• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census figures show more than one-third of Americans receiving welfare benefits

imagep said:
More leisure time and less back breaking work is indeed a good thing.

Would you prefer to work longer hours to shorter hours? One of the things that most of us demand is leisure time. In a world where technology is rapidly increasing our ability to produce, there is no need for longer work hours, and filling our demand for leisure time only makes sense.

There is no reason for part time electricity, food or anything else, unless you believe that we will start to become less productive per work hour. We work far fewer hours today than we did 100 years ago, yet we have more today.

Sorry historic reality doesn't fit with your right wing outlook.
Click to expand...

Well, you are basically talking about hard workers v. lazy people, aren't you? Do I want to work shorter hours v. longer? Doesn't really matter as an individual, it matters what we do as a whole. (I usually work 55-60 or more hours a week). People desire to work to get things done and get what they want. There are those that don't want to work at all, and want everything handed to them. We call them democrats. (Really democrat voters, because they would switch to republicans in a heartbeat if they thought they could get more hand outs from them)

We will have part time electricity, etc... if people don't either work to provide it, and/or work to pay for it. It's not going to just be available because you want it, you have to work for it. Just demanding won't always work (or never, even if your left wing politician promises it).
 
Andalublue said:
It is, and a terrible indictment of American employers, letting the tax-payer pick up the slack for poverty-level wages. Pretty damning.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. Otherwise, the employer is not paying all the wages it owes to it's employees. Unless you are referring to a system other than capitalism.
 
Anthony60 said:
That doesn't even make sense. Otherwise, the employer is not paying all the wages it owes to it's employees. Unless you are referring to a system other than capitalism.
Click to expand...

I mean that, if a working person requires welfare payments or benefits to survive, her/his employers are paying too little. No one should work a full week and not be able to put a roof over their head, and food on the table. If they cannot do this, and the government has to step in to top-up with benefit payments, then it is the employer being subsidised, not the employee as, if welfare were not to pick up the slack, the employee would be unable to work for paltry wages and the employer would be unable to recruit without paying more. To my mind, all welfare paid to full-time working employees is corporate welfare to low-paying employers.

Simples. Never heard 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work'?
 
Sabanist said:
You likely will not receive what you paid in.
Click to expand...

Then it was not only a ponzi scheme, but another tax. So my payroll withholding is not what it states on my pay stub, but that plus another 7.5% ... Ain't that wonderful.
 
Andalublue said:
I mean that, if a working person requires welfare payments or benefits to survive, her/his employers are paying too little. No one should work a full week and not be able to put a roof over their head, and food on the table. If they cannot do this, and the government has to step in to top-up with benefit payments, then it is the employer being subsidised, not the employee as, if welfare were not to pick up the slack, the employee would be unable to work for paltry wages and the employer would be unable to recruit without paying more. To my mind, all welfare paid to full-time working employees is corporate welfare to low-paying employers.

Simples. Never heard 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work'?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of finding a different job? When one get's hired and they accept the job, that means that they accepted the pay agreed upon hiring to do the job...You don't get to get the job then cry that the pay is unfair...You don't OWN the job...If you don't like an aspect of a company you work for, find somewhere else...
 
My dad once told me that in the mid 60's, he worked a menial labor job in a large factory style bakery, making minimum wage, 40 hours per week. He said at that time, it was enough for him to live off of. He was able to afford rent, a cheap beater car, gas, food, etc.

Part of the problem is, wages have remained flat.

The other part of the problem is, as a society, we (americans) keep finding more and more things we NEED. Like cell phones. My dad never had to pay a cell phone bill. Today, they don't even have a line on the application for home phone, it just says cell. Try getting a job that pays you more than 14 bucks an hour where in the company CAN'T reach you 24/7...good luck. Internet is something else my dad never had to pay for. I didn't ask, but he also likely didn't have TV, and IF he did, he relied on rabbit ears for local programming. One more thing he never paid for.

Now, how many people on some form of assistance have one, or even all three of those things?

We have so many more things to spend our money on today than we did in the 60's. Life was just more basic then.

This isn't me saying that stagnant wages ISN'T an issue, because it certainly is. But it's not the ONLY issue.
 
j-mac said:
Ever heard of finding a different job? When one get's hired and they accept the job, that means that they accepted the pay agreed upon hiring to do the job...You don't get to get the job then cry that the pay is unfair...You don't OWN the job...If you don't like an aspect of a company you work for, find somewhere else...
Click to expand...

Did you join the military right out of high school?
 
KevinKohler said:
The other part of the problem is, as a society, we (americans) keep finding more and more things we NEED.
Click to expand...

Isn't it the entire raison d'etre of the advertising and media industries to convince people that they NEED the things that they otherwise might merely want? Generating, encouraging and pandering to rampant consumerism has been market capitalism's core strategy for decades now. It's like germ warfare - it's hardly fair or just to castigate someone for falling ill when they've been deliberately infected with a pathogen.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, you are basically talking about hard workers v. lazy people, aren't you? Do I want to work shorter hours v. longer? Doesn't really matter as an individual, it matters what we do as a whole. (I usually work 55-60 or more hours a week). People desire to work to get things done and get what they want. There are those that don't want to work at all, and want everything handed to them. We call them democrats. (Really democrat voters, because they would switch to republicans in a heartbeat if they thought they could get more hand outs from them)

We will have part time electricity, etc... if people don't either work to provide it, and/or work to pay for it. It's not going to just be available because you want it, you have to work for it. Just demanding won't always work (or never, even if your left wing politician promises it).
Click to expand...

Do we have part time electricity today? We work far fewer hours on average than we did when we started our first electrical power station. That's because fewer hours of human labor are required to produce each unit of electricity than ever before.

There was a time when something like 90% of workers worked in agriculture. Now 2% do. Yet we seem to have no lack of food. As technology increases our efficiency, there is less need to work long hours to have just as much or even more.
 
j-mac said:
Ever heard of finding a different job? When one get's hired and they accept the job, that means that they accepted the pay agreed upon hiring to do the job...You don't get to get the job then cry that the pay is unfair...You don't OWN the job...If you don't like an aspect of a company you work for, find somewhere else...
Click to expand...

It's a negotiating issue. When most of us are living pay check to pay check, we won't take much risk (we can't afford to), thus we fail to demand more than what we are offered. The concept that it is possible to negotiate higher compensation has never occurred to most workers.

Then many of us have the nerve to bash low wage employees for threatening to unionize or for protesting for higher wages. It amazes me that the same people who don't bat an eye when they hear about a CEO getting a five million dollar raise are the ones who complain about fast food workers trying to get $14/hr. Everyone deserves to be able to attempt to use whatever negotiating power they have to negotiate a better salary - not just the rich.
 
imagep said:
It's a negotiating issue. When most of us are living pay check to pay check, we won't take much risk (we can't afford to), thus we fail to demand more than what we are offered. The concept that it is possible to negotiate higher compensation has never occurred to most workers.

Then many of us have the nerve to bash low wage employees for threatening to unionize or for protesting for higher wages. It amazes me that the same people who don't bat an eye when they hear about a CEO getting a five million dollar raise are the ones who complain about fast food workers trying to get $14/hr. Everyone deserves to be able to attempt to use whatever negotiating power they have to negotiate a better salary - not just the rich.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that each individual should be able to negotiate their own pay, and if they choose to form a union to do so that's on them...But don't tell me if I don't want to give to a union then I don't have a right to do the job. If fast food workers want $14 per hour, then they shouldn't be fast food workers...My God, the price of a damned Big Mac meal is already too much money. Oh, and when the day comes that these workers do get to $14 per hour, watch out, 'Robo-burger' is coming....Check out Sheetz, and WaWa, or in our area QT.
 
imagep said:
I was 19 and was looking for a way to fund my education.
Click to expand...

I was like I said 21, living in Lansing MI. You couldn't get into GM without knowing someone at the time (early '80s), and we were coming out of the disaster that was the Carter economy....I was separated from my first wife, and really needed a change in my life path...Off I went.
 
j-mac said:
I don't disagree that each individual should be able to negotiate their own pay, and if they choose to form a union to do so that's on them...But don't tell me if I don't want to give to a union then I don't have a right to do the job. If fast food workers want $14 per hour, then they shouldn't be fast food workers...My God, the price of a damned Big Mac meal is already too much money. Oh, and when the day comes that these workers do get to $14 per hour, watch out, 'Robo-burger' is coming....Check out Sheetz, and WaWa, or in our area QT.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. Unionization is a good thing, except for laws that in some states give more power to the union than they would have from purely collective bargaining. Fair negotiating can only result when negotiating power is more or less equal. It's about balance.
 
j-mac said:
I was like I said 21, living in Lansing MI. You couldn't get into GM without knowing someone at the time (early '80s), and we were coming out of the disaster that was the Carter economy....I was separated from my first wife, and really needed a change in my life path...Off I went.
Click to expand...

Wow. Married and separated by age 21.

I have always felt that the military is the best opportunity for most young people. Gives them a more or less equal start in their careers, the life structure that they need, teaches respect and disipline. Not to mention the fact that you don't have to worry if your employer is going to be able to pay you, don't have to worry about insurance, or housing or being fed.
 
Andalublue said:
I mean that, if a working person requires welfare payments or benefits to survive, her/his employers are paying too little.
Click to expand...
No, that is not true. One has nothing to do with the other. The employer hires at the market rate for that job, they don't determine the value (or pay) for that job. The person would just not take the job at that rate.

No one should work a full week and not be able to put a roof over their head, and food on the table.
Click to expand...

That's just philosophy, nothing to do with a market economy.

If they cannot do this, and the government has to step in to top-up with benefit payments, then it is the employer being subsidised, not the employee as, if welfare were not to pick up the slack
Click to expand...
How is the employer being subsidised? They are paying the market rate for the job, they are not paying less that the job is worth. Do you shop around for products on the internet, and then choose the highest price for the exact same thing? Why should an employer do that?
the employee would be unable to work for paltry wages and the employer would be unable to recruit without paying more. To my mind, all welfare paid to full-time working employees is corporate welfare to low-paying employers.
Simples. Never heard 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work'?
Click to expand...
You are describing an Elizabeth Warren socialist economy, not a capatilist economy.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, that is not true. One has nothing to do with the other. The employer hires at the market rate for that job, they don't determine the value (or pay) for that job. The person would just not take the job at that rate.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The rates they are paying are not market rates at all. They are skewed by the willingness of the government to subsidise them with welfare. You're not seriously going to argue that modern capitalism operates through free trade, are you?

You are describing an Elizabeth Warren socialist economy, not a capatilist economy.
Click to expand...
I don't know who Elizabeth Warren is but, while I am 100% anti-neoliberalism, at least I can spell capitalist.
 
Anthony60 said:
[...] doubling the debt every few years, and with little or nothing to show for it, is not going to end well. [...]
Click to expand...
Possibly. Has that ever happened, or are you just making stuff up?
 
imagep said:
[...] I have always felt that the military is the best opportunity for most young people. Gives them a more or less equal start in their careers, the life structure that they need, teaches respect and disipline. Not to mention the fact that you don't have to worry if your employer is going to be able to pay you, don't have to worry about insurance, or housing or being fed.
Click to expand...
True, but since I hear stories about them qualifying for or being on welfare, doesn't that make the military part of the 'taker' problem? Shocking!

Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014
 
j-mac said:
[...] But don't tell me if I don't want to give to a union then I don't have a right to do the job. [...]
Click to expand...
If you don't want to give to the union then you don't have the right to the union job.

Don't be a taker... even worse, taking from your fellow co-workers instead of taking from the government :naughty
 
Karl said:
If you don't want to give to the union then you don't have the right to the union job.

Don't be a taker... even worse, taking from your fellow co-workers instead of taking from the government :naughty
Click to expand...

It's not the union's job; it's the employer's job opening...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom