You can feel free to dismiss anything I say whenever you like. You continue to misrepresent what I have written in this thread. I think I'm done here.
With all due respect, if you're going to participate, you have to expect people to disagree with you. While you're obviously free to simply drop out claiming misrepresentation, I hardly see the point of speaking up at all.
It is it not an exageration. Last time I lived in public housing nearly half the other families were doing exactly this. Their primary impediments to employment? (Besides a lack of education and criminal records.) A minimum wage job would have drastically reduced their standard of living.
Perhaps that suggests that the minimum wage is too low?
My thoughts exactly.
If the minimum wage were tied to the CPI, meaning that we ensured the minimum allowable wage under the law would buy the same amount year to year in food and rent rather than shrinking, it would today be $10.57. As it happens that's about $.25 less than what I make after working at my job for over 2 years.
I arrested someone today on an assault warrant. Both he and the complainant, who are married, are unemployed. They both receive government checks. (He gets SSI for "anxiety attacks". She gets cash for her kids, who are not his. His kids all live with their respective mothers.) He had $400 cash in his pocket when I arrested him. They live in a rented house. He was articulate when explaining that the charges against him were lies. His physique was impressive, being a solid 240 pounds of muscle. He claimed that he didn't hear us blaring the horn and demanding that he exit the house over the loudspeaker because he was up late drinking. This was about 10 in the morning on a Thursday. He didn't come out until I started to knock his door down.
The incident itself, which happened a week ago, was at the complainant's mother's residence. The complainant, her mother, and her cousin, all of whom are unemployed and receiving government assistance, were out all day drinking, smoking marijuana, and playing cards and dominos.
It's a way of life. It is multigenerational. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the lifestyles of those too lazy to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a way of life. It is multigenerational. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the lifestyles of those too lazy to work.
No question.
Now what you need to show is 1)he isn't legitimately entitled to SSI for panic attacks 2)he would better serve society in a job 3)that there is somewhere that would hire him 4)that you could somehow force him to stay there 5)that people like him make up a significant portion (>5%) of "safety net" beneficiaries.Anecdotal evidence doesn't suffice for these things.
1) Considering that he calmly accepted that he was going to jail, probably for a year or more, on his 14th arrest, and did not have a panic attack, he seems okay to me. He didn't tell the jail that he takes any medication for it.
2) Having a job when you're able-bodied and able-minded? I think that's clearly in society's interest.
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
4) This is also not my problem. If he doesn't want to work when capable of it, why should we be forced to subsidize his lifestyle?
5) It's absolutely more than 5% of the safety net. I deal with people like them on a daily basis, considerably more often than I deal with people in actual need. It's phenomonally widespread. Before you go tell me that I only deal with criminals, I guarantee you that I deal with a far, far wider cut of the population than just criminals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)You are not a phychiatrist and unable to make this call.
2)Having a job does not, in itself, contribute to society.
3)It may not be your problem but it is OUR problem.
4)Ditto.
5)Your word doesn't sway my opinion. Show me evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
Why would anyone hire him if you wouldn't? Its not like there isn't a large pool of people who aren't proven screwups just waiting to be hired.
And why om earth would he work for less money than he's getting paid to do nothing? After you pay for a car, car insuramce, and gas to go to work you're lucky to bring home more than what the government considers the basic neccesities: food shelter and medical (and a tv)
The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.
It's not hard to get a job if you're willing to work hard. Go pick apples! Farmers in several states with anti-illegal immigrant laws (Alabama, for instance) are having difficulty filling their positions because the work is hard for low pay.
So, BNW, what you suggest is that we pay for his lifestyle in perpetuity, while he makes no attempt to get a job and simply goes in and out of jail? That's a policy that makes sense.
Meatrace - I think that if you're disabled enough to be unable to work, your symptoms really ought to be pretty self-evident. (Especially if you're claiming something vague like anxiety attacks.) If someone were out of work because of a bad knee, but I had to chase him down to arrest him, I think that it's pretty clear that his knee's not all that bad. In this case, he was put in a very stressful situation (police kicking down his door to serve a felony warrant) without the faintest trace of anxiety. Either the medication he doesn't take is super-effective or he doesn't actually have a problem.
I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.
And why om earth would he work for less money than he's getting paid to do nothing? After you pay for a car, car insuramce, and gas to go to work you're lucky to bring home more than what the government considers the basic neccesities: food shelter and medical (and a tv)
This is the problem. Our generosity in providing assistance instead fosters dependency. Why work when you can live off others for free? You can smoke, get high, get drunk, watch television, hang out with your friends, and have as many kids as you want! It's like permanent summer vacation and taxpayers are the parents.
And I see rampant police abuse which you have told me is just bad luck. I guess you don't like the door swinging the other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed #3 is the greatest problem. If no one's going to hire him for whatever reason, be it good or bad, legal or illegal, then the multi generational problem is being subsidized by the same people who are paying for him to live there.
Moreover, I would add that this person is a criminal- I hope you to are not judging people on assistance by his own poor example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.
On the contrary -- on these points, I think we all totally agree. The difference here is that, when asked for practical solutions to the problem that don't cost more than the problem itself, you reset to ranting about how there's a problem.
(1) Is there a problem with people scamming the system?.
(2) Yes, there is. We all agree.
(3) How do you fix it so that the solution isn't worse than the problem?
(4) Answer cannot be "go back to step 1."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Considering that he calmly accepted that he was going to jail, probably for a year or more, on his 14th arrest, and did not have a panic attack, he seems okay to me. He didn't tell the jail that he takes any medication for it.
2) Having a job when you're able-bodied and able-minded? I think that's clearly in society's interest.
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
4) This is also not my problem. If he doesn't want to work when capable of it, why should we be forced to subsidize his lifestyle?
5) It's absolutely more than 5% of the safety net. I deal with people like them on a daily basis, considerably more often than I deal with people in actual need. It's phenomonally widespread. Before you go tell me that I only deal with criminals, I guarantee you that I deal with a far, far wider cut of the population than just criminals.
Are we subsidizing it more in jail?
Why work when you can live off others for free?
Why work when no one will pay you what your labor is worth?
As to your question about paying for them in perpetuity: yes. Not because it's a morally right thing to do, but because the cost of rooting them out while protecting everyone who does need the assistance would be more costly than allowing the abuse to continue.
At some point you will reach that area of diminishing returns. What I'm proposing is that maybe we're already there.
I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.On the contrary -- on these points, I think we all totally agree. The difference here is that, when asked for practical solutions to the problem that don't cost more than the problem itself, you reset to ranting about how there's a problem.
(1) Is there a problem with people scamming the system?.
(2) Yes, there is. We all agree.
(3) How do you fix it so that the solution isn't worse than the problem?
(4) Answer cannot be "go back to step 1."
If fixing a problem costs more not fixing it everything considered than fixing it is irrational.
The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.
It's not hard to get a job if you're willing to work hard. Go pick apples! Farmers in several states with anti-illegal immigrant laws (Alabama, for instance) are having difficulty filling their positions because the work is hard for low pay.
So, BNW, what you suggest is that we pay for his lifestyle in perpetuity, while he makes no attempt to get a job and simply goes in and out of jail? That's a policy that makes sense.
Meatrace - I think that if you're disabled enough to be unable to work, your symptoms really ought to be pretty self-evident. (Especially if you're claiming something vague like anxiety attacks.) If someone were out of work because of a bad knee, but I had to chase him down to arrest him, I think that it's pretty clear that his knee's not all that bad. In this case, he was put in a very stressful situation (police kicking down his door to serve a felony warrant) without the faintest trace of anxiety. Either the medication he doesn't take is super-effective or he doesn't actually have a problem.
I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.
I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.
I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.
I think you are going a bit to the extreme. Southern Spain is above 40% unemployment and, while they are not really having a happy time, it's not like society broke down into biker gangs trading in bear pelts either.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The 40% unemployment figure might be based on the layman concept of unemployment instead of what the government means when it describes unemployment. If you took into account, say, all stay at home mothers and labeled them unemployed, you might hit 40%. The unemployment rate that most people quote is based on the number of people actively looking for work.
Still, it's an odd way to calculate unemployment given that a higher unemployment rate undercuts the argument sought to be advanced (i.e., that anyone can get a job if they look).
That the labor force participation rate is what that is called. Also if you use that as a measure of unemployment most illegal aliens are here to work so illegal aliens would cause the unemployment rate to go down if taht were the case. Also we could reduce unemployment by secretly deporting people on welfare.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of funny that in all the endless debate over welfare the issue of corporate welfare never seems to come up. The amount of free taxpayer money flowing to big business through tax breaks, subsidies, and just plain old handouts is staggering, especially considering that almost all of the recipients are already profitable. People scamming welfare bothers me, but it doesn't bother me half as much as what Walmart or the finance industry gets away with. Ironically, people in bottom-end jobs commonly claim legitimate government aid (particularly with children), meaning that tax dollars are effectively subsidizing their salary.
I think you are going a bit to the extreme. Southern Spain is above 40% unemployment and, while they are not really having a happy time, it's not like society broke down into biker gangs trading in bear pelts either.I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.
The problem with this example is one of scale. I'm assuming he's talking about the entire US. You're referring to 1/3 of one nation in Europe. A nation that is receiving financial support from several other nations, helping to prop it up.
Labor Force Participation has as much to do with age demographics as it does the economy, both influence it quite a bit, but an aging population in the US is going to push that number down for the next 30 years fairly significantly, regardless of economics.
The Great Depression peaked at 24.9% unemployment in 1933. Looking at some of the problems that happened in this country during that period, I don't think it's crazy to think that at 40% unemployment, the government and most of society is going to have difficulty operating the way we do right now. Sure, I used some hyperbole, but if the worlds largest economy experiences 40% unemployment, no one is going to be able to bail us out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And why om earth would he work for less money than he's getting paid to do nothing? After you pay for a car, car insuramce, and gas to go to work you're lucky to bring home more than what the government considers the basic neccesities: food shelter and medical (and a tv)This is the problem.
It is HALF the problem. It is a problem, it needs to be cracked down on, but it is not going to stop until you fix the entire problem: that the system is rigged against low income workers. Not only do they contend with low wages, but high expenses and high taxes. After property taxes (directly or indirectly), income tax, sales tax, state required vehicle car insurance, medicare tax. social security tax... you pay a higher percentage of your income to the government than a Romney. What you have left is not enough for a living is more like surviving.
People should be able to work hard and get ahead but they cant. Its the red queens race the faster you go the faster the ground moves under you. the only way to win is to cheat. case in point...
When you tell someone to go pick apples you're telling someone to break the law and take a job illegally and off the books with no payroll taxes, unempolyment insurance, or workers comp insurance: because thats what those sorts of jobs are.
If you tell Billy bob there "no welfare for you!" you wind up incarcerating him to the tune of 35k a year... if you can't shoot him in the head its cheaper to send him a check.
I've worked with prison crews before:you're not getting your money back that way, they had more rights than we did (rain? they don't work in it. 20 degrees? oh hell no, Get out on the ice? Not in your dreams. Snakes? Send that guy in first to find them...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we subsidizing it more in jail?1) Considering that he calmly accepted that he was going to jail, probably for a year or more, on his 14th arrest, and did not have a panic attack, he seems okay to me. He didn't tell the jail that he takes any medication for it.
2) Having a job when you're able-bodied and able-minded? I think that's clearly in society's interest.
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
4) This is also not my problem. If he doesn't want to work when capable of it, why should we be forced to subsidize his lifestyle?
5) It's absolutely more than 5% of the safety net. I deal with people like them on a daily basis, considerably more often than I deal with people in actual need. It's phenomonally widespread. Before you go tell me that I only deal with criminals, I guarantee you that I deal with a far, far wider cut of the population than just criminals.
I've always wondered this. There has to be a better, more practical way to deter crime/rehabilitate criminals. Ive always wondered who exactly came to the conclusion that we should (for instance) make drugs illegal causing them to be super expensive and thus an easy way for the poor to make money without working a real job (like a pharmacist), then arrest them, pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to house them, then throw them back out with no hope of ever getting a real job because theyve been arrested. Rinse, repeat.
Theres got to be a better way.
Fundamentally unemployment doesn't really matter. Considering CEO salaries and corporate profits have recovered to new record levels, I'm not sure we'd need anyone else to bail us out. Unfortunately I'm not sure they think they need us any more.
We look too much sometimes at money and worry too much about how the things we need will be paid for. We forget that money is a fiction. It's a very convenient and useful fiction. Without it, civilization couldn't really function, but it's still a fiction. What matters is the actual goods and services that it's a proxy for.
What matters isn't how much money we have or how many people are unemployed. That's all about distribution and incentive. Can we still produce enough goods and services to support us all?
One of the "problems" of the modern economy is that we can produce more stuff with less people. That's part of the reality behind this crisis. We don't need everyone to work to make enough stuff for us all. For awhile we handled this by going full on consumerism, but we seem to have gone past that now.
Seriously, if we can make the same amount of stuff with half the man hours, do we really need to make twice as much stuff to keep everyone employed? Wouldn't it make more sense to work half as much?But it's more profitable to keep a pool of surplus labor. Keeps costs down and profits high.
I mostly agree with your viewpoints on the economy. Money isn't real, but it isn't fictional either. The economy we have today would not be possible without it, building a TV in Asia and shipping it to Ohio would be impossible with a barter system.
I agree that the wealth disparity is a problem. One of Henry Ford's few good ideas was to pay his guys enough to buy the product they made.
Also, I enjoy the fact that the NFL uses distributed wealth, salary caps and unions... but even the 'struggling' teams make more Sales Per Employee than Apple.
|
The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.
It is a little more difficult than that. Nearly all retail positions these days require you to apply online.
All online job applications are run through 3rd party screening, including personality and prior applications submitted. The companies running the screening process are used industry wide.
If you do not match certain a certain profile (as determined by a computer generated rule set via data-mining) the application will be rejected without ever being seen by a human.
As for the unemployment rate. My daughter has been looking for work for several months now. Check out the unemployment rate for young adults in D.C.
A new pizza place opened around the corner from where I live two weeks ago. They received over 1500 applications on the first day. That is for part-time, minimum-wage, must have completely open availability.
The McDonald's down the street? Not only do they pay minimum wage, they charge 50 cents an hour rental on work uniforms. For a 20 hour-a-week job, must have 24-7 availability, must be bilingual.
|
|
When you tell someone to go pick apples you're telling someone to break the law and take a job illegally and off the books with no payroll taxes, unempolyment insurance, or workers comp insurance: because thats what those sorts of jobs are.
This exactly describes my step-father. He worked picking crops in Florida his entire life. It is a strictly off-the-books job. Often below minimum wage. With zero safety net if anything happens.
He is 65 now, can no longer get hired and has no Social Security.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally unemployment doesn't really matter. Considering CEO salaries and corporate profits have recovered to new record levels, I'm not sure we'd need anyone else to bail us out. Unfortunately I'm not sure they think they need us any more.
We look too much sometimes at money and worry too much about how the things we need will be paid for. We forget that money is a fiction. It's a very convenient and useful fiction. Without it, civilization couldn't really function, but it's still a fiction. What matters is the actual goods and services that it's a proxy for.
What matters isn't how much money we have or how many people are unemployed. That's all about distribution and incentive. Can we still produce enough goods and services to support us all?
One of the "problems" of the modern economy is that we can produce more stuff with less people. That's part of the reality behind this crisis. We don't need everyone to work to make enough stuff for us all. For awhile we handled this by going full on consumerism, but we seem to have gone past that now.
Seriously, if we can make the same amount of stuff with half the man hours, do we really need to make twice as much stuff to keep everyone employed? Wouldn't it make more sense to work half as much?But it's more profitable to keep a pool of surplus labor. Keeps costs down and profits high.
I think this almost perfectly sums up my feelings on the global economic climate.
We have, since the industrial revolution, had an economy predicated on geometric growth at the same time as increased worker productivity. We have, to use a rather gonzo metaphor, squeezed all the toothpaste down to one end. We have also (perhaps incorrectly) correlated this economic model with social and technological progress, but we are reaching a hard limit.
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.
Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.
Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?
Dare...dare I say it?
INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
|
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?
Dare...dare I say it?
INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
Oh man, now Anklebiter, or his podpersonreplacement, is going to sue you for copyright infringement.
What have you done, Meatrace, what have you done?!!?!
In the communist utopia, there is no copyright.
So I think I'm safe.
No. I think if anything Anklebiter would be pleased at the spread of his clarion call.
Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?
Because they've got people convinced that anything else is unamerican and kills puppies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?Because they've got people convinced that anything else is unamerican and kills puppies.
You cultural marxist scamp you ;)
I have never done anything in anyway to de-fraud/abuse the system, seriously never, but I would, maybe, I'm too lazy and apathetic to try, also seems like it would not be worth the effort and the scuzz factor
I was on unemployment during early 2010 when everyone was getting laid off. After about 4 months of diligently applying to everywhere my skills might be fruitfully applied and getting goose egg, I just stopped trying for a while. You're required to apply to 2 places a week to get unemployment, but I didn't for a while and no one ever checked.
I don't feel particularly guilty though.
Now all we've got to do to is get Citizen Meatrace to enjoy The Grateful Dead and he will be ready for membership in the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L).
I'm okay with working 8 hour days. I enjoy working, especially since I provide a valuable service to society.
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.
It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.
It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.
D'you see why I ended up like I did? And why I'm always yelling "Vive le Galt!"?
It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.D'you see why I ended up like I did? And why I'm always yelling "Vive le Galt!"?
We always assumed that's what was tattooed on the keister of the goblin marching in front of you.
|
|
We always assumed that's what was tattooed on the keister of the goblin marching in front of you.It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.D'you see why I ended up like I did? And why I'm always yelling "Vive le Galt!"?
That would imply Anklebiter can read. I'm pretty sure those are fighting words t oa Goblin.
Not only can goblins read, they can read Gramsci!
Now you're in for it, pinkskins!