States Where People Make More on Welfare than Minimum Wage

[Lewdog]

Simple solution...

Eliminate welfare. Problem solved.

Corporations should pay back their welfare received and fund social welfare they caused.

A corporation is, for legal purposes, an individual entity.

So, as long as we have a welfare system for individuals, corporations are entitled to it.

At least when corporations get welfare, they don't spend it on malt liquor and crack.

No, they spend it on expensive liquor, prostitutes, and cocaine.

 

[Missourian]

Truck driver...paid training...begging for drivers.

Trucker shortage shows no signs of slowing down | Seattle Times

$41,000 average per year.

Find one of those jobs and post it.

Took 10 seconds...first place I looked... $50,000 per year, regoinal out of St. Louis...three months experience required.

DriveJBHunt.com - Jobs for Truck Drivers at J.B. Hunt

From you link: "While pay methods do vary by operating group and job type, one thing is certain - when you drive with J.B. Hunt, your paycheck is a guaranteed delivery."

Which means maybe $56k/yr.

You're a fool.

operating group...as in regional, over the road, team, specialized. Job type...as in flatbed, dry van, tanker, reefer or intermodal.

This is my industry. $40k is average starting pay. I'll do the math for you if you like. Beginning pay .32 cents per mile, 2500 per week, 50 weeks a year. That's with no stop pay, no layover pay, no Northeast surcharge, just straight pay first day out of training.

40 grand.

Then you buy your own truck a year later, get paid a percentage, and you're making $2.50 a mile.

Pay yourself 50 cents a mile, a dollar for the truck (maintenance, repair, replacement) and 33 cents per mile to fuel...that leaves 62 cents per mile to go toward your second ... etcetera ...

 

[fncceo]

Simple solution...

Eliminate welfare. Problem solved.

Corporations should pay back their welfare received and fund social welfare they caused.

A corporation is, for legal purposes, an individual entity.

So, as long as we have a welfare system for individuals, corporations are entitled to it.

At least when corporations get welfare, they don't spend it on malt liquor and crack.

No, they spend it on expensive liquor, prostitutes, and cocaine.

So, wisely then.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I found this article where people make more money being on welfare than working minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher... it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs, and only people that HAVE to be on welfare would be.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

 

[Lewdog]

I found this article where people make more money being on welfare than working minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher... it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs, and only people that HAVE to be on welfare would be.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Glad to see the point went over your head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I found this article where people make more money being on welfare than working minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher... it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs, and only people that HAVE to be on welfare would be.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

And yet again! Every worker that isn't a degreed/certificate worker is low skilled.

Especially the less than 3% that make minimum wage or less.

 

[Muhammed]

I found this article where people make more money being on welfare than working minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher... it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs, and only people that HAVE to be on welfare would be.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

The people who are on a perpetual cycle of welfare" are scamming the system.

Enforce the law and they will cease to exist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I found this article where people make more money being on welfare than working minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher... it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs, and only people that HAVE to be on welfare would be.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Glad to see the point went over your head.

You're whining that we need to increase the minimum wage...to reduce welfare.
I'm trying to get you to understand that pricing low skilled workers out of the job market will increase welfare costs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lowering welfare benefits makes much more sense for the taxpayers.

Only if you're a fucking baby boomer sociopath.

You do know that every dollar of social welfare puts $1.70 back into the economy.

You do know that every dollar of social welfare puts $1.70 back into the economy.

Excellent liberal math!

How much extra social welfare spending do we need to balance the budget?

 

[Lewdog]

I found this article where people make more money being on welfare than working minimum wage. This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher... it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs, and only people that HAVE to be on welfare would be.

States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Glad to see the point went over your head.

You're whining that we need to increase the minimum wage...to reduce welfare.
I'm trying to get you to understand that pricing low skilled workers out of the job market will increase welfare costs.

I already explained this. Welfare is based on the cost of being able to live. In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is why the minimum wage needs to be higher..

Of course! The best way to help low-skilled Americans is to price them out of the job market.

Why didn't I think of that?

it would do wonders on saving the government money on welfare programs,

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Glad to see the point went over your head.

You're whining that we need to increase the minimum wage...to reduce welfare.
I'm trying to get you to understand that pricing low skilled workers out of the job market will increase welfare costs.

I already explained this. Welfare is based on the cost of being able to live. In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

Low skilled workers aren't productive enough to justify a "livable wage".
Mandating that they receive a "livable wage" regardless will result in less low skilled employment.
That will result in more welfare expenses.

 

[Lewdog]

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for. At least when people get laid off, it means they WANTED TO WORK... verses being part of a perpetual cycle of families that are on welfare and then their kids, and then their kids, and then their kids... and so on.

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Glad to see the point went over your head.

You're whining that we need to increase the minimum wage...to reduce welfare.
I'm trying to get you to understand that pricing low skilled workers out of the job market will increase welfare costs.

I already explained this. Welfare is based on the cost of being able to live. In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

Low skilled workers aren't productive enough to justify a "livable wage".
Mandating that they receive a "livable wage" regardless will result in less low skilled employment.
That will result in more welfare expenses.

Says who? You need low skilled workers. The U.S. needs low skilled workers... Without low skilled workers, you would have to do their job that you don't want to do. So because of that they deserve their own piece of the pie.

 

[OnePercenter]

Truck driver...paid training...begging for drivers.

Trucker shortage shows no signs of slowing down | Seattle Times

$41,000 average per year.

Find one of those jobs and post it.

Took 10 seconds...first place I looked... $50,000 per year, regoinal out of St. Louis...three months experience required.

DriveJBHunt.com - Jobs for Truck Drivers at J.B. Hunt

From you link: "While pay methods do vary by operating group and job type, one thing is certain - when you drive with J.B. Hunt, your paycheck is a guaranteed delivery."

Which means maybe $56k/yr.

You're a fool.

So you think twenty million illegals aren't living in states that have declared sanctuary cities... Got it.

As for three or four of the states I note listed I'm going with they have large Native American nations in them so the welfare difference is substantial enough to offset the figures presented.

So just where are all those illegals living? Iowa?

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

Which has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Getting laid off of work is what welfare is meant for.

Yup.

When minimum wage workers get laid off, does the government spend more or less on welfare?

Glad to see the point went over your head.

You're whining that we need to increase the minimum wage...to reduce welfare.
I'm trying to get you to understand that pricing low skilled workers out of the job market will increase welfare costs.

I already explained this. Welfare is based on the cost of being able to live. In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

Low skilled workers aren't productive enough to justify a "livable wage".
Mandating that they receive a "livable wage" regardless will result in less low skilled employment.
That will result in more welfare expenses.

Says who? You need low skilled workers. The U.S. needs low skilled workers... Without low skilled workers, you would have to do their job that you don't want to do. So because of that they deserve their own piece of the pie.

Says who?

Says economics.
Says the market.

You need low skilled workers.

Absolutely.

Without low skilled workers, you would have to do their job that you don't want to do.

Or, we'd have to build a machine to do their job.

So because of that they deserve their own piece of the pie.

For sure. Until the government mandates an unrealistic wage which results in their unemployment.

 

[OnePercenter]

Simple solution...

Eliminate welfare. Problem solved.

Corporations should pay back their welfare received and fund social welfare they caused.

A corporation is, for legal purposes, an individual entity.

So, as long as we have a welfare system for individuals, corporations are entitled to it.

At least when corporations get welfare, they don't spend it on malt liquor and crack.

Corporate welfare goes directly into the pockets of investors who spend it on liquor, pot, and sugar babies. My guess you forgot whom your debating with?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simple solution...

Eliminate welfare. Problem solved.

Corporations should pay back their welfare received and fund social welfare they caused.

A corporation is, for legal purposes, an individual entity.

So, as long as we have a welfare system for individuals, corporations are entitled to it.

At least when corporations get welfare, they don't spend it on malt liquor and crack.

Corporate welfare goes directly into the pockets of investors who spend it on liquor, pot, and sugar babies. My guess you forgot whom your debating with?

Is he debating with a guy who still claims his "trust" allows him to pay a single digit tax rate? DERP!

 

[OnePercenter]

Simple solution...

Eliminate welfare. Problem solved.

Corporations should pay back their welfare received and fund social welfare they caused.

A corporation is, for legal purposes, an individual entity.

So, as long as we have a welfare system for individuals, corporations are entitled to it.

At least when corporations get welfare, they don't spend it on malt liquor and crack.

No, they spend it on expensive liquor, prostitutes, and cocaine.

Not so much coke anymore. Prescription opiates has replace it. Ask Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Lewdog]

Glad to see the point went over your head.

You're whining that we need to increase the minimum wage...to reduce welfare.
I'm trying to get you to understand that pricing low skilled workers out of the job market will increase welfare costs.

I already explained this. Welfare is based on the cost of being able to live. In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

In order to get more people off of welfare the minimum wage needs to become a "livable wage."

Low skilled workers aren't productive enough to justify a "livable wage".
Mandating that they receive a "livable wage" regardless will result in less low skilled employment.
That will result in more welfare expenses.

Says who? You need low skilled workers. The U.S. needs low skilled workers... Without low skilled workers, you would have to do their job that you don't want to do. So because of that they deserve their own piece of the pie.

Says who?

Says economics.
Says the market.

You need low skilled workers.

Absolutely.

Without low skilled workers, you would have to do their job that you don't want to do.

Or, we'd have to build a machine to do their job.

So because of that they deserve their own piece of the pie.

For sure. Until the government mandates an unrealistic wage which results in their unemployment.

Go ahead, build a machine to pick up your trash. Build a machine to clean your hotel room... build a machine to cut tobacco.

There are numerous jobs in the customer service and hospitality fields that can never be done by machines. Your argument holds no water.

 

[OnePercenter]

Simple solution...

Eliminate welfare. Problem solved.

Corporations should pay back their welfare received and fund social welfare they caused.

A corporation is, for legal purposes, an individual entity.

So, as long as we have a welfare system for individuals, corporations are entitled to it.

At least when corporations get welfare, they don't spend it on malt liquor and crack.

Corporate welfare goes directly into the pockets of investors who spend it on liquor, pot, and sugar babies. My guess you forgot whom your debating with?

Is he debating with a guy who still claims his "trust" allows him to pay a single digit tax rate? DERP!

Still reeling over the fact that tax rules benefit corporations and the wealthy?

 

[fncceo]

you forgot whom your debating with?

You forgot the difference between debate and mockery.