Nice retirement for a sweet, humble, smart Wal Mart couple

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Yeah, I mentioned that dozens of times. The left doesn't care though.

They are also in the process of finalizing automated burger grills, that don't require a flipper. Soon there won't be any "burger flippers" either. And drinks are already completely automated.

The number of required staff at a McDonald's has already shrunk.

In fact.... industry wide, the number of employees peaked in 2006, and has been declining ever since. In 2006, fast food stores averaged 17.1 employees per store. Today that's down to 15.7. Gee... I wonder what happened that completely reversed a trend of increasing the number of employees per store, to decreasing employees per store, back in 2007?

Oh right....... in 2007 the minimum wage increased, and in 2008, and 2009... Once again, the evidence is endless that the minimum wage has a negative effect on employment.

Employees per establishment in the U.S. fast food industry 2018 Statistic

Of course the mindless left doesn't care people lost their jobs, as long as they "win" their political battle. The couldn't care less who is hurt when they do it.

 

[Flopper]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

 

[Flopper]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

A 30 hour work week is certainly a possibility. Some countries encourage employers via taxes and other inducements to shorten shifts and hire more workers in order to increase employment. The United States as well as other developed nations are going have to come up with some way of handling increasing numbers of redundant worker as automation replaces more and more workers.

It's true that as technology eliminates jobs, it also creates new jobs. At first, people who lost jobs due to automation had little problem moving into new jobs but with technological advances, the new jobs required more and more skills, and more intelligent employees. Today, businesses most critical need is complex problem solving and critical thinking. In other words, they are looking for very intelligent people which excludes about 75% of the population.

In the 21st century, we're going have to come up with more jobs that the bottom 50% can do. That can be done with job sharing, that is working less hours, giving incentives to bossiness to hire more low end workers, creating more government job programs, rebuilding America's infrastructure. We could of course hold wages down which would not stop technology improvements from eliminating jobs but it might slow down the process. If we do nothing, we will find more and more people falling out of the job market, a lower standard of living for half the country, and more government subsidies for the poor. .

 

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

Hmmmmmmm. Asians huh? Interesting. You seem very worldly. Have you lived in Asia for much of your life?

Do you know that the plural form of "Asian" is "Asians".

 

[jasonnfree]

Just initiated a 401K rollover for a very sweet couple, both aged 63. They both spent the last 17 or so years working at Wal Mart. Not in corporate, but in regular ol' stores. Stocking shelves, receiving, some management, you name it.

They said "we were just careful with our money, we never had to buy the newest stuff, we lived within our means and stayed humble with our money". That's their big secret.

Totals of their 401K's:
Husband: $287,729.57
Wife: $211,898.10

Separate Roth IRA's at Edward Jones:
Husband: $42,114.52
Wife: $43,001.58

Total retirement portfolio: $584,743.77

After our meeting today, they left for a week-long camping and fishing trip with friends, celebrating the start of their comfy retirement. Just bought a cool new red Honda four-wheel-type thing for the trip. They like driving through streams.

So long Wal Mart, hello striped bass.

.

seems like a lot of money but at todays interest rates how do you live on it?

Well.... huh? What does interest rate have to do with it?

The money isn't in a CD I would assume. It's more likely at Edward Jones, earning dividends on a mutual fund.

My mutual fund at American Funds, earned 12% year over year. It's called "wise investment".

So lets assume conservatively, that they earn 8% on their investments.

8% of $585K is roughly $46K a year. Can you live off $46,000 a year? Yeah, I think so. I sure could.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

 

[Andylusion]

Just initiated a 401K rollover for a very sweet couple, both aged 63. They both spent the last 17 or so years working at Wal Mart. Not in corporate, but in regular ol' stores. Stocking shelves, receiving, some management, you name it.

They said "we were just careful with our money, we never had to buy the newest stuff, we lived within our means and stayed humble with our money". That's their big secret.

Totals of their 401K's:
Husband: $287,729.57
Wife: $211,898.10

Separate Roth IRA's at Edward Jones:
Husband: $42,114.52
Wife: $43,001.58

Total retirement portfolio: $584,743.77

After our meeting today, they left for a week-long camping and fishing trip with friends, celebrating the start of their comfy retirement. Just bought a cool new red Honda four-wheel-type thing for the trip. They like driving through streams.

So long Wal Mart, hello striped bass.

.

seems like a lot of money but at todays interest rates how do you live on it?

Well.... huh? What does interest rate have to do with it?

The money isn't in a CD I would assume. It's more likely at Edward Jones, earning dividends on a mutual fund.

My mutual fund at American Funds, earned 12% year over year. It's called "wise investment".

So lets assume conservatively, that they earn 8% on their investments.

8% of $585K is roughly $46K a year. Can you live off $46,000 a year? Yeah, I think so. I sure could.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

 

[jasonnfree]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

seems like a lot of money but at todays interest rates how do you live on it?

Well.... huh? What does interest rate have to do with it?

The money isn't in a CD I would assume. It's more likely at Edward Jones, earning dividends on a mutual fund.

My mutual fund at American Funds, earned 12% year over year. It's called "wise investment".

So lets assume conservatively, that they earn 8% on their investments.

8% of $585K is roughly $46K a year. Can you live off $46,000 a year? Yeah, I think so. I sure could.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

If everyone were suddenly to become millionaires, prices would adjust upward accordingly.

 

[Spare_change]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

It's called .... wait for it .... bankruptcy.

 

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

Well.... huh? What does interest rate have to do with it?

The money isn't in a CD I would assume. It's more likely at Edward Jones, earning dividends on a mutual fund.

My mutual fund at American Funds, earned 12% year over year. It's called "wise investment".

So lets assume conservatively, that they earn 8% on their investments.

8% of $585K is roughly $46K a year. Can you live off $46,000 a year? Yeah, I think so. I sure could.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

If everyone were suddenly to become millionaires, prices would adjust upward accordingly.

No one becomes a millionaire 'suddenly', unless they win the lottery, and in those cases, they lose their money just as quickly.

80% of those who win a million dollars or more, end up broke within 10 years. 1/3rd of those, end up filing bankruptcy.

So that is not what I advocate.

But if you save just a mere $100 a month, just $100..... every month... into good quality growth stock mutual funds, from 20 to 65, you will be a millionaire or close to it.

I didn't mean everyone to be a millionaire today. That can't happen, and won't happen. Saving money takes decades of hard work. You start off in life with nothing, and work your way to having something. It's entirely up to you, how you die. Poor impoverished, eating dog food, or rich wealthy and living out the true meaning of the "golden years" of life.

 

[Flopper]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell you most of these people love their kids and feel guilty that they can't do a better job of providing for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in the minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

 

[Spare_change]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell most of these people love their kids and are doing all they can for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Frankly, your argument holds no weight ...

While I don't believe your assumption that the majority of people on government subsidies are working, let's pretend that it is true.

That fact (if it were a fact) is an indictment of the government, not a credit. It is NOT an accident that the government includes children (38.1% of children are on welfare) in its accounting of those who receive welfare. 23.1% of the American public received welfare, but that includes the children.

The government has subsumed responsibility for raising the children. No longer is the parent responsible - he only needs to abrogate his responsibility to the government.

Why do you work? To provide for your family, and to make their lives better. Would you do that if the government would do it for you? The only difference between you and the welfare fathers is the level of starting income. Today, welfare won't help you, so you have to do it yourself. For the welfare father, he only needs to turn his kids over to the government. You did what you had to do --- so does he.

But, then, the government makes it even worse - they tell the father they don't even have to worry about. Just ignore your responsibilities, and the government will step right up to help that unwed mother.

Perhaps we would be better off if we took all the money paid to those working parents and provided education and training to all those not working.

 

[Flopper]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell most of these people love their kids and are doing all they can for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Frankly, your argument holds no weight ...

While I don't believe your assumption that the majority of people on government subsidies are working, let's pretend that it is true.

That fact (if it were a fact) is an indictment of the government, not a credit. It is NOT an accident that the government includes children (38.1% of children are on welfare) in its accounting of those who receive welfare. 23.1% of the American public received welfare, but that includes the children.

The government has subsumed responsibility for raising the children. No longer is the parent responsible - he only needs to abrogate his responsibility to the government.

Why do you work? To provide for your family, and to make their lives better. Would you do that if the government would do it for you? The only difference between you and the welfare fathers is the level of starting income. Today, welfare won't help you, so you have to do it yourself. For the welfare father, he only needs to turn his kids over to the government. You did what you had to do --- so does he.

But, then, the government makes it even worse - they tell the father they don't even have to worry about. Just ignore your responsibilities, and the government will step right up to help that unwed mother.

Perhaps we would be better off if we took all the money paid to those working parents and provided education and training to all those not working.

Since there is there is ample evidence to prove most of those on welfare programs do have jobs, there is no need to make that assumption.

Your entire argument is based on your believe that people prefer to hold low income jobs or no jobs all and live on welfare programs than get a job. If that was the case why does the average welfare receipt leave the program in about 14 months instead staying on the program for maximum time period. The same is true food stamps.

47.8% of the households on SNAP work. Individuals without depends are limited to 3 months if not working.

A University of California study found that 56% of federal and state dollars spent between 2009 and 2011 on welfare programs — including Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit — flowed to working families and individuals with jobs. In some industries, about half the workforce relies on welfare.

Five Things You Probably Don t Know About Food Stamps Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Get a Job Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Spare_change]

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell most of these people love their kids and are doing all they can for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Frankly, your argument holds no weight ...

While I don't believe your assumption that the majority of people on government subsidies are working, let's pretend that it is true.

That fact (if it were a fact) is an indictment of the government, not a credit. It is NOT an accident that the government includes children (38.1% of children are on welfare) in its accounting of those who receive welfare. 23.1% of the American public received welfare, but that includes the children.

The government has subsumed responsibility for raising the children. No longer is the parent responsible - he only needs to abrogate his responsibility to the government.

Why do you work? To provide for your family, and to make their lives better. Would you do that if the government would do it for you? The only difference between you and the welfare fathers is the level of starting income. Today, welfare won't help you, so you have to do it yourself. For the welfare father, he only needs to turn his kids over to the government. You did what you had to do --- so does he.

But, then, the government makes it even worse - they tell the father they don't even have to worry about. Just ignore your responsibilities, and the government will step right up to help that unwed mother.

Perhaps we would be better off if we took all the money paid to those working parents and provided education and training to all those not working.

Since there is there is ample evidence to prove most of those on welfare programs do have jobs, there is no need to make that assumption.

Your entire argument is based on your believe that people prefer to hold low income jobs or no jobs all and live on welfare programs than get a job. If that was the case why does the average welfare receipt leave the program in about 14 months instead staying on the program for maximum time period. The same is true food stamps.

47.8% of the households on SNAP work. Individuals without depends are limited to 3 months if not working.

A University of California study found that 56% of federal and state dollars spent between 2009 and 2011 on welfare programs — including Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit — flowed to working families and individuals with jobs. In some industries, about half the workforce relies on welfare.

Five Things You Probably Don t Know About Food Stamps Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Get a Job Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Like most, you quote the problem, not the solution.

 

[Darkwind]

Workers that get's a 10% raise due to an increase in minimum wage aren't going to see a 10% increase in their cost of living or anything close to it because the effect on prices are diluted by many other factors.

100% stupid and liberal as always:

1) A Rolls always cost more than a Chevy because costs always determine price.

2) Minimum wage workers want higher wages and with the same intensity so do management and owners and suppliers and customers etc etc. If soviet libturds give minimum wage folks a raise the people who pay for it more intensely want to cover the loss by getting a raise too; so prices go up and no net benefit is possible.

3) Now you know why the folk who get minimum wage stay at the bottom and are always clamoring for more under the liberal notion that you get ahead through lib soviet violence rather than by being worth more.

A soviet liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism so believes in magical welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, heath care, non-free trade. In short, the libsoviet believes in a 1000 child like soviet interventions.

Didn't you read the OP? Low wage workers in 'Murica can retire fat and happy. All they need to do is live like they don't have jobs for 20 years. It's a cake walk.....and then you get to go fishin'!

dear, a couple at Walmart earning $10/hour over an entire career earns $42k/year. That's a no stress 40 hour week while most Americans work much longer and under far more stress. 90% of those who have ever lived on this planet would love the Walmart life. They don't clean any of Americans 400 million toilet bowls.

Which means a single Mom with 3 kids has $20,400/yr or $400/wk to feed, cloth, pay rent, transpiration, utilities, healthcare expenses, dental expenses, school expenses, and household expenses for 4 people. Try doing that without government assistance. Walmart workers draw over 6 billion dollars a year in public assistance.

Healthcare, dental, and school expenses are NOT weekly (or even monthly) expenses. Why not add the 10 dollars a day (300 per month) for cigarettes.

 

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

 

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell you most of these people love their kids and feel guilty that they can't do a better job of providing for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in the minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Back in the 90s, we had the 1995 budget battle with the Republicans "Contract with America", if you remember that.

As a result we pushed through, and forced Clinton to sign, the welfare reform bill, that Clinton said openly he "will fix it later".

This welfare reform placed massive limits on food stamps and welfare.

I'll never forget this 10TV reporter from our local CBS station. Now this wasn't a national broadcast. CBS would never have aired this. But our local station here in Columbus, Ohio, had no problem.

The report went out to find some welfare queen who was getting kicked off welfare and food stamps. The reporter is in her little section 8 apartment, with her three kids running around, and the reporter asked:

"How will you make it without government support? How is this going to effect you?"

The lady looked her in the eyes, and said "oh well be better off"

The reporter was stunned, and stuttered "Really?"

The lady replied "Of course, I'll have a lot more money with a full time job".

The reporter then asked quizzically "Then why didn't you do it before?"

"Because I didn't have to".

Fast forward a few years....

I'm in college, and working at Wendy's at nights. This lady comes in and gets a job. She tells us on her first day, she's only there until she can qualify for welfare again, and even rubbed our noses in it, by pointing out the day she qualified again.

Sure enough, on that day, she stopped showing up for work.

All sympathy I had for welfare and food stamps disappeared between those two events.

Here is my argument. I've worked mid-ohio food bank. I've worked the soup kitchen down town.

Both have more than enough food to feed the poor and impoverished for months, if not a year.

People who are really in need to have those needs met by charity. The government should not force a single person, to pay a single penny of their hard earned money, to pay for the food and 'welfare' of people who do nothing, not even travel to the soup kitchen to get it.

There is more than enough charity for those who truly need. Those that don't can get a job, and work... or walk to the soup kitchen.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell you most of these people love their kids and feel guilty that they can't do a better job of providing for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in the minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Back in the 90s, we had the 1995 budget battle with the Republicans "Contract with America", if you remember that.

As a result we pushed through, and forced Clinton to sign, the welfare reform bill, that Clinton said openly he "will fix it later".

This welfare reform placed massive limits on food stamps and welfare.

I'll never forget this 10TV reporter from our local CBS station. Now this wasn't a national broadcast. CBS would never have aired this. But our local station here in Columbus, Ohio, had no problem.

The report went out to find some welfare queen who was getting kicked off welfare and food stamps. The reporter is in her little section 8 apartment, with her three kids running around, and the reporter asked:

"How will you make it without government support? How is this going to effect you?"

The lady looked her in the eyes, and said "oh well be better off"

The reporter was stunned, and stuttered "Really?"

The lady replied "Of course, I'll have a lot more money with a full time job".

The reporter then asked quizzically "Then why didn't you do it before?"

"Because I didn't have to".

Fast forward a few years....

I'm in college, and working at Wendy's at nights. This lady comes in and gets a job. She tells us on her first day, she's only there until she can qualify for welfare again, and even rubbed our noses in it, by pointing out the day she qualified again.

Sure enough, on that day, she stopped showing up for work.

All sympathy I had for welfare and food stamps disappeared between those two events.

Here is my argument. I've worked mid-ohio food bank. I've worked the soup kitchen down town.

Both have more than enough food to feed the poor and impoverished for months, if not a year.

People who are really in need to have those needs met by charity. The government should not force a single person, to pay a single penny of their hard earned money, to pay for the food and 'welfare' of people who do nothing, not even travel to the soup kitchen to get it.

There is more than enough charity for those who truly need. Those that don't can get a job, and work... or walk to the soup kitchen.

Bullshit.

 

[Flopper]

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell most of these people love their kids and are doing all they can for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Frankly, your argument holds no weight ...

While I don't believe your assumption that the majority of people on government subsidies are working, let's pretend that it is true.

That fact (if it were a fact) is an indictment of the government, not a credit. It is NOT an accident that the government includes children (38.1% of children are on welfare) in its accounting of those who receive welfare. 23.1% of the American public received welfare, but that includes the children.

The government has subsumed responsibility for raising the children. No longer is the parent responsible - he only needs to abrogate his responsibility to the government.

Why do you work? To provide for your family, and to make their lives better. Would you do that if the government would do it for you? The only difference between you and the welfare fathers is the level of starting income. Today, welfare won't help you, so you have to do it yourself. For the welfare father, he only needs to turn his kids over to the government. You did what you had to do --- so does he.

But, then, the government makes it even worse - they tell the father they don't even have to worry about. Just ignore your responsibilities, and the government will step right up to help that unwed mother.

Perhaps we would be better off if we took all the money paid to those working parents and provided education and training to all those not working.

Since there is there is ample evidence to prove most of those on welfare programs do have jobs, there is no need to make that assumption.

Your entire argument is based on your believe that people prefer to hold low income jobs or no jobs all and live on welfare programs than get a job. If that was the case why does the average welfare receipt leave the program in about 14 months instead staying on the program for maximum time period. The same is true food stamps.

47.8% of the households on SNAP work. Individuals without depends are limited to 3 months if not working.

A University of California study found that 56% of federal and state dollars spent between 2009 and 2011 on welfare programs — including Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit — flowed to working families and individuals with jobs. In some industries, about half the workforce relies on welfare.

Five Things You Probably Don t Know About Food Stamps Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Get a Job Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Like most, you quote the problem, not the solution.

If by solution, you mean eliminating unemployment, poverty, crime, and discrimination, then there is no solution. However, we can improve the situation.