Market Pressure to Reduce Welfare Spending

For the nth time if a business "has no business" it can shut the doors and simply disappear but a person cannot. If a person is laid off from their job they have "zero income" (excluding unemployment benefits that expire) and with about 18 million people out of work right now their prospects are not good for finding another job and are horrible when it comes to finding one that provides greater compensation than their last one. All the while the person has to keep paying the bills and they can only cut expenditures so much. They can't stop eating, they still need a place to live, they have to pay for their utilities, and god help them if they get sick and have already filed for bankruptcy recently because they can't have that new debt discharged by a bankruptcy court for seven more years.

What we see is that the pressure of having to pay for the daily bills drives a person to accept a job below what it actually costs them to live. They will try to defer expenditures like clothing for as long as they can but someday their clothes will wear out. They try not to get sick but if the do then they're screwed because they have to take food off the table or not pay their electic bill to be able to go the the doctor.

When a business "goes out of business" it doesn't have any more financial obligations. It stops all expenditures because it simply doesn't exist. A person cannot stop existing.

 

If the market - that is customers - gave a rip they'd find out on their own. No need for more government-imposed costs.

 

Violates both the right to privacy of the individuals working at Walmart and the right to privacy held by the shareholders of Walmart.

A better market-based way to reduce Wal-mart's alleged dependency on welfare is to end welfare, which is, of course, completely unconstitutional and a proven failed federal program.

If there's no welfare, there's no welfare market place, ergo, a true market solution to ending welfare....by ending it.

 

18,000,000?

What?

The labor particiaption rate is the lowest since That Idiot Carter, at 63.2%, meaning that 36.8% of some 300,000,000 are unemployed, meaning some 113,000,000 people are out of work in one way or another.

King Obama is doing everything he can to make sure the labor participation rate doesn't get any bigger. It's part of his agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Then end welfare.

End ALL welfare.

If you're not for ending ALL welfare, stop whining about "corporate" welfare as if it's somehow different. It's not. It's still money illegally stolen and handed over to people who didn't earn it.

 

Maybe welfare costs would go down if the failed unconstitutional program was terminated, too.

Never thought of that, did you?

Are you aware that if you can help poor people using just ONE WEIRD TRICK?

Yes, you can.

Just GIVE them YOUR OWN money.

 

Everyone agrees this places a disincentive to keep and hire welfare recipients right? And that because of that is a horrible terrible idea and this thread should die a thousand deaths? Both sides of the aisle OK on killing this one?

 

And after King Obama did everything he could to make sure Obama-Care created as many part-timers as possible, too.

 

Explain why, if you care so much, you're going to give everything you have to help those in need.

You're not "greedy", are you?

"selfish"?

"Uncaring"?

WHY aren't YOU "giving back to the community"?

And, most importantly of all, why are you demanding that others be FORCED to do what you refuse to do?

 

Me? I do my best to employ people and do. They make better then national household median by themselves, and I don't knock other employers. Sure you got the right guy?

I am the one saying "if this law passes, it will be another reason for employers not to hire the poor and low skilled, keeping more people on long term welfare".

 

Strawman much?

In the economic theory of capitalism, if a job is worth $2 an hour, that value was determined by free-market competition, and, naturally, under capitalism, no one is "forced" to do anything. A person working a $2 job has chosen freely to do so, and he would not have chosen to do so if doing so meant his starvation.

 

We're not discussing "employing" people here. The employment of people isn't "giving", you are presumably receiving value for value given in that instance.

No, the typical fascist wants to play Robbin' Hood, stealing from some to buy votes from others, all the while proclaiming their moral superiority over their victims....while they hang onto their own money like a barnacle clings to it's rotted pier.

The Mayor is the one saying "if there is no welfare there is no corporate welfare".

 

More regulations that unduly burden small companies. Who will enforce it? What will the penalties be? The answers to these questions will involve more expense, more bureaucracy, more graft, than any possible positive benefits. No thanks.

 

Awesome idea Conservatives should jump at this, it would be easy to implement but I would add what their corporate profits were and wages paid on the average per job.

 

I give some charity, but government takes most of my spending money.

 

how would you collect it anonymously, a corp did that once, I decided not to respond, they sent me a email reminding me I had not filled out the anonymous web form yet

 

and add any corporate welfare monies received

 

I seriously doubt that would ever happen. But welfare/spending reform is an excellent idea, problem is what people will agree to reform and what they will not stand for.

 

Not true. When my stepdaughter had herself and her child she worked full time for slightly more than min. wage. She qualified for food stamps and subsidized housing.

 

That's because she claimed a household of two. Even more of a reason why she should have a second job.

 

Look at what you've missed:

The People of Walmart

- - - Updated - - -

You have spending money?

If you're not living in a hovel, you can afford to give more.

 

with a young child a single parent would not be able to have two full time jobs, the childcare costs would make it prohibitive alone

 

Nonsense, I don't work all day near sharp rocks in rough seas for hovel living. Go redistribute someone else's money comrade.

 

May have already been addressed but I believe this action would have the unintended consequence of making people on government assistance unemployable. Who would hire a single mother on food stamps knowing that their compensation will not be enough to fully cover her and knowing they will recieve a black mark against them for it? It also seems that it would affect small business more as they may not have the funds to pay as well asbig box competitors. Not sure on that one though.

 

People choose their lives...where they live, where they work, how much they are educated, how hard they work, how honest they are, how much they spend, how much credit debt, how they take care of their health, etc. etc. Starting with me, and every person I know, all of us have known since elementary school age how things work; get educated, get employed, get married, have kids, retire. Except for rare incidences, we get back what we put in. If we drop out of high school...well that's one story. If we graduate college with an employable degree...well that's another story. If we choose to live in Mayberry RFD as opposed to the major employment centers...well that's one story. If we choose to have kids when we're 16-20...that's another story. If crap happens in our lives then we must deal with how that crap has effected us and still reach for the brass ring knowing it cannot happen overnight...

 

And whose fault is that? Personally, I feel as though if you have a child that you are incapable of taking care of, you're engaging in child abuse and the child should go to a home with a parent who will actually care for and provide for them.

Why should everybody else be punished for the irresponsible actions of others?