers pay for the lavish Apple offices, VP bonuses and salaries. Americans get paid less and overcharged more.

Redistribution has to stop being a bad word. RW pundits have done a terrific job of associating taxes & government spending with communism and marxism. Like building/retrofitting a bridge or building is "marxist". A bridge that will speed up the flow of goods and consumption. Is paying your credit card bill Marxist? Then why is raising taxes on the wealthy to pay down the debt incurred through two unfunded wars and an unfunded medicare expansion? The Koch brothers don't want to pay for safety nets maintain a standard of living for their customer base.

Grant said:

Good for you. It's a good philosophy and certainly not a platitude.

Click to expand...

Well you generally don't ask someone to provide a platitude so I provided the guiding philosophy behind my views.

The whole idea of telling someone poor, probably working a fulltime job or 2 they need to have vision and ambition is pretty meaningless. It's pretty condescending..."oh ****...if only I had a little more vision I wouldn't be working hard for peanuts".

Grant said:

Unfortunately neither you or I can decide what is good and right in this world as far as a persons value is concerned. Whenever we hire someone we are hiring them in the expectation that we will profit from their labors, thought not necessarily in financial sense. If that profit, or satisfaction, isn't there than we will simply not hire them. You'd probably react the same way if someone said they wanted you to pay them more than you felt they were worth. Therefore its not a matter of good or bad but of value.

Click to expand...

You are partially right. It is not up to you and I to decide, it is up to all consumers. But you and I are included in that. Of course when we hire someone we are going to profit from their labors. You cannot find anywhere where I said differently. Making a generic statement like that doesnt change the working conditions or exploitation that happens around the world. A fair analogy here would be to take a man who is starving. Eventually he will become more and more desperate for that food. You can probably get him to do anything you want for a piece of bread. He would probably work for you all day for that bread. The man is getting something in his stomach that he desperately needs, but does that make it ok for you to exploit him?

Not at all. You compete by having a better educated and motivated work force. The better treatment a person receives the more likely they are to respond with benefits to the employer. Most successful employers know and understand that. It is counterproductive to mistreat good employees.

Click to expand...

In a good environment where people have choices this may be a true statement. But this is becoming less and less true. Many employers dont give a **** about their employees. Whatever it is you do for work, it doesnt matter what it is, put an ad up in the paper, craigslist or anywhere saying you are hiring. You will get hundreds of applicants. People will line up for the chance. Many of them qualified and over qualified for it. Your employer will replace you, quickly, without hesitation and it will mean nothing to them. No matter how pissed you are about your benefits, there are people so desperate by our job market they will work for half of what you were getting and none of the benefits.

No.

Click to expand...

If I misunderstood, explain to me what you meant.

iliveonramen said:

Well you generally don't ask someone to provide a platitude so I provided the guiding philosophy behind my views.

The whole idea of telling someone poor, probably working a fulltime job or 2 they need to have vision and ambition is pretty meaningless. It's pretty condescending..."oh ****...if only I had a little more vision I wouldn't be working hard for peanuts".

Click to expand...

It is easier to blame the poor for being poor than it is to see how our spending habits and selfishness contribute toward it. A lot of people love being pissed about entitlements, but they feel they are entitled to cheap labor and they feel they are entitled to exploit the poor and desperate for their gains.

iliveonramen said:

It's not that you need minor children to qualify it's just that the number of dependents you have is taken into consideration. Raising yourself on 14,000 a year is drastically different than raising yourself and a depedent on the same salary don't you agree?

Ultimately...what do you advocate ttwtt? No minimum wage (force employees to pay livable wage) and no assistance? I could see being for one and not the other, no minimum wage but government assistance to balance out or minimum wage that's a livable wage but no assistance. Having neither though?

Click to expand...

I advocate no federal income based assistance for any able bodied adult. Unlike the federal gov't, that depends on borrowing over $3 billion per day, states would (could?) not be nearly so generous (foolish?) as to simply support those that can (will?) not support themselves. Working to support oneself (and any dependents) should not be simply an "option" for any non-disabled person. Since the introduction of the federal "great society" social programs of the 1960's the out of wedlock birthrate has soared such that now 30% of white, 50% of hispanic and 70% of black children are now born out of wedlock. This may be great for getting demorat votes, but hurts the nation as a whole. We, as a nation, cannot continue to support 46 million people with federal income "assistance" until "things get better".

iliveonramen said:

Well you generally don't ask someone to provide a platitude so I provided the guiding philosophy behind my views.

The whole idea of telling someone poor, probably working a fulltime job or 2 they need to have vision and ambition is pretty meaningless. It's pretty condescending..."oh ****...if only I had a little more vision I wouldn't be working hard for peanuts".

Click to expand...

What's true is that some people don't have vision, or ambition, and allow their lives to drift. They will always be with us, and there is little anyone can do about it. In a free country you get to live your life your own way and we should not be condemned unless we behave immorally or illegally. I have poor people working for ma at this very moment, but they are certainly not unhappy. Quite the opposite in fact.

You don't have to be rich or poor to be happy but some people have allowed envy to take over their lives, and unhappiness inevitably follows.