Walmart on Welfare: We support their employees so they don't have to.

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

No, you are wrong. Walmart pays better than most other stores in the same business.

The left, loves to compare apples and oranges, in order to say Walmart is terrible. Let's compare Walmart to Costco, which is a completely different business model.

But if you compare Walmart to any other similar store, it's never 'worse', and sometimes it's better.

Glassdoor ndash Get Hired. Love Your Job.

I punched in, Krogers, Giant Eagle, Walmart, Target and Meijers. For all 5 stores, I looked at "Cashier".

Krogers: Ave Wage $7.99
Target: Ave wage $8.23
Meijer: Ave Wage $8.30
Giant Eagle: Ave Wage $8.57
Walmart: Ave Wage $8.59

By the way, employee satisfaction survey, shows 4 out of 5 stars, average response.

Now there are all the stores in my area. There are no others. Walmart has the highest pay of all of them.

You want to knock down the best paying job in my area. Are you helping the people here, or harming them?

True, I've said all thread long, Wal Mart wouldn't even make my top 50 list of wage offenders.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The fact that you are bringing up multiple unrelated strawman arguments, suggests that you know you lost this argument.

Back to the checks..... checks actually transfer money, from the account of the check owners, to the person given the check.

That's not how a stock works. I don't take a stock to a bank, and have them take money, from the company the share belongs to, and give it to me.

The only way the company gives you money for the stock, is only if the company does a stock buy back.

But outside of that, the whole purpose of selling stock is to gain the company money to expand the business. It doesn't cost the company anything to sell or give out stock. If it did, that would defeat the whole purpose of stock. And there is no 'stock production'. You don't hire a 'stock maker' in the back to pump out new stock. You simply 'issue' new stock. Doesn't cost you anything.

Somewhere in this thread there was actually a poster who believed that the company made money every time someone sold their stock to someone else.

Some people........................

What? What was their logic? Did they have an explanation for why they thought that?

I have no idea to be honest. It was so dumb that I just dropped the entire line of query. I mean after 5 posts of a person screaming that they are right about something so stupid....

 

[Andylusion]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

No, that's extremely realistic. That's exactly what we did in the mid-90s. You kick people off Welfare, and shockingly they tend to work. When people have to choose between working or starving... they tend to work. Read up on the 13 colonies of America. They had the same thing. The colonies were operated on a system of socialism. All the food produced, was pooled for the good of the entire colony. As a result people didn't work. Why work really hard, if all your labor is confiscated, and you can just eat what others produced?

So they ended that system, and assigned plots of land (ownership), to individual families. Suddenly people who formerly claimed to be sick, got up and worked. Women, and children all, walked out into the fields to sow seed. From the verge of starvation, they had a surplus of food the following year.

force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare

The problem here is, you don't seem to realize just how high the minimum wage would have to be, to eliminate the use of food stamps.

I am just $150 over the qualification for food stamps, and I earn $12/hr, and I'm single. (meaning the Biblical definition of single, no girl, no kids, nothing)

Eligibility Food and Nutrition Service
According to that page, a family of 4, can earn $20/hr, that's $41,600 a year, and still qualify for SNAP.

A family of 2, can earn $14/hr, which is $30,000 a year, and still qualify for food stamps.

A couple, with 6 kids, could earn $34/hr, or $70,000 a year, and STILL qualify for SNAP.

Do you realize what that means? The minimum wage would have to be far far above $15/hr to eliminate the use of food stamps.

There was another thread on this forum, about a lady who got SNAP. Turns out she had 5 kids.

The minimum wage would have to be $30/hr to kick her off the tax payer gravy train.

And here's the other side.... EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

In 2006, the average number of employees per Walmart store, was 330. By 2010, it was 270. Keep in mind, Walmart had record sales during that time.

So fewer and fewer jobs, as the minimum wage went up. This is normal, and universal. If the price of Cherios doubled, would you not expect the purchases of Cherios to go down? Well... why would you not think doubling the price of labor, would have the same effect?

So, you complain that people are on food stamps, while employed by Walmart....... well how many of the people UNEMPLOYED by Walmart are going to be on food stamps?

 

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

 

[House]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

No, that's extremely realistic. That's exactly what we did in the mid-90s. You kick people off Welfare, and shockingly they tend to work. When people have to choose between working or starving... they tend to work. Read up on the 13 colonies of America. They had the same thing. The colonies were operated on a system of socialism. All the food produced, was pooled for the good of the entire colony. As a result people didn't work. Why work really hard, if all your labor is confiscated, and you can just eat what others produced?

So they ended that system, and assigned plots of land (ownership), to individual families. Suddenly people who formerly claimed to be sick, got up and worked. Women, and children all, walked out into the fields to sow seed. From the verge of starvation, they had a surplus of food the following year.

force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare

The problem here is, you don't seem to realize just how high the minimum wage would have to be, to eliminate the use of food stamps.

I am just $150 over the qualification for food stamps, and I earn $12/hr, and I'm single. (meaning the Biblical definition of single, no girl, no kids, nothing)

Eligibility Food and Nutrition Service
According to that page, a family of 4, can earn $20/hr, that's $41,600 a year, and still qualify for SNAP.

A family of 2, can earn $14/hr, which is $30,000 a year, and still qualify for food stamps.

A couple, with 6 kids, could earn $34/hr, or $70,000 a year, and STILL qualify for SNAP.

Do you realize what that means? The minimum wage would have to be far far above $15/hr to eliminate the use of food stamps.

There was another thread on this forum, about a lady who got SNAP. Turns out she had 5 kids.

The minimum wage would have to be $30/hr to kick her off the tax payer gravy train.

And here's the other side.... EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

In 2006, the average number of employees per Walmart store, was 330. By 2010, it was 270. Keep in mind, Walmart had record sales during that time.

So fewer and fewer jobs, as the minimum wage went up. This is normal, and universal. If the price of Cherios doubled, would you not expect the purchases of Cherios to go down? Well... why would you not think doubling the price of labor, would have the same effect?

So, you complain that people are on food stamps, while employed by Walmart....... well how many of the people UNEMPLOYED by Walmart are going to be on food stamps?

No, no sir. You misread me. I would have welfare for ONE person. And that's it. If you have two people in the house, you should damn well be earning enough to support three people. If you choose to bring kids into a situation where you can't afford them, you are charged with neglect and your kids will see you when you get out of jail.

Minimum wage should support that ONE person, and that ONE person only. I would eliminate welfare for families altogether except for A) The truly unable to work and B) some sort of system to help those who take in neglected kids who's parents are now in jail.
That's it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

 

[initforme]

So we don't raise the min wage. That's fine. And people working at Walmart get food stamps. Big whoop. I have no problem with that.

 

[House]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

 

[Andylusion]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

No, that's extremely realistic. That's exactly what we did in the mid-90s. You kick people off Welfare, and shockingly they tend to work. When people have to choose between working or starving... they tend to work. Read up on the 13 colonies of America. They had the same thing. The colonies were operated on a system of socialism. All the food produced, was pooled for the good of the entire colony. As a result people didn't work. Why work really hard, if all your labor is confiscated, and you can just eat what others produced?

So they ended that system, and assigned plots of land (ownership), to individual families. Suddenly people who formerly claimed to be sick, got up and worked. Women, and children all, walked out into the fields to sow seed. From the verge of starvation, they had a surplus of food the following year.

force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare

The problem here is, you don't seem to realize just how high the minimum wage would have to be, to eliminate the use of food stamps.

I am just $150 over the qualification for food stamps, and I earn $12/hr, and I'm single. (meaning the Biblical definition of single, no girl, no kids, nothing)

Eligibility Food and Nutrition Service
According to that page, a family of 4, can earn $20/hr, that's $41,600 a year, and still qualify for SNAP.

A family of 2, can earn $14/hr, which is $30,000 a year, and still qualify for food stamps.

A couple, with 6 kids, could earn $34/hr, or $70,000 a year, and STILL qualify for SNAP.

Do you realize what that means? The minimum wage would have to be far far above $15/hr to eliminate the use of food stamps.

There was another thread on this forum, about a lady who got SNAP. Turns out she had 5 kids.

The minimum wage would have to be $30/hr to kick her off the tax payer gravy train.

And here's the other side.... EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

In 2006, the average number of employees per Walmart store, was 330. By 2010, it was 270. Keep in mind, Walmart had record sales during that time.

So fewer and fewer jobs, as the minimum wage went up. This is normal, and universal. If the price of Cherios doubled, would you not expect the purchases of Cherios to go down? Well... why would you not think doubling the price of labor, would have the same effect?

So, you complain that people are on food stamps, while employed by Walmart....... well how many of the people UNEMPLOYED by Walmart are going to be on food stamps?

No, no sir. You misread me. I would have welfare for ONE person. And that's it. If you have two people in the house, you should damn well be earning enough to support three people. If you choose to bring kids into a situation where you can't afford them, you are charged with neglect and your kids will see you when you get out of jail.

Minimum wage should support that ONE person, and that ONE person only. I would eliminate welfare for families altogether except for A) The truly unable to work and B) some sort of system to help those who take in neglected kids who's parents are now in jail.
That's it.

That's more unrealistic than my proposal. That said, if we did have that system, then there is nothing we need to change in the minimum wage, but to enact your system.

Practically none of the people on welfare are single, with no kids, who live alone. And the cost to living separately to gain welfare, would far exceed the value of the welfare.

So forget the minimum wage, let's just enact your welfare plan. I wager there would be few than half a million left collecting welfare under your system, regardless of minimum wage.

 

[Contumacious]

If you really want to have a conversation about Welfare and who the real "takers" are -- let's start with this.

Talk to you congressman. Tell him to ABOLISH the welfare state.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

No, that's extremely realistic. That's exactly what we did in the mid-90s. You kick people off Welfare, and shockingly they tend to work. When people have to choose between working or starving... they tend to work. Read up on the 13 colonies of America. They had the same thing. The colonies were operated on a system of socialism. All the food produced, was pooled for the good of the entire colony. As a result people didn't work. Why work really hard, if all your labor is confiscated, and you can just eat what others produced?

So they ended that system, and assigned plots of land (ownership), to individual families. Suddenly people who formerly claimed to be sick, got up and worked. Women, and children all, walked out into the fields to sow seed. From the verge of starvation, they had a surplus of food the following year.

force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare

The problem here is, you don't seem to realize just how high the minimum wage would have to be, to eliminate the use of food stamps.

I am just $150 over the qualification for food stamps, and I earn $12/hr, and I'm single. (meaning the Biblical definition of single, no girl, no kids, nothing)

Eligibility Food and Nutrition Service
According to that page, a family of 4, can earn $20/hr, that's $41,600 a year, and still qualify for SNAP.

A family of 2, can earn $14/hr, which is $30,000 a year, and still qualify for food stamps.

A couple, with 6 kids, could earn $34/hr, or $70,000 a year, and STILL qualify for SNAP.

Do you realize what that means? The minimum wage would have to be far far above $15/hr to eliminate the use of food stamps.

There was another thread on this forum, about a lady who got SNAP. Turns out she had 5 kids.

The minimum wage would have to be $30/hr to kick her off the tax payer gravy train.

And here's the other side.... EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

In 2006, the average number of employees per Walmart store, was 330. By 2010, it was 270. Keep in mind, Walmart had record sales during that time.

So fewer and fewer jobs, as the minimum wage went up. This is normal, and universal. If the price of Cherios doubled, would you not expect the purchases of Cherios to go down? Well... why would you not think doubling the price of labor, would have the same effect?

So, you complain that people are on food stamps, while employed by Walmart....... well how many of the people UNEMPLOYED by Walmart are going to be on food stamps?

No, no sir. You misread me. I would have welfare for ONE person. And that's it. If you have two people in the house, you should damn well be earning enough to support three people. If you choose to bring kids into a situation where you can't afford them, you are charged with neglect and your kids will see you when you get out of jail.

Minimum wage should support that ONE person, and that ONE person only. I would eliminate welfare for families altogether except for A) The truly unable to work and B) some sort of system to help those who take in neglected kids who's parents are now in jail.
That's it.

That's more unrealistic than my proposal. That said, if we did have that system, then there is nothing we need to change in the minimum wage, but to enact your system.

Practically none of the people on welfare are single, with no kids, who live alone. And the cost to living separately to gain welfare, would far exceed the value of the welfare.

So forget the minimum wage, let's just enact your welfare plan. I wager there would be few than half a million left collecting welfare under your system, regardless of minimum wage.

Oh, were' talking dream system here? Then I'd do away with welfare altogether. Work fare. Which means we'd still need a minimum wage because that is what I would pay peple to work for their local communities in exchange for cash to buy food or whatever they wanted to do with it. I'd give NO ONE a free ride.

And yes, I'd take kids from people. Neglect is neglect.

 

[Andylusion]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

Actually.... um. Hate to say it.... but I think he's right. (unless I don't understand his position)
Which is bothersome, because as you've noticed, he really is a jerk.

But, according to the HHS, the poverty guidelines are in fact adjusted to inflation, and one of the factors in inflation, is of course food.

Now you have correctly pointed out that the price of beef, specifically, has quadrupled, while the poverty level has not, even while the minimum wage has gone up.

The issue there, is that the price increase is never uniform. Some foods are highly labor intensive, and others are not.

I've said this before, but I think there's something fishy with the inflation numbers. Because prices everywhere I look, have drastically gone up since 2006. Everything is vastly more expensive, than during the early to mid 2000s. Gasoline, my electricity bills are higher. Natural gas is fairly steady. Food is way more expensive. Just getting an oil change done on my car, is now way more expensive.

Yet the official inflation numbers are really low. So something is wrong. I don't know what, but something is fishy about that.

But..... what should happen, if the numbers are right, is that when you increase the minimum wage, the price of everything should go up (which again, it has). Then as the price of everything increases, the poverty line should adjust up relative to inflation. Thus all the people who would have been elevated over the poverty line, are right back under the poverty line.

 

[Andylusion]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

No, that's extremely realistic. That's exactly what we did in the mid-90s. You kick people off Welfare, and shockingly they tend to work. When people have to choose between working or starving... they tend to work. Read up on the 13 colonies of America. They had the same thing. The colonies were operated on a system of socialism. All the food produced, was pooled for the good of the entire colony. As a result people didn't work. Why work really hard, if all your labor is confiscated, and you can just eat what others produced?

So they ended that system, and assigned plots of land (ownership), to individual families. Suddenly people who formerly claimed to be sick, got up and worked. Women, and children all, walked out into the fields to sow seed. From the verge of starvation, they had a surplus of food the following year.

force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare

The problem here is, you don't seem to realize just how high the minimum wage would have to be, to eliminate the use of food stamps.

I am just $150 over the qualification for food stamps, and I earn $12/hr, and I'm single. (meaning the Biblical definition of single, no girl, no kids, nothing)

Eligibility Food and Nutrition Service
According to that page, a family of 4, can earn $20/hr, that's $41,600 a year, and still qualify for SNAP.

A family of 2, can earn $14/hr, which is $30,000 a year, and still qualify for food stamps.

A couple, with 6 kids, could earn $34/hr, or $70,000 a year, and STILL qualify for SNAP.

Do you realize what that means? The minimum wage would have to be far far above $15/hr to eliminate the use of food stamps.

There was another thread on this forum, about a lady who got SNAP. Turns out she had 5 kids.

The minimum wage would have to be $30/hr to kick her off the tax payer gravy train.

And here's the other side.... EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

In 2006, the average number of employees per Walmart store, was 330. By 2010, it was 270. Keep in mind, Walmart had record sales during that time.

So fewer and fewer jobs, as the minimum wage went up. This is normal, and universal. If the price of Cherios doubled, would you not expect the purchases of Cherios to go down? Well... why would you not think doubling the price of labor, would have the same effect?

So, you complain that people are on food stamps, while employed by Walmart....... well how many of the people UNEMPLOYED by Walmart are going to be on food stamps?

No, no sir. You misread me. I would have welfare for ONE person. And that's it. If you have two people in the house, you should damn well be earning enough to support three people. If you choose to bring kids into a situation where you can't afford them, you are charged with neglect and your kids will see you when you get out of jail.

Minimum wage should support that ONE person, and that ONE person only. I would eliminate welfare for families altogether except for A) The truly unable to work and B) some sort of system to help those who take in neglected kids who's parents are now in jail.
That's it.

That's more unrealistic than my proposal. That said, if we did have that system, then there is nothing we need to change in the minimum wage, but to enact your system.

Practically none of the people on welfare are single, with no kids, who live alone. And the cost to living separately to gain welfare, would far exceed the value of the welfare.

So forget the minimum wage, let's just enact your welfare plan. I wager there would be few than half a million left collecting welfare under your system, regardless of minimum wage.

Oh, were' talking dream system here? Then I'd do away with welfare altogether. Work fare. Which means we'd still need a minimum wage because that is what I would pay peple to work for their local communities in exchange for cash to buy food or whatever they wanted to do with it. I'd give NO ONE a free ride.

And yes, I'd take kids from people. Neglect is neglect.

And we did take away welfare. In the mid-90s, we kicked millions off the dole. It worked.

I did not mean neglect and such. I meant the idea that we can have a welfare system, that doesn't increase on a household size basis. That's hardly going to happen. Nor is kicking people off, if they pop out a kid, or have a roommate or boyfriend or whatever.

And it wouldn't work otherwise. If you just said, you can't have a family, well that wouldn't stop any of them. I actually know people right now that, specifically didn't get married, because they would lose a benefit. I can't remember what benefit it was, but they postponed indefinitely their marriage, so they could collect tax payer money.

So you would have to have it, that they could only get welfare if they actually physically lived entirely alone. Which again... if you could get that rule passed.... that would eliminate 99% of the recipients, without changing the minimum wage at all. I'd love that if we could pass that rule. I'll vote for your plan. *sigh*.... if only we were dictators lol

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

Actually.... um. Hate to say it.... but I think he's right. (unless I don't understand his position)
Which is bothersome, because as you've noticed, he really is a jerk.

But, according to the HHS, the poverty guidelines are in fact adjusted to inflation, and one of the factors in inflation, is of course food.

Now you have correctly pointed out that the price of beef, specifically, has quadrupled, while the poverty level has not, even while the minimum wage has gone up.

The issue there, is that the price increase is never uniform. Some foods are highly labor intensive, and others are not.

I've said this before, but I think there's something fishy with the inflation numbers. Because prices everywhere I look, have drastically gone up since 2006. Everything is vastly more expensive, than during the early to mid 2000s. Gasoline, my electricity bills are higher. Natural gas is fairly steady. Food is way more expensive. Just getting an oil change done on my car, is now way more expensive.

Yet the official inflation numbers are really low. So something is wrong. I don't know what, but something is fishy about that.

But..... what should happen, if the numbers are right, is that when you increase the minimum wage, the price of everything should go up (which again, it has). Then as the price of everything increases, the poverty line should adjust up relative to inflation. Thus all the people who would have been elevated over the poverty line, are right back under the poverty line.

No, he isn't right, because although the poverty line IS adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is not. The minimum wage is in fact a COMPLETELY made up number that is not concretely tied to any metric.

Look at the way this current debate is going, you have loons on one side screaming for $15 an hour, and loons on the other screaming either "leave it where it is" or even crazier "get rid of it altogether" and by the way I recognize that you aren't in either of those groups you are merely arguing academically, which I also enjoy doing from time to time. But the point is , minimum wage will be increased to whatever number the fools in Congress agree upon , which will have NO connection to reality.

I would LOVE to see them set it at $10 an hour and call for a yearly adjustment for inflation, if by some odd circumstance it went down even from year to year, so be it.


Anyway, in terms of real dollars the minimum wage has risen a penny a year over the last fourteen years. Now you and I both know that just isn't realistic. the minimum wage certainly has NOT kept up with inflation, and as you correctly pointed out food prices are part of what inflation figures are based off.

 

[House]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

You simply can't argue the fact that as the minimum wage rises, so will the cost of providing food.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

No, that's extremely realistic. That's exactly what we did in the mid-90s. You kick people off Welfare, and shockingly they tend to work. When people have to choose between working or starving... they tend to work. Read up on the 13 colonies of America. They had the same thing. The colonies were operated on a system of socialism. All the food produced, was pooled for the good of the entire colony. As a result people didn't work. Why work really hard, if all your labor is confiscated, and you can just eat what others produced?

So they ended that system, and assigned plots of land (ownership), to individual families. Suddenly people who formerly claimed to be sick, got up and worked. Women, and children all, walked out into the fields to sow seed. From the verge of starvation, they had a surplus of food the following year.

force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare

The problem here is, you don't seem to realize just how high the minimum wage would have to be, to eliminate the use of food stamps.

I am just $150 over the qualification for food stamps, and I earn $12/hr, and I'm single. (meaning the Biblical definition of single, no girl, no kids, nothing)

Eligibility Food and Nutrition Service
According to that page, a family of 4, can earn $20/hr, that's $41,600 a year, and still qualify for SNAP.

A family of 2, can earn $14/hr, which is $30,000 a year, and still qualify for food stamps.

A couple, with 6 kids, could earn $34/hr, or $70,000 a year, and STILL qualify for SNAP.

Do you realize what that means? The minimum wage would have to be far far above $15/hr to eliminate the use of food stamps.

There was another thread on this forum, about a lady who got SNAP. Turns out she had 5 kids.

The minimum wage would have to be $30/hr to kick her off the tax payer gravy train.

And here's the other side.... EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

In 2006, the average number of employees per Walmart store, was 330. By 2010, it was 270. Keep in mind, Walmart had record sales during that time.

So fewer and fewer jobs, as the minimum wage went up. This is normal, and universal. If the price of Cherios doubled, would you not expect the purchases of Cherios to go down? Well... why would you not think doubling the price of labor, would have the same effect?

So, you complain that people are on food stamps, while employed by Walmart....... well how many of the people UNEMPLOYED by Walmart are going to be on food stamps?

No, no sir. You misread me. I would have welfare for ONE person. And that's it. If you have two people in the house, you should damn well be earning enough to support three people. If you choose to bring kids into a situation where you can't afford them, you are charged with neglect and your kids will see you when you get out of jail.

Minimum wage should support that ONE person, and that ONE person only. I would eliminate welfare for families altogether except for A) The truly unable to work and B) some sort of system to help those who take in neglected kids who's parents are now in jail.
That's it.

That's more unrealistic than my proposal. That said, if we did have that system, then there is nothing we need to change in the minimum wage, but to enact your system.

Practically none of the people on welfare are single, with no kids, who live alone. And the cost to living separately to gain welfare, would far exceed the value of the welfare.

So forget the minimum wage, let's just enact your welfare plan. I wager there would be few than half a million left collecting welfare under your system, regardless of minimum wage.

Oh, were' talking dream system here? Then I'd do away with welfare altogether. Work fare. Which means we'd still need a minimum wage because that is what I would pay peple to work for their local communities in exchange for cash to buy food or whatever they wanted to do with it. I'd give NO ONE a free ride.

And yes, I'd take kids from people. Neglect is neglect.

And we did take away welfare. In the mid-90s, we kicked millions off the dole. It worked.

I did not mean neglect and such. I meant the idea that we can have a welfare system, that doesn't increase on a household size basis. That's hardly going to happen. Nor is kicking people off, if they pop out a kid, or have a roommate or boyfriend or whatever.

And it wouldn't work otherwise. If you just said, you can't have a family, well that wouldn't stop any of them. I actually know people right now that, specifically didn't get married, because they would lose a benefit. I can't remember what benefit it was, but they postponed indefinitely their marriage, so they could collect tax payer money.

So you would have to have it, that they could only get welfare if they actually physically lived entirely alone. Which again... if you could get that rule passed.... that would eliminate 99% of the recipients, without changing the minimum wage at all. I'd love that if we could pass that rule. I'll vote for your plan. *sigh*.... if only we were dictators lol

again, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying if you don't live alone you can't collect welfare.

I'm saying if you are married and have 3 kids and qualify for welfare, you get the same amount as the person who is single and makes the same as you would get.

And if wit that you can't feed your kids, then the law steps in.

 

[The Rabbi]

[QUOTE="House, post: 9801793, member: 40803"


You simply can't argue the fact that as the minimum wage rises, so will the cost of providing food.[/QUOTE]
That's a very tendentious argument. Given the relatively small number of workers who work for min wage,and the many other costs involved in food production, I do not think there is much correlation, much less causation.