LG to raise washing machine prices amid new Trump tariffs

[<alt>doxygen]

The "safety net" is simply a goofy way to make equal (low wage) work result in in unequal pay. It is better than the "living wage" (make a McJob into a McCareer?) idea but not by much.

There are a lot of components to the "safety net". Do you think it's all bad and a net negative for society and the economy? Just specific programs?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The "safety net" is simply a goofy way to make equal (low wage) work result in in unequal pay. It is better than the "living wage" (make a McJob into a McCareer?) idea but not by much.

A safety is an attempt to ensure that losing your job or getting sick doesn't mean you have to turn tricks to eat.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There are a lot of components to the "safety net". Do you think it's all bad and a net negative for society and the economy? Just specific programs?

It is bad to pay (or tax) two workers doing the exactly same job differently based upon their needs (in many cases determined by household size). The idea that equal pay for equal work is somehow bad or unfair, and thus must be "fixed" by federal government income redistribution schemes, is very bad public policy and, IMHO, conflicts with equal protection of the law.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is not exactly in line with free market capitalism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A safety is an attempt to ensure that losing your job or getting sick doesn't mean you have to turn tricks to eat.

No, that is not what much of the "safety net" is about. What I am referring to are programs that have nothing to do with losing your job, being disabled, being elderly or getting sick. You do not deserve a raise, lower rent or free medical care insurance simply because you have more dependents than your coworker does.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

It is bad to pay (or tax) two workers doing the exactly same job differently based upon their needs (in many cases determined by household size). The idea that equal pay for equal work is somehow bad or unfair, and thus must be "fixed" by federal government income redistribution schemes, is very bad public policy and, IMHO, conflicts with equal protection of the law.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is not exactly in line with free market capitalism.

Agree with everything you wrote. None of that fits within the role of a "safety net" as I see it.

I do think that society has a responsibility to help people who are too old and infirm to work or who can't work because of physical or mental disability. The positive of the SS structure (ideally, anyway) is that everyone pays in and you get to take advantage of it later if/when you need it. That the program has been mismanaged and robbed by our government is beside the basic point.

 

[chuckiechan]

A safety is an attempt to ensure that losing your job or getting sick doesn't mean you have to turn tricks to eat.

True. It was meant to be temporary until you were on your feet, or if you died to help your family. It was never meant to be a second paycheck sent to Mexico because you work cash and eat rice and beans and sleep on a sofa for $100 a week.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Agree with everything you wrote. None of that fits within the role of a "safety net" as I see it.

I do think that society has a responsibility to help people who are too old and infirm to work or who can't work because of physical or mental disability. The positive of the SS structure (ideally, anyway) is that everyone pays in and you get to take advantage of it later if/when you need it. That the program has been mismanaged and robbed by our government is beside the basic point.

I'm referring to the "means tested" nonsense that folks call the "safety net" (great society program?) which is based on household size and household income where young and able loafers can get a part-time McJob (and treat it as a McCareer) since that satisfies their at least 20 hours/week "work requirement" and others must help support them "for the good of the children" that they beget at public expense and raise to be future loafers, dope dealers or gangsters, thus ensuring the next generation of criminals and low wage workers for life - not programs based on helping the elderly or disabled.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I'm referring to the "means tested" nonsense that folks call the "safety net" (great society program?) which is based on household size and household income where young and able loafers can get a part-time McJob (and treat it as a McCareer) since that satisfies their at least 20 hours/week "work requirement" and others must help support them "for the good of the children" that they beget at public expense and raise to be future loafers, dope dealers or gangsters, thus ensuring the next generation of criminals and low wage workers for life - not programs based on helping the elderly or disabled.

I think there's a bit of hyperbole in that, but I do agree with the basic point. I think the "great society" as a whole may have done more harm than good. The creation of a real "welfare state" is what I think your referring to, and that proved to be a bad idea. Though it was largely dismantled under Clinton/Newt, there are still elements of it around.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think there's a bit of hyperbole in that, but I do agree with the basic point. I think the "great society" as a whole may have done more harm than good. The creation of a real "welfare state" is what I think your referring to, and that proved to be a bad idea. Though it was largely dismantled under Clinton/Newt, there are still elements of it around.

That (bolded above) assertion is 100%, pure BS.

Most of the welfare programs were created over the past 50 years and all of them expanded their scope and reach over this timeframe. Yet despite the increase in spending, the poverty level has remained fairly constant at between 12% – 15% of the population. We have spent more and more money but have not lessened the number of people in poverty . Why? The reason is because our system is poorly designed as described below.

Poverty and spending over the years - Federal Safety Net

 

[<alt>doxygen]

That (bolded above) assertion is 100%, pure BS.



Poverty and spending over the years - Federal Safety Net

There are some interesting ideas in here.
Welfare Reform - Federal Safety Net

...although the writer does make a few assertions that are hand-waves that don't pass the sniff test, like:

Rollup the 13 welfare programs into a single program that pays cash to the poor and lifts them out of poverty. This would cost us $178 billion a year and would end poverty in America.

I saved the link and will read it more closely later.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There are some interesting ideas in here.
Welfare Reform - Federal Safety Net

...although the writer does make a few assertions that are hand-waves that don't pass the sniff test, like:


I saved the link and will read it more closely later.

That quoted claim is absolutely believable since you could use a "negative income tax" to do just that - eliminating all sorts of overhead involved in having multiple poverty programs. Poverty, as defined as having an annual household income below the FPL, could be "eliminated" by simply giving each poor household enough to be $1 over than that amount. Current "safety net" programs do quite a bit more than that - Medicaid alone is worth over $10K/year and is given to those that are only $1K (or less) below the FPL. Naturally, it does no good to do so long after the fact - your landlord or utility company won't wait until you get an annual tax refund to square them up. If the adjustment were made on a per paycheck (or monthly) basis then it might actually work.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

That quoted claim is absolutely believable since you could use a "negative income tax" to do just that - eliminating all sorts of overhead involved in having multiple poverty programs. Poverty, as defined as having an annual household income below the FPL, could be "eliminated" by simply giving each poor household enough to be $1 over than that amount. Current "safety net" programs do quite a bit more than that - Medicaid alone is worth over $10K/year and is given to those that are only $1K (or less) below the FPL. Naturally, it does no good to do so long after the fact - your landlord or utility company won't wait until you get an annual tax refund to square them up. If the adjustment were made on a per paycheck (or monthly) basis then it might actually work.

What you are saying is technically true, but take this one case I have more personally experience with than I wish was necessary.

FPL for an individual is 12,060.00
FPL Chart 2018 - Federal Poverty Level 2018 - See Where You Stand

We have an uncle on my wife's side who is old, basically deaf, and effectively not ambulatory. He's in a nursing home that costs about 4K/mo. The nursing home won't let him use an electric wheelchair we bough him - mentally incompetent - runs into people and things. He can't manage his own finances or medications. He can't move a manual wheelchair because both of his rotator cuffs are torn. 12,061.00/year would lift him out of technical poverty (a statistic), but it would not provide for the care he needs. That's one reason I called that statement a "hand-wave". It pretends that a check/voucher to bring everyone "out of poverty" will solve the problems associated with ending all of the so called safety net programs.

I have a lot of problems with Medicare/Medicaid and would like to find a good fix for them. I think doing that requires us to address the fact that they cost too much, mostly because a) medical care costs too much, and b) much of it is eaten by the elderly and chronically ill.

JMO, and I haven't read that whole site so I might be missing something that guy is proposing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What you are saying is technically true, but take this one case I have more personally experience with than I wish was necessary.

FPL for an individual is 12,060.00
FPL Chart 2018 - Federal Poverty Level 2018 - See Where You Stand

We have an uncle on my wife's side who is old, basically deaf, and effectively not ambulatory. He's in a nursing home that costs about 4K/mo. The nursing home won't let him use an electric wheelchair we bough him - mentally incompetent - runs into people and things. He can't manage his own finances or medications. He can't move a manual wheelchair because both of his rotator cuffs are torn. 12,061.00/year would lift him out of technical poverty (a statistic), but it would not provide for the care he needs. That's one reason I called that statement a "hand-wave". It pretends that a check/voucher to bring everyone "out of poverty" will solve the problems associated with ending all of the so called safety net programs.

I have a lot of problems with Medicare/Medicaid and would like to find a good fix for them. I think doing that requires us to address the fact that they cost too much, mostly because a) medical care costs too much, and b) much of it is eaten by the elderly and chronically ill.

JMO, and I haven't read that whole site so I might be missing something that guy is proposing.

Very good points. Obviously there is, and should be, a distinction between one that is physically and/or mentally able to care for themselves and one that is not. Too often many try to conflate the two which are entirely different. Your example, and my incapacitated 95 year old father, are obviously not capable of supporting themselves outside of an institution. Fortunately my father gets less expensive (at least what he must pay), yet high quality, care in the state veterans home.

The point being made was that too many "cliffs" exist in many of the current "safety net" systems - one either gets "free" Medicaid or no Medicaid at all which makes no sense. One can earn $1 "too much" and lose a rent subsidy worth thousands.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Very good points. Obviously there is, and should be, a distinction between one that is physically and/or mentally able to care for themselves and one that is not. Too often many try to conflate the two which are entirely different. Your example, and my incapacitated 95 year old father, are obviously not capable of supporting themselves outside of an institution. Fortunately my father gets less expensive (at least what he must pay), yet high quality, care in the state veterans home.

The point being made was that too many "cliffs" exist in many of the current "safety net" systems - one either gets "free" Medicaid or no Medicaid at all which makes no sense. One can earn $1 "too much" and lose a rent subsidy worth thousands.

I can bear personal witness to that. The uncle I was talking about had too much in assets to qualify for medicaid (~35K or so, plus some money from SS) and we had to rearrange that quickly so he could get into and stay in the facility where he's living. That "all or nothing", "you need to go bankrupt and then apply" stuff is absurd.

Medical technology is allowing us to live longer (recent opioid and suicide induced trends aside) and many end up like that. My mom is 88 and was diagnosed with Parkinson's last year. She and my stepfather are in an apartment in a retirement community, but she'll eventually need more and more assistance.