CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[320 Years of History]

My damn kitchen is always full..due to my three roommates now....I got two girls and a guy that go to the local university.. My daughter and her boyfriend and friend.

LOL

Off Topic:
I love to cook and have a kitchen with ample room for two cooks and a "sous cook," but these days with my kids all grown, it gets dusted and wiped down more than it gets used. LOL

I wish I could have inspired my kids to learn their way around the kitchen. They love great food, but each of them has been recalcitrant about preparing it, even when there are awesome open-air markets literally down the street offering a literal smorgasbord of basic fare and delicacies. I'm not even exaggerating...on one visit to the one by Saint-Eustace, Les Halles, the olive vendor -- yes, he sells nothing but olives -- carries some 25 or so different kinds of olive and a produce vendor offers 14 kinds of lettuce, all freshly picked and brought to market at the height of readiness to eat. Who the heck doesn't want to cook with food like that around?

(Although my kids eat olives and other fresh fruits and veggies like other kids eat potato chips. LOL Maybe that's why they don't cook even when they are abroad? LOL)

 

[320 Years of History]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

And yet I have met people who did not strive to self-actualize. I know several in fact. So while you claim it's not true, the facts are it is. People who have been in those situations, say the same thing.

In the 1990s, I was working at Wendy's. We had a lady come in, and get a job, and on her first day told us she intended to only work until she could qualify for food stamps again. She even gave us the exact date she would qualify, and shockingly stopped showing up for work.

Now this lady will never leave her position as a low-wage worker on the verge of poverty. Where is your claim that she will be motivate to self-actualization? Where is the pyramid in her life? She works as little as possible, and has living off the government as a goal.

Lastly, what Democrats claim, and what Democrats do, are two very different things. If the Democrats actually pushed a policy system that fixed the problem, the problem would go away and they would lose their voter base. If everyone was rich, they wouldn't be able to gain votes by proclaiming themselves a solution to the problem. Their "solutions" have never solved anything. That's not up for debate, it's just fact. The only debatable aspect is that you claim they really believe it will solve things, and I say that they know it won't solve anything. They know it won't. Why do they still champion government solutions? Votes. That's why. They want you to vote for them.

Have you ever met someone on welfare that believed Republicans wanted what was best for the country? Of course not. Democrats know this. The Democrats never give their own money to help the poor. Republicans do. Democrats give other people's money to help the poor. Why? Because they don't care about the poor. They care about votes. Always have.

Red:
There's a lot of striving to be done between securing basic needs -- which is what this thread is about -- and self actualizing. You're earlier remark implies that upon fulfilling their basic needs folks often enough don't want to strive to fulfill "higher level" needs. That just isn't what I've observed. Might there be some folks who are content to live as might a cloistered monk and be content to fed, housed, clothed and strive to meet any other needs except that of securing "oneness with God" or live some other sort of similarly ascetic value/lifestyle? Sure, there are some folks like that, but I don't think many, if any, of the folks whom one will find living in shelters and unable to feed themselves are among them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can anyone prove a negative?

There is no cat in my right shoe I am wearing.

Just looked, no cat.

I proved I do not have a cat in my right shoe.

Anything else I can help you with?

If the Ancient Egyptians had social security, it was not recorded in any book I have ever read.

Back in those days it was called 'Taking care of your fellow Egyptian.'

Not every human being has the soul of a rat and will sit and watch their neighbors starve.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

The minimum wage was not a factor in the Greek debacle.Corruption and tax evasion coupled to the global financial crisis were the main issues.
Cant comment on Venezuela.

 

[Andylusion]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

And yet I have met people who did not strive to self-actualize. I know several in fact. So while you claim it's not true, the facts are it is. People who have been in those situations, say the same thing.

In the 1990s, I was working at Wendy's. We had a lady come in, and get a job, and on her first day told us she intended to only work until she could qualify for food stamps again. She even gave us the exact date she would qualify, and shockingly stopped showing up for work.

Now this lady will never leave her position as a low-wage worker on the verge of poverty. Where is your claim that she will be motivate to self-actualization? Where is the pyramid in her life? She works as little as possible, and has living off the government as a goal.

Lastly, what Democrats claim, and what Democrats do, are two very different things. If the Democrats actually pushed a policy system that fixed the problem, the problem would go away and they would lose their voter base. If everyone was rich, they wouldn't be able to gain votes by proclaiming themselves a solution to the problem. Their "solutions" have never solved anything. That's not up for debate, it's just fact. The only debatable aspect is that you claim they really believe it will solve things, and I say that they know it won't solve anything. They know it won't. Why do they still champion government solutions? Votes. That's why. They want you to vote for them.

Have you ever met someone on welfare that believed Republicans wanted what was best for the country? Of course not. Democrats know this. The Democrats never give their own money to help the poor. Republicans do. Democrats give other people's money to help the poor. Why? Because they don't care about the poor. They care about votes. Always have.

Red:
There's a lot of striving to be done between securing basic needs -- which is what this thread is about -- and self actualizing. You're earlier remark implies that upon fulfilling their basic needs folks often enough don't want to strive to fulfill "higher level" needs. That just isn't what I've observed. Might there be some folks who are content to live as might a cloistered monk and be content to fed, housed, clothed and strive to meet any other needs except that of securing "oneness with God" or live some other sort of similarly ascetic value/lifestyle? Sure, there are some folks like that, but I don't think many, if any, of the folks whom one will find living in shelters and unable to feed themselves are among them.

The context of this discussion is the people on welfare. And in that context, I maintain my prior statement, that people who fulfill their basic needs, often do not strive to higher level needs, and that is exactly what I have observed.

I have even met people who were still in school, and openly said their expressed goal was to live off welfare.

Thus far, none of the men or even women, I have seen at the shelter, were incapable of providing for themselves. Unwilling..... Unmotivated.... perhaps even uncaring to provide for themselves. Not not incapable.

 

[Andylusion]

How can anyone prove a negative?

There is no cat in my right shoe I am wearing.

Just looked, no cat.

I proved I do not have a cat in my right shoe.

Anything else I can help you with?

If the Ancient Egyptians had social security, it was not recorded in any book I have ever read.

Back in those days it was called 'Taking care of your fellow Egyptian.'

Not every human being has the soul of a rat and will sit and watch their neighbors starve.

Quite frankly, I think the left would drastically improve if they had the soul of a rat. Rats actually provide each other food. Left-wing people only demand that OTHERS provide for people.

That said, the context of this discussion was social security. If you can't provide examples of Egyptian government tax and spend based Social Security, then my point stands.

For thousands of years, people helped family. It was normal and expected. You pointing out what everyone knows, isn't news to anyone. And even in our country, up till FDR, we had the expectation that family takes care of family.

Only in our modern self-centered left-wing ideology do pathetic narcissists believe that it is government duty to take care of their parents, so they don't have to. That government should cover medical bills, so they don't have to crimp their life style. G-d forbid they cut cable TV, and their new car, to help grand mother.

It's ironic that the left would mention the souls of rats, when rats are at least several steps above the average left-winger on the evolutionary scale. Clearly the left has envy of the morality of rats.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How can anyone prove a negative?

There is no cat in my right shoe I am wearing.

Just looked, no cat.

I proved I do not have a cat in my right shoe.

Anything else I can help you with?

If the Ancient Egyptians had social security, it was not recorded in any book I have ever read.

Back in those days it was called 'Taking care of your fellow Egyptian.'

Not every human being has the soul of a rat and will sit and watch their neighbors starve.

Quite frankly, I think the left would drastically improve if they had the soul of a rat. Rats actually provide each other food. Left-wing people only demand that OTHERS provide for people.

That said, the context of this discussion was social security. If you can't provide examples of Egyptian government tax and spend based Social Security, then my point stands.

For thousands of years, people helped family. It was normal and expected. You pointing out what everyone knows, isn't news to anyone. And even in our country, up till FDR, we had the expectation that family takes care of family.

Only in our modern self-centered left-wing ideology do pathetic narcissists believe that it is government duty to take care of their parents, so they don't have to. That government should cover medical bills, so they don't have to crimp their life style. G-d forbid they cut cable TV, and their new car, to help grand mother.

It's ironic that the left would mention the souls of rats, when rats are at least several steps above the average left-winger on the evolutionary scale. Clearly the left has envy of the morality of rats.

Thats poor Andy, you are better than that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

"We all pay in"? Are you ignorant? How would that even make it a "right" even if true?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

"We all pay in"? Are you ignorant? How would that even make it a "right" even if true?

Its a social contract that binds us all together for the common good.

 

[320 Years of History]

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

And yet I have met people who did not strive to self-actualize. I know several in fact. So while you claim it's not true, the facts are it is. People who have been in those situations, say the same thing.

In the 1990s, I was working at Wendy's. We had a lady come in, and get a job, and on her first day told us she intended to only work until she could qualify for food stamps again. She even gave us the exact date she would qualify, and shockingly stopped showing up for work.

Now this lady will never leave her position as a low-wage worker on the verge of poverty. Where is your claim that she will be motivate to self-actualization? Where is the pyramid in her life? She works as little as possible, and has living off the government as a goal.

Lastly, what Democrats claim, and what Democrats do, are two very different things. If the Democrats actually pushed a policy system that fixed the problem, the problem would go away and they would lose their voter base. If everyone was rich, they wouldn't be able to gain votes by proclaiming themselves a solution to the problem. Their "solutions" have never solved anything. That's not up for debate, it's just fact. The only debatable aspect is that you claim they really believe it will solve things, and I say that they know it won't solve anything. They know it won't. Why do they still champion government solutions? Votes. That's why. They want you to vote for them.

Have you ever met someone on welfare that believed Republicans wanted what was best for the country? Of course not. Democrats know this. The Democrats never give their own money to help the poor. Republicans do. Democrats give other people's money to help the poor. Why? Because they don't care about the poor. They care about votes. Always have.

Red:
There's a lot of striving to be done between securing basic needs -- which is what this thread is about -- and self actualizing. You're earlier remark implies that upon fulfilling their basic needs folks often enough don't want to strive to fulfill "higher level" needs. That just isn't what I've observed. Might there be some folks who are content to live as might a cloistered monk and be content to fed, housed, clothed and strive to meet any other needs except that of securing "oneness with God" or live some other sort of similarly ascetic value/lifestyle? Sure, there are some folks like that, but I don't think many, if any, of the folks whom one will find living in shelters and unable to feed themselves are among them.

The context of this discussion is the people on welfare. And in that context, I maintain my prior statement, that people who fulfill their basic needs, often do not strive to higher level needs, and that is exactly what I have observed.

I have even met people who were still in school, and openly said their expressed goal was to live off welfare.

Thus far, none of the men or even women, I have seen at the shelter, were incapable of providing for themselves. Unwilling..... Unmotivated.... perhaps even uncaring to provide for themselves. Not not incapable.

Your anecdotal observations are, I'm sure, precisely as you describe them. Mine are as I describe them too. In the context of people on welfare, I can only remark on the people whom I've mentored as they are the poor folks whom I know well enough to comment on what they think and thought over long periods. Each of those individuals came from homes that depend(ed) on government handouts for food and housing, yet they all have worked toward being or are high achievers as adults. They weren't unmotivated, they were just poor and had nobody to show them what to do and how to do it in order to transform their situations from that of needing to be given food and shelter to that of having the opportunity to provide plenty of those things for not only themselves, but others, as well as pursuing their own "higher level" goals.

But those are merely anecdotal experiences and observations. I would no more say they are representative if the norm than I would accept that your diametrically different anecdotal observations depict the norm. The phenomenon you've observed as well as that I've observed are both outcomes indicated by multiple theories of motivation: Drive Theory, Field Theory, Social Learning Theory and Attribution Theory. It's not a question of whether the behavior exists. The question is whether one predominates among welfare recipients more than the other.

Other:
And what exactly is the difference between an monastic living a life of extreme asceticism and a welfare recipient?

• As goes their financial wherewithal and obtaining food, clothing and shelter, nothing other than the sources of their subsistence differ. Monastics receive their subsistence effects from charitable organizations, welfare recipients receive theirs from governments, some of which my deliver the subsistence effects via charitable organizations.
• As goes the subsistence-receiving individuals' demonstrated behavior, however, there is a clear difference: monastics seek some level of satisfaction beyond merely being fed; they act to fulfill needs beyond the most basic needs. And let's face it, a monastic's "oneness with God" is a "self-something" need they are fulfilling, even if it isn't self-actualization, for their "oneness" isn't doing anyone else any good at all.

 

[Andylusion]

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

The minimum wage was not a factor in the Greek debacle.Corruption and tax evasion coupled to the global financial crisis were the main issues.
Cant comment on Venezuela.

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Each time the minimum wage went up, so did unemployment. Equally, when the Greek government cut the minimum wage, unemployment began to fall.

If the customer is only willing to pay me $30 to mow their lawn, I can't pay an employee $35 to mow their lawn, even if the minimum wage is $35.

As a result, I would hire someone to mow lawns for me, at $20, in the shadow economy. This is not only a benefit to me as the employer (because I can now grow my business), but it is also benefits the employee, because tax are so high in Greece, that paying them $20 tax free, ends up more than $35 with all the taxes.

In short, the minimum wage, is also a contributor to tax evasion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Quite frankly, I think the left would drastically improve if they had the soul of a rat. Rats actually provide each other food. Left-wing people only demand that OTHERS provide for people.

That said, the context of this discussion was social security. If you can't provide examples of Egyptian government tax and spend based Social Security, then my point stands.

For thousands of years, people helped family. It was normal and expected. You pointing out what everyone knows, isn't news to anyone. And even in our country, up till FDR, we had the expectation that family takes care of family.

Only in our modern self-centered left-wing ideology do pathetic narcissists believe that it is government duty to take care of their parents, so they don't have to. That government should cover medical bills, so they don't have to crimp their life style. G-d forbid they cut cable TV, and their new car, to help grand mother.

It's ironic that the left would mention the souls of rats, when rats are at least several steps above the average left-winger on the evolutionary scale. Clearly the left has envy of the morality of rats.

Various kinds of 'social safety nets' have existed throughout history, and Social Security is just one variation of them.

I cant fix your inability to understand that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

 

[Andylusion]

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

And yet I have met people who did not strive to self-actualize. I know several in fact. So while you claim it's not true, the facts are it is. People who have been in those situations, say the same thing.

In the 1990s, I was working at Wendy's. We had a lady come in, and get a job, and on her first day told us she intended to only work until she could qualify for food stamps again. She even gave us the exact date she would qualify, and shockingly stopped showing up for work.

Now this lady will never leave her position as a low-wage worker on the verge of poverty. Where is your claim that she will be motivate to self-actualization? Where is the pyramid in her life? She works as little as possible, and has living off the government as a goal.

Lastly, what Democrats claim, and what Democrats do, are two very different things. If the Democrats actually pushed a policy system that fixed the problem, the problem would go away and they would lose their voter base. If everyone was rich, they wouldn't be able to gain votes by proclaiming themselves a solution to the problem. Their "solutions" have never solved anything. That's not up for debate, it's just fact. The only debatable aspect is that you claim they really believe it will solve things, and I say that they know it won't solve anything. They know it won't. Why do they still champion government solutions? Votes. That's why. They want you to vote for them.

Have you ever met someone on welfare that believed Republicans wanted what was best for the country? Of course not. Democrats know this. The Democrats never give their own money to help the poor. Republicans do. Democrats give other people's money to help the poor. Why? Because they don't care about the poor. They care about votes. Always have.

Red:
There's a lot of striving to be done between securing basic needs -- which is what this thread is about -- and self actualizing. You're earlier remark implies that upon fulfilling their basic needs folks often enough don't want to strive to fulfill "higher level" needs. That just isn't what I've observed. Might there be some folks who are content to live as might a cloistered monk and be content to fed, housed, clothed and strive to meet any other needs except that of securing "oneness with God" or live some other sort of similarly ascetic value/lifestyle? Sure, there are some folks like that, but I don't think many, if any, of the folks whom one will find living in shelters and unable to feed themselves are among them.

The context of this discussion is the people on welfare. And in that context, I maintain my prior statement, that people who fulfill their basic needs, often do not strive to higher level needs, and that is exactly what I have observed.

I have even met people who were still in school, and openly said their expressed goal was to live off welfare.

Thus far, none of the men or even women, I have seen at the shelter, were incapable of providing for themselves. Unwilling..... Unmotivated.... perhaps even uncaring to provide for themselves. Not not incapable.

Your anecdotal observations are, I'm sure, precisely as you describe them. Mine are as I describe them too. In the context of people on welfare, I can only remark on the people whom I've mentored as they are the poor folks whom I know well enough to comment on what they think and thought over long periods. Each of those individuals came from homes that depend(ed) on government handouts for food and housing, yet they all have worked toward being or are high achievers as adults. They weren't unmotivated, they were just poor and had nobody to show them what to do and how to do it in order to transform their situations from that of needing to be given food and shelter to that of having the opportunity to provide plenty of those things for not only themselves, but others, as well as pursuing their own "higher level" goals.

But those are merely anecdotal experiences and observations. I would no more say they are representative if the norm than I would accept that your diametrically different anecdotal observations depict the norm. The phenomenon you've observed as well as that I've observed are both outcomes indicated by multiple theories of motivation: Drive Theory, Field Theory, Social Learning Theory and Attribution Theory. It's not a question of whether the behavior exists. The question is whether one predominates among welfare recipients more than the other.

Other:
And what exactly is the difference between an monastic living a life of extreme asceticism and a welfare recipient?

• As goes their financial wherewithal and obtaining food, clothing and shelter, nothing other than the sources of their subsistence differ. Monastics receive their subsistence effects from charitable organizations, welfare recipients receive theirs from governments, some of which my deliver the subsistence effects via charitable organizations.
• As goes the subsistence-receiving individuals' demonstrated behavior, however, there is a clear difference: monastics seek some level of satisfaction beyond merely being fed; they act to fulfill needs beyond the most basic needs. And let's face it, a monastic's "oneness with God" is a "self-something" need they are fulfilling, even if it isn't self-actualization, for their "oneness" isn't doing anyone else any good at all.

I'm always confused and skeptical of this idea:

They weren't unmotivated, they were just poor and had nobody to show them what to do and how to do it in order to transform their situations from that of needing to be given food and shelter to that of having the opportunity to provide plenty of those things for not only themselves, but others, as well as pursuing their own "higher level" goals.​

What exactly does that mean? Because I don't know anyone that was "shown". My parents never "showed" me nothing. They told me I had to work for what I want, and it was up to me...... to work for what I want.

They never said "this is how you get a job and work". I just wanted money, and the employer wanted work, and between the two mutual exchange, I worked, and got paid.

All you have to do, to succeed in life, is work. Honestly. That's it. I know people who started off working for McDonalds, that now have their own store. How do you do that? Well, you apply to work at McDonalds. You work. Consistently. You get up in the morning, go to your job, and do your job.

Is there anyone who doesn't grasp that? Anyone that needs to be shown how to "wake up", and shown how to "go to work", and shown how to "do your job"?

I never was shown any of that. It was pretty obvious from the start. In fact, I haven't done an interview with a company yet that didn't start off with "This is the job you are expected to do, and this is the shift you are expected to do it. This is the pay you will get if you do the job".

What part of that needs "shown"? Explain. What is that they don't get? Even the poorest of parents, can give this basic knowledge. You don't need schooling, or college, or a trade apprenticeship.

And that is literally all that is required. You show up, work, and do a good job. Eventually you'll get promoted. You move up the ladder, and when you get to managment, they'll ask you if you want to join the McDonald management classes. You become a store manager, and work hard, and eventually they give you your own store.

From there, you can either borrow money to buy your own store, or save money to buy your own store.

And see what really aggravates me is while you are making up these excuses (in my opinion), as to why these people can't succeed because they "have not been shown".... people come here from all of the world, start businesses and become millionaires.

How do you explain how an uneducated Egyptian can come to the US, start working as a janitor at a hospital, and end up Director of Build Services making six-figures?

How do you explain a poor Jamacian coming here, opens up a food store, and ends a multi-millionaire CEO?

How do you explain Farrah Gray, at 6 years old, with is single mother who had a heart attack, living in object poverty, starts selling things door to door, and eventually ends up multi-millionaire CEO to Farrah Gray Publishing?

How do these people all magically make it with no one to "show" them how?

Mexican immigrant came to the US, didn't have a work permit. So he just opened his own company making drones. He literally was baking circuit boards in a kitchen oven, to make his drones. If anyone should have an execuse to be impoverished and hopeless, here's a guy not legally allowed to work.... and he just opened his own company is now is a multi-millionaire.

Explain? How do these poor, uneducated people, come here and become filthy rich... while born and bred Americans somehow are incompetent with a public education and subsidized college, and need to be "shown" how to work and succeed? Is there some super secret government "show immigrants how to succeed" program that we are denying natural citizens?

 

[Andylusion]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

"less than starvation wages". Again, this is ridiculous. Obesity is a problem for the poorest people, rather than the richest. You go to Southeast Asian, and you know they are poor, because you can see their bones. You go to most African nations, and you know they are poor because they are sticks.

Only in mindless left-wing world, do you see people suffering from obesity, and claim they are on starvation wages.

More than that, I have actually lived off of less than $12,000 a year, and had food to spare. Food is not that expensive. It really isn't. In fact, I know people who lived on $10,000 a year, and fed their kids.

The question is, are people better off earning ZERO because they have no job, due to your minimum wage, or would they be better off earning something?

Answer: they would be better off earning something.

Every time someone ends up unemployed for a long period of time, they lose their employ-ability. Most employers will not hire someone that has been out of work for a year or more.

Moreover, when they do get a job, they start all over at the very bottom rung of the ladder. The only way to advance up the ladder, is to start at the bottom. Every month they spend on welfare and food stamps, is a month they could have been gaining credibility, work experience, and becoming promotable at a job.

Is working for low-wages fun? No it sucks. But I did it because many of the jobs I have gotten after those crappy low wage jobs, considered me because I worked those crappy low wage jobs.

If I had been on welfare, farting around watching TV and playing video games, I would never have gotten the better jobs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

"less than starvation wages". Again, this is ridiculous. Obesity is a problem for the poorest people, rather than the richest. You go to Southeast Asian, and you know they are poor, because you can see their bones. You go to most African nations, and you know they are poor because they are sticks.

Only in mindless left-wing world, do you see people suffering from obesity, and claim they are on starvation wages.

REading comprehension FAIL. I never said that our poor are on starvation wages...not yet anyway. But you libertarians, or whatever you are, dont seem to ahve a problem with the concept of allowing people who cant find work to starve.

Now go ahead and twist what I said again, no one is missing what you are doing.

More than that, I have actually lived off of less than $12,000 a year, and had food to spare.

I did too when I was an 11B and when I was just out of the service.

Food is not that expensive. It really isn't. In fact, I know people who lived on $10,000 a year, and fed their kids.

Feeding one's kids starchy foods is not a healthy diet and is one source of what is leading the poor into obesity.

Not that you care, I realize.

The question is, are people better off earning ZERO because they have no job, due to your minimum wage, or would they be better off earning something?

Answer: they would be better off earning something.

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

Yeah, that disreard for ones fellow man is what I am driving at. Thanks for the help but it isnt needed.

Every time someone ends up unemployed for a long period of time, they lose their employ-ability. Most employers will not hire someone that has been out of work for a year or more.

Moreover, when they do get a job, they start all over at the very bottom rung of the ladder. The only way to advance up the ladder, is to start at the bottom.

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Those who inherit businesses do not start at the bottom.

roflmao

Every month they spend on welfare and food stamps, is a month they could have been gaining credibility, work experience, and becoming promotable at a job.

Is working for low-wages fun? No it sucks. But I did it because many of the jobs I have gotten after those crappy low wage jobs, considered me because I worked those crappy low wage jobs.

If I had been on welfare, farting around watching TV and playing video games, I would never have gotten the better jobs.

So because you could do it EVERYONE ELSE must be able to do it also?

You live in a fantasy, dude.

 

[koshergrl]

The level of ignorance I see in this thread is mind boggling.

 

[koshergrl]

Seriously, when did humans give up on education?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seriously, when did humans give up on education?

What specifically are you referring to?

 

[Andylusion]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

"less than starvation wages". Again, this is ridiculous. Obesity is a problem for the poorest people, rather than the richest. You go to Southeast Asian, and you know they are poor, because you can see their bones. You go to most African nations, and you know they are poor because they are sticks.

Only in mindless left-wing world, do you see people suffering from obesity, and claim they are on starvation wages.

REading comprehension FAIL. I never said that our poor are on starvation wages...not yet anyway. But you libertarians, or whatever you are, dont seem to ahve a problem with the concept of allowing people who cant find work to starve.

Now go ahead and twist what I said again, no one is missing what you are doing.

More than that, I have actually lived off of less than $12,000 a year, and had food to spare.

I did too when I was an 11B and when I was just out of the service.

Food is not that expensive. It really isn't. In fact, I know people who lived on $10,000 a year, and fed their kids.

Feeding one's kids starchy foods is not a healthy diet and is one source of what is leading the poor into obesity.

Not that you care, I realize.

The question is, are people better off earning ZERO because they have no job, due to your minimum wage, or would they be better off earning something?

Answer: they would be better off earning something.

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

Yeah, that disreard for ones fellow man is what I am driving at. Thanks for the help but it isnt needed.

Every time someone ends up unemployed for a long period of time, they lose their employ-ability. Most employers will not hire someone that has been out of work for a year or more.

Moreover, when they do get a job, they start all over at the very bottom rung of the ladder. The only way to advance up the ladder, is to start at the bottom.

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Those who inherit businesses do not start at the bottom.

roflmao

Every month they spend on welfare and food stamps, is a month they could have been gaining credibility, work experience, and becoming promotable at a job.

Is working for low-wages fun? No it sucks. But I did it because many of the jobs I have gotten after those crappy low wage jobs, considered me because I worked those crappy low wage jobs.

If I had been on welfare, farting around watching TV and playing video games, I would never have gotten the better jobs.

So because you could do it EVERYONE ELSE must be able to do it also?

You live in a fantasy, dude.

Yes, as a matter of fact yes. I worked THREE jobs at the same time, when I had to. You can do it. Anyone can do it. It's a matter of choice. Yes, you don't want to do it. I didn't want to do it. But I had bills to pay.

Why people like you think no one should ever have to do anything that isn't fun, is beyond me.

You read the stories of super wealthy CEOs, many had to work their butts off. The current CEO of Walmart worked unloading Walmart trucks in a distribution center. Have you ever been in one? Hot as crap in there. When it's 80º outside, it's 100º inside. You think it was 'fun' for him? NO. It sucked. But that's how you win.

You have to work the low-wage hourly trunk unloader, to work your way up and end up CEO.

Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Well you have the right to be wrong. The CEO of my last job, started out as an hourly worker. The CEO of Walmart, started off as an hourly worker. Simon Cowell started off in the mailroom as an hourly worker. Dan Adler at Walt Disney, started off hourly mail room worker. Brian Dunn started off as a floor sales rep, now CEO of Best Buy. Jim Ziemer, CEO of Harley-Davidson, started off unloading freight. Ursula Burns was a summer intern for Xerox, now CEO. Andrew Taylor was an entry level car washer for Hertz, now CEO.

You are wrong. Period.

....allowing people who cant find work...

Well, on this specific statement here, that's where you and I will obviously never agree. I have been able to find work every single time I have looked. There has never been a time, where I couldn't find work. In the worst recession, I found work.

Where are these people who magically can't find work? You might not be able to find work you want. But you can find work. You may not find work that pays what you want, but you can find work.

I was reading the story of a guy who worked for one of the banks in New York. He made 6-figures. The bank was closed, and he was unemployed.

He could have......... screamed and wailed about the rich, complained about Republicans, whined and moaned on unemployment compensation, and tried collecting as much government handouts as possible. But no, instead he got a job.... at McDonalds. So here's a guy flipping burgers over for $8/hr, who used to make 6-figures.

After he worked there for a week, the manager came over, and said "ok, you are not like the other people here, what's up? Who are you, and what's your story?" He laid it all out, and the following week, recruiters from McDonald's Corporate showed up, and interviewed him on the job. Now he's a low-level executive for McDonald's making closer to what he did before.

People who tell me, they can't find work, are one of two things. A: they are such bad employees no one wants them. B: They are simply not looking. I've had THREE job offers in this week ALONE. I have no degrees. No certifications. No skills. No abilities I am aware of. Care to explain?

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

I.E. they would be better living in poverty, off the hard work of people who pay taxes, for the rest of their lives with zero hope for improvement.

Once again, the left is the greatest destroyer of the poor that has ever existed. While proclaiming their moral superiority, they setup millions to hopelessness and misery for life.