I Met Two Waitresses Last Evening - a Point about Economics

[Seymour Flops]

Here is the economic problem addressed in this post:

Nearly 100 million Americans received some form of government assistance in 2019, according to a 2023 estimate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The federal government has assistance programs in place to support Americans who can’t afford food, housing, healthcare, and other needs. This is sometimes referred to as a social safety net, a system of programs designed to support people struggling economically. In 2022, around one in three Americans was enrolled in at least one of those programs, including nearly half of all American kids.

How many people receive government assistance from social security, medicare, and other programs | USAFacts

In 2022, around one in three Americans was enrolled in at least one government assistance program, including nearly half of all American kids.

usafacts.org

So what about the waitresses? They were former waitresses, actually.

It was at a poker room. One was about seventy, playing low stakes 1/3 hold 'em, while her husband was playing high stakes 15/30 Hi-Lo. The other was a dealer, maybe thirty to forty. She was Filipina and it's harder for me to tell their ages.

Somehow the topic of waitressing came up. The older player said she waitressed all through high school, that it was fun and she couldn't believe how much money she was making compared to friends working fast food. The younger dealer talked about how fast she was, and how she one day had to serve the whole restaurant because everyone else was out. She didn't care because that meant she was getting all the tips.

Now, she still has a job for tips, but I'm guessing much more, plus she isn't on her feet for eight to ten hours.

Whats the economic lesson? It isn't about how much education you have, how rich your parents are, how good your school was. It's about being willing to put in the work. That is a lesson today's welfare layabout need badly. What are the qualifications to wait tables? Knowing how to read, I suppose, but even that could be gotten around. Don't even have to do math anymore. Just be willing to work hard and put on a cheerful face even when you're tired.

That last may seem absolutely crazy to a typical welfare layabout. "Being tired suck!" Yes, but that is what people do when they have jobs. They work, work, work, and when the boss comes in and asks how ya doin'? they say "great!" The boss did the same and still does the same when the region manager checks in with him after a tough week. Why should people who do that be forced to pay for your leisure lifestyle?

Why did these ladies not simply go on welfare, take the easy way out? My guess is that they each come from a culture in which the idea of living off the work of others is hateful. The American culture from the sixties and seventies and the Fillapino culture.

We need to get that culture back. Fairness aside, the system in which anyone who prefers not to work can simply live off of the work of others is not sustainable. We can change it, or we can watch our economy tank. If not for us, for our grandchildren.

 

[Mac-7]

Here is the economic problem addressed in this post:

Nearly 100 million Americans received some form of government assistance in 2019, according to a 2023 estimate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The federal government has assistance programs in place to support Americans who can’t afford food, housing, healthcare, and other needs. This is sometimes referred to as a social safety net, a system of programs designed to support people struggling economically. In 2022, around one in three Americans was enrolled in at least one of those programs, including nearly half of all American kids.

How many people receive government assistance from social security, medicare, and other programs | USAFacts

In 2022, around one in three Americans was enrolled in at least one government assistance program, including nearly half of all American kids.

usafacts.org

So what about the waitresses? They were former waitresses, actually.

It was at a poker room. One was about seventy, playing low stakes 1/3 hold 'em, while her husband was playing high stakes 15/30 Hi-Lo. The other was a dealer, maybe thirty to forty. She was Filipina and it's harder for me to tell their ages.

Somehow the topic of waitressing came up. The older player said she waitressed all through high school, that it was fun and she couldn't believe how much money she was making compared to friends working fast food. The younger dealer talked about how fast she was, and how she one day had to serve the whole restaurant because everyone else was out. She didn't care because that meant she was getting all the tips.

Now, she still has a job for tips, but I'm guessing much more, plus she isn't on her feet for eight to ten hours.

Whats the economic lesson? It isn't about how much education you have, how rich your parents are, how good your school was. It's about being willing to put in the work. That is a lesson today's welfare layabout need badly. What are the qualifications to wait tables? Knowing how to read, I suppose, but even that could be gotten around. Don't even have to do math anymore. Just be willing to work hard and put on a cheerful face even when you're tired.

That last may seem absolutely crazy to a typical welfare layabout. "Being tired suck!" Yes, but that is what people do when they have jobs. They work, work, work, and when the boss comes in and asks how ya doin'? they say "great!" The boss did the same and still does the same when the region manager checks in with him after a tough week. Why should people who do that be forced to pay for your leisure lifestyle?

Why did these ladies not simply go on welfare, take the easy way out? My guess is that they each come from a culture in which the idea of living off the work of others is hateful. The American culture from the sixties and seventies and the Fillapino culture.

We need to get that culture back. Fairness aside, the system in which anyone who prefers not to work can simply live off of the work of others is not sustainable. We can change it, or we can watch our economy tank. If not for us, for our grandchildren.

Success or failure does very much depend on the individual snd the culture that molded them

Much more than skin color or economic’s of the family they were raised in

 

[pknopp]

How hard did those who gained by the government pumping money into the markets, work?

 

[Hellokitty]

Working and accomplishing goals is good for mental health. Dependency leads to stress and depression.

 

[pknopp]

Working and accomplishing goals is good for mental health. Dependency leads to stress and depression.

Why did we pump billions and billions into the markets? People were depended on it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How hard did those who gained by the government pumping money into the markets, work?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. If your point is that corporate welfare is just as bad as social welfare, I almost agree, becasue I think it is almost as bad. Regardless of which is worse, Corporate welfare should be stopped also, and immediately. Social welfare, we need to wean people off of.

If you mean governments spending stimulating the economy, that is a factor to be considered. The people who benefit from that because it provides government jobs work at varying degress of diligence, I suppose. The people whose companies benefit work hard almost universally.

Whereas in the private sector has little tolerance for deadweight, deadweight in government jobs is actually codified in concepts like "essential" and "nonessential" government employees.

There are businesses, large and small, who profit from the social welfare. Coca-cola and Pepsi rake in 10 - 12 Billion per year in SNAP money. I attribute their constantly announcing new flavors to them trying to attract those whose lives are significantly affected by the availability of Vanilla Coke, for example.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Working and accomplishing goals is good for mental health. Dependency leads to stress and depression.

Yes, this is the part many do not get. This is why I say that social welfare is worse than corporate welfare. Social welfare crushes the soul, and robs people of their ability to be in charge of their own lives.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. If your point is that corporate welfare is just as bad as social welfare, I almost agree, becasue I think it is almost as bad. Regardless of which is worse, Corporate welfare should be stopped also, and immediately. Social welfare, we need to wean people off of.

Well at least I guess you come close to condemning it.

If you mean governments spending stimulating the economy, that is a factor to be considered. The people who benefit from that because it provides government jobs work at varying degress of diligence, I suppose. The people whose companies benefit work hard almost universally.

Whereas in the private sector has little tolerance for deadweight, deadweight in government jobs is actually codified in concepts like "essential" and "nonessential" government employees.

There are businesses, large and small, who profit from the social welfare. Coca-cola and Pepsi rake in 10 - 12 Billion per year in SNAP money. I attribute their constantly announcing new flavors to them trying to attract those whose lives are significantly affected by the availability of Vanilla Coke, for example.

Coke rakes in billions and the single mom gets a little bit of an assist and we know who is demonized.

 

[August West]

Yes, this is the part many do not get. This is why I say that social welfare is worse than corporate welfare. Social welfare crushes the soul, and robs people of their ability to be in charge of their own lives.

Exhibit A of corporate welfare is our War Dept. If you questioned their spending in the 50s and 60s you were branded a Communist. Question their blank checks today, and you`re a friend of terrorists. Eisenhower created it and named it the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[Anathema]

The biggest difference between today and the past when talking about the Social Safety Net is very simple… respectability.

In the past the Safety Net users were derided, humiliated, and laughed at. Now it’s just a different means of making a living.

We need to return to a social model that considers the use of the Safety Met to mean you are incapable of doing for yourself. Make it a humiliation again for most of these folks.

 

[August West]

The idea that a person can quit their job and sign up for welfare and enjoy their same lifestyle is idiotic, at best. It doesn`t work that way. No doubt, there is no shortage of scammers out there, but painting them all with the same brush really is a sign of ignorance.

 

[JoeB131]

Here is the economic problem addressed in this post:

Nearly 100 million Americans received some form of government assistance in 2019, according to a 2023 estimate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Why did these ladies not simply go on welfare, take the easy way out? My guess is that they each come from a culture in which the idea of living off the work of others is hateful. The American culture from the sixties and seventies and the Fillapino culture.

We need to get that culture back. Fairness aside, the system in which anyone who prefers not to work can simply live off of the work of others is not sustainable. We can change it, or we can watch our economy tank. If not for us, for our grandchildren.

What you don't mention is that most of those 100 Million are getting Social Security or Medicare.

The problem isn't that you are against living off the government. You are fine with "Entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and Veteran Benefits.

You don't like "Welfare" such as SNAP, TANF, Section 8, Medicaid.

The ironic thing is that most of the people on the latter have at least one household member working a minimum wage job.


I agree, we should get that culture back. Here's how you get that culture back. Make even the most bottom-rung jobs worth working.

My first job was below minimum wage because it was a family-owned restaurant. My next three jobs through HS and College were minimum wage. (Fortunately, I was also in the National Guard, which is how I paid for college).

Minimum wage in 1979 was $2.30 an hour.
Minimum wage today is $7.25 an hour

If Minimum Wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $11.00 an hour now

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well at least I guess you come close to condemning it.

You're looking for disagreement where there is none. This is condemning it:

I think it is almost as bad. Regardless of which is worse, Corporate welfare should be stopped also, and immediately.

I condemn it, sheesh!

Coke rakes in billions and the single mom gets a little bit of an assist and we know who is demonized.

Can't blame coke and Pepsi for this one. We have Democrats and "not Democrats" saying that the one area in which is it very wrong for government to regulate people's lives is what kinds of junk food they by with SNAP benefits. What can they do, ask grocery stores not to accept SNAP for their products?

How loud would Democrats and 'not Democrats' on here scream if they did that?

For what it's worth, I do not "demonize" the single mom. Cannot blame her for taking freebies. It's up to we who are paying for all the "free stuff" to say 'enough is enough.'

 

[Seymour Flops]

Exhibit A of corporate welfare is our War Dept. If you questioned their spending in the 50s and 60s you were branded a Communist. Question their blank checks today, and you`re a friend of terrorists. Eisenhower created it and named it the Military Industrial Complex.

Of course.

Why else did the McCain-Cheney faction of the Republican Party keep telling the hapless GWB that forever wars are a good thing?

 

[pknopp]

You're looking for disagreement where there is none. This is condemning it:

I think it is almost as bad. Regardless of which is worse, Corporate welfare should be stopped also, and immediately.

I condemn it, sheesh!

Can't blame coke and Pepsi for this one. We have Democrats and "not Democrats" saying that the one area in which is it very wrong for government to regulate people's lives is what kinds of junk food they by with SNAP benefits. What can they do, ask grocery stores not to accept SNAP for their products?

How loud would Democrats and 'not Democrats' on here scream if they did that?

For what it's worth, I do not "demonize" the single mom. Cannot blame her for taking freebies. It's up to we who are paying for all the "free stuff" to say 'enough is enough.'

That's because almost everyone "benefits" from the free stuff.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The biggest difference between today and the past when talking about the Social Safety Net is very simple… respectability.

In the past the Safety Net users were derided, humiliated, and laughed at. Now it’s just a different means of making a living.

We need to return to a social model that considers the use of the Safety Met to mean you are incapable of doing for yourself. Make it a humiliation again for most of these folks.

Agreed. If someone is truly unable to work due to some disability, and work cannot be found for them, fine. Help them out, we don't want cripple beggars on our streets.

But one third of the country is not disabled, and neither are half of the parents in the country.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's because almost everyone "benefits" from the free stuff.

Yes, that is true.

The benifits are immediate. But since we are borrowing and printing to provide all the "free" stuff, it is our children and grandchildren who will see the downside.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What you don't mention is that most of those 100 Million are getting Social Security or Medicare.

Okay: A plurality of those 100 Million are getting Social Security or Medicare.

What's your point?

The problem isn't that you are against living off the government. You are fine with "Entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and Veteran Benefits.

Those were earned through work. There was not choice to participate when the recipients were working.

You truly do not see the difference?

SNAP, TANF, and other welfare programs not only do not require work, but their advocates violently oppose any kind of work requirement, no matter how lenient. The thread topic specifially talks about a kind of job that almost anyone willing to work can get.

You don't like "Welfare" such as SNAP, TANF, Section 8, Medicaid.

The ironic thing is that most of the people on the latter have at least one household member working a minimum wage job.

Yes, which is another topic. When a minimum wage person gets those benefits, we the taxpayer are subsidizing their ability to work for minimum wage with no benefits. Therefore it is another type of corporate welfare, which some posters, such as pknopp, have not condemned on this thread.

I agree, we should get that culture back. Here's how you get that culture back. Make even the most bottom-rung jobs worth working.

My first job was below minimum wage because it was a family-owned restaurant. My next three jobs through HS and College were minimum wage. (Fortunately, I was also in the National Guard, which is how I paid for college).

Minimum wage in 1979 was $2.30 an hour.
Minimum wage today is $7.25 an hour

If Minimum Wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $11.00 an hour now

If it were $11.00 per hour would that solve the problems? I think it would still not be enough. Any minimum set by government is highly unlikely to pay a living wage for 40 hours per week.

I agree that if we are going to have a minimum wage it should be something real. The compromise of having a minimum wage but keeping it so low benefits no one but employers who would probably have to pay more in a free market. They can effective collude and wage-fix with other employers by simply making all entry level jobs $7.50.

Take away the benefits, go after employers hard for paying illegals under the table, and the market will demand that employees be paid more.

 

[pknopp]

Okay: A plurality of those 100 Million are getting Social Security or Medicare.

View attachment 1191418
What's your point?

Those were earned through work. There was not choice to participate when the recipients were working.

You truly do not see the difference?

SNAP, TANF, and other welfare programs not only do not require work, but their advocates violently oppose any kind of work requirement, no matter how lenient. The thread topic specifially talks about a kind of job that almost anyone willing to work can get.

Yes, which is another topic. When a minimum wage person gets those benefits, we the taxpayer are subsidizing their ability to work for minimum wage with no benefits. Therefore it is another type of corporate welfare, which some posters, such as pknopp, have not condemned on this thread.

If it were $11.00 per hour would that solve the problems? I think it would still not be enough. Any minimum set by government is highly unlikely to pay a living wage for 40 hours per week.

I agree that if we are going to have a minimum wage it should be something real. The compromise of having a minimum wage but keeping it so low benefits no one but employers who would probably have to pay more in a free market. They can effective collude and wage-fix with other employers by simply making all entry level jobs $7.50.

Take away the benefits, go after employers hard for paying illegals under the table, and the market will demand that employees be paid more.

Minimum wage jobs shouldn't have to come with benefits like health care. People should just have it like every other first world country.

 

[Anathema]

Agreed. If someone is truly unable to work due to some disability, and work cannot be found for them, fine. Help them out, we don't want cripple beggars on our streets.

But one third of the country is not disabled, and neither are half of the parents in the country.

Agreed. 100%. My wife is disabled due to PTSD. She wishes that she could have worked before she met me. Now she doesn’t need to.

O the other hand several members of her family, fully healthy, just bask in their welfare, SNAP, etc… benefits to the point where they go nuts at the suggestion that they nee to at least help support themselves.

My mother in law spent almost 25 years running a shelter to low income housing program. I asked her what the biggest difference between their clients was when she started and when she retired. Her answer… legend I started, they snuck in the door. They were embarrassed to be there. At the end they walked in like they owned the place.”