Everyone on food stamps isn't a freeloader

Today they cut back on food stamp allocations.
I worked for a city that employed approx. 2000 people and the wages were so low that a third of these FULL-TIME employees qualified for food stamps and there are thousands of employers doing the same thing, paying their employees slave wages ,like Walmart . You can't have it both ways people .Pay people a living wage or support them with Govt. help. I for one, am damn tired of subsidizing Walmarts and other
mega rich companies employees wages with Govt. programs because they wont pay their employees a living wage. !!!!!!!! Everyone on food stamps is not a FREELOADER .Yes, there is abuse in every program that needs to be addressed, but the majority of people on food stamps are employed full-time. Let's stop subsidizing MEGA-RICH OIL COMPANIES, rich farmers, every third world country on the planet , and bailing out MEGA BANKS before we screw people that need the help the most ! A society needs all kinds of people to function properly. We need people to build our roads, dig the ditches for your utilities etc. and I for one appreciate the people that do these jobs and they deserve a living wage.

 

Shouldn't this bleeding heart commentary be placed in the Opinion category since it doesn't conform to this section?

 

You propose, and I quote...
"Pay people a living wage or support them with Govt. help"

Carry your proposal to it's logical conclusion.
Starting on Monday, Wal-Mart institutes a wage increase across the board...nationally. Associates previously making $8.50 per hour will now be making $15.00 per hour.

This is an increase in labor expenses of approximately 76%. The retail industry typically has a profit margin of 3.48%. In order to absorb this increase in labor expenses, and still maintain a similar profit margin, Wal-Mart must initiate price increases simultaneously across the board. Products that on Sunday would cost $20, would cost $35.20 on Monday...matching the 76% in labor expenses. The price offset being necessary in order to maintain equivalent revenue with expenses while still keeping the 3.48% profit margin.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's competition, say Costco and Target, maintain similar price points from Sunday to Monday, because unlike Wal-Mart, they did not increase their labor expenses. Consumers seeing the price increase at Wal-Mart make the choice to shop somewhere else. Sales drop, revenues drop...and Wal-Mart is forced to close stores that cannot maintain solvency., they don't make a profit in other words.

The associate finds themselves out of work, but for a brief period of time wherein they enjoyed the pay increase.

Granted this is a very simplified economic model I'm presenting, but I believe the principles are sound. In order for businesses in the retail industry to maintain profitability given such a narrow profit margin of between 3 - 4%, they keep labor expenses as low as possible.

My point.
These are complex issues with complex solutions, beyond my knowledge base. I don't believe the solution is as easy as wage increases, that much I can say with confidence. In the interim government subsistence aid may be required, but long term it is unsustainable economically.

If I had the fix-it, for this, I wouldn't be posting on a message board, I'd be part of some think tank somewhere...
in other words, I don't have a plan, at best I can point out the flaws in other proposals.

Eliminating what won't work, does at least narrow the field of possible solutions that may work.

 

'Unintended consequences' run deep...why there will never be a 'man-made' utopia...

 

Indeed, perhaps the Bible was right all along...

The poor will always be among us.

 

Guess we'll have to see about that during the 'Millennium' (God-made utopia)..<wink>

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but based on the scenario, doesn't the 76% wage increase, coupled with a 76% price increase would make that retail item even less affordable to the employee?

 

Think of it this way: Household of four. Two working at 'McJobs' b/c the education system failed them.......for whatever reason/s. At the end of every week dear old
(independent living) Granny is asked to 'loan' the family a hundred bucks just to help pay the expenses.
Who in their right minds thinks this is a sustainable economic model?
Those who claim 'things will get better' are foolish. 'Things' will never 'get better' for the vast majority of the 50 million people now dependent on the Government for basic needs.
Who in their right mind thinks a national economic model wherein 50 million people ( and climbing) are unable to survive without the Government is sustainable into the future?
Certainly "the rich" (that would be dear old Granny) can't prop up the economy forever.
It's time for those handing out the food stamps and those receiving them sat down and had an honest conversation.
IMO the middle class and the 'poor' are going to have to except the fact that everyone must lower their expectations. No more 'cable'/take out/delivery/holidays/new cloths/new anything unless it's critical to the basic survival of the family. 'Squatter towns' will spring up made up of people who couldn't pay their rent. Vast parts of America will soon look like rural China and parts of Detroit. The most important job of the day will be to 'grow stuff' to eat.
If I was uneducated with zero hope of ever having a descent job with a family I'd be heading for somewhere with good water and land I could plant a garden in far far away from the urban centers. Then my food stamps would be used to buy seeds and the most basic survival tools. The world exists b/c of homeostasis.
Picture America with tens of millions of increasingly more and more desperate people crowded into urban areas going increasingly more dependent on the present President devoted to turning America into a Socialist state and vast relatively unpopulated rural areas. Now picture a population spread evenly over the entire country engaged in self subsistence and with it freedom. Which picture makes more sense a hundred years from now. What picture do you think the 'founding fathers' envisioned?

 

There was a time...long ago, when employers understood the benefits that come with a healthy and loyal workforce. When Corporate profits were used partially to improve conditions for the people that helped build the success that created them, and when making millions for shareholders and executives sufficed and making billions was not the all important goal, at the cost of being overtly greedy and uncaring.
It seems clear that the cost of this new corporate mentality, coupled with the wish to see Wall Street break every record in existence and interesting banking practices have created a new dynamic that will eventually destroy much of the system itself...the massive increase in the working poor is soon to reach a critical mass that society simply cannot survive.
It is possible we will see a bloodless revolution in this country in the near future....like an occupy wall street on steroids. Otherwise I find it likely this country will go through an extended period of great pain and suffering for much of its population, the endgame of such a thing would be far from bloodless.

 

Excellent summation. But you left out how leftists can make that scenario work. All profit losses are to be absorbed by the CEOs and upper management since they can afford it. Prices aren't supposed to be raised to compensate. The buessiness is just supposed to absorb them out of fairness. They disagree about the profit margins and feel they are too high. They essentially want people to fight against their capitalistic urges

 

Stop complaining. This is just what is means to be a non-elite global citizen.

 

"living wage"

every time I hear that term i shake my head in disgust

 

It only took 'The Greatest Nation in the history of the world a couple of hundred years to socially and financially collapse under the weight of the 'entitlement' society. "I live in America therefore I am entitled to live an unsustainable lifestyle and when I've burned all my credit up the Government will take care of me b/c after all I do live in America."
The party is over forever.

 

If they're not freeloaders then why don't they get a 2nd or 3rd job to provide for themselves instead of stealing our money for food stamps?

 

How do you separate freeloaders from non-freeloaders in a program that for the last four years has been signing up anyone with a pulse?

 

I'm a 35-Year-Old Veteran On Food Stamps

My name is Jason. I turned 35 less than a week ago. My first job was maintenance work at a public pool when I was 17. I worked 40 hours a week while I was in college. I've never gone longer than six months without employment in my life and I just spent the last three years in the military, one of which consisted of a combat tour of Afghanistan.

Oh, and I'm now on food stamps. Since June, as a matter of fact.

Why am I on food stamps?

The same reason everyone on food stamps is on food stamps: because I would very much enjoy not starving.

I mean, if that's okay with you:

Mr. or Mrs. Republican congressman.
Mr. or Mrs. Conservative commentator.
Mr. or Mrs. "welfare queen" letter-to-the-editor author.
Mr. or Mrs. "fiscal conservative, reason-based" libertarian.
I do apologize for burdening you on the checkout line with real-life images of American-style poverty. I know you probably believe the only true starving people in the world have flies buzzing around their eyes while they wallow away, near-lifeless in gutters.

Hate to burst the bubble, but those people don't live in this country.

I do. And millions like me. Millions of people in poverty who fall into three categories.

Let's call them the "lucky" category, since conservatives seem to think people on welfare have hit some sort of jackpot:

Those living paycheck to paycheck? They're a little lucky.

Those living unemployment check to unemployment check? They're a little luckier.

Those living 2nd of the month to 2nd of the month? Ding! We've hit the jackpot!

The 2nd of the month being the time when funds gets electronically deposited onto the EBT card, [at least in NY] for those who've never been fortunate enough to hit that $175/month Powerball.

I fall into the latter two categories. But I've known people recently -- soldiers in the Army -- who were in the first and third. They were off fighting in Afghanistan while their wives were at home, buying food at the on-post commissary with food stamps.

And nobody bats an eye there, because it's not uncommon in the military.

It's not uncommon -- nor is it shameful. It might be shameful how little service-members are paid, but that's a separate issue.

The fact remains anyone at a certain income level can find it difficult from time to time to pay for everything. And when you're poor you learn to make sacrifices. Food shouldn't be one of them.

The whole concept is un-American. People living here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most abundant resources, should be forced to go hungry because of the intellectual notion of fiscal conservatism and the ideological notion of self-reliance.

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me?

I didn't risk my life in Afghanistan so I could come back and watch people go hungry in America. I certainly didn't risk it so I could come back and go hungry.

Anyone who genuinely supports cutting food stamps is not an intellectual or an ideologue -- they're a bully.

And nobody likes a bully. Except other bullies.

It's time for regular Americans to stand up to these bullies. Not cower in the corner, ashamed of needing help. Because if there's one thing life has taught me, it's that you never know when you'll be the one in need.

http://thesterlingroad.com/2013/09/19/my-name-is-jason-im-a-35-yr-old-white-male-combat-veteran-and-im-on-food-stamps/

 

I think because u have a decent job or u r not aware of peoples suffering. The majority of working class people in the US are facing many challenges ,especially since the economic crisis had hit the country.Surprisingly though a lot of people are earning too much .Hence the gap between rich and poor became even wider than before.

 

This is what happens when politicians take a well intentioned social welfare program and turn it into a political tool to buy votes. So now, instead of feeding the poor who need our help, we have almost 50 million people in the SNAP program, and we have tens of million more children receiving free school breakfast and lunch.

This is why conservatives want a smaller government, so even these programs, designed to offer urgently need assistance to the poor and elderly are working as they should, instead of turning into sinkholes for tax dollars for millions of leeches and freeloaders.

 

so you think veterans are leeches and freeloaders?

 

When was the last time you bought groceries for a family of five?

 

Their profits will decrease naturally, but the free market and competition still prevail ,if they want people to still shop there prices won't increase that much .There mega unwarranted profits will . It's time for them and all mega companies to spread the wealth around or we keep subsidizing their employees with GOVT. ASSISTANCE. AND OR TAX DOLLARS YOUMCAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

 

Your wrong about their profits being 3-4 % .I saw a PBS special where walmart was having one their manager meetings and each of them would brag about a recent product in the store and it was always 25-30 %. Walmart is so huge they actually dictate to their suppliers what they will pay and it is a take or leave it proposal and most of their supplies are in China . All our products are made in America Chitt is BS

 

Seems your prone to massive exaggeration !

 

I'm not here defending Wal-Mart's practices only to provide the economic realities of wage increases.

Your comment is centered on a common mistake.
You're confusing profit percentage with profit margin.
Profit percentage is calculated with cost price taken as base. Profit margin is calculated with selling price (or revenue) taken as base.
Profit margin is frequently confused with markup. It's not uncommon for many to claim profit margins over 100%. They are referring to the markup on a product as a percentage of product cost.

The formula for profit margin:
Net profit magin = net profit / revenue

Here take a look.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT

Wal-Mart's profitability
Profit Margin: 3.61%
Operating Margin: 5.91%

The operating margin is a measurement of what proportion of a company's revenue is left over after paying for the variable costs of production such as wages, product purchases, etc. The operating margin is required for a company to be able to pay for its fixed costs, such as interest on debt.

An increase in wages will effect both the profit margin, and operating margin of Wal-Mart.

I will concede one point. In my comment I stated Wal-Mart's profit margin was 3.48%; according to the most recent available financial data, which I provided in the link, the profit margin is currently 3.61%. I did state, that typically retail businesses run profit margins between 3 - 4%, and I believe I reported that accurately in my comment.

Having not seen the TV show you're referencing, I can speculate they were providing the profit percentage. The profit percentage is the difference between the price of an item that you pay for and how much you sell it for, expressed as a percentage to the markup on a product as a percentage of product cost.

There's often confusion between profit percentage and profit margin.

My argument is sound as a low profit margin indicates a low margin of safety, interpreted as a higher risk that a decline in sales will erase profits and result in a net loss, or a negative margin. An increase in wages of the level in my hypothetical scenario, 76%...will result in a net loss for Wal-Mart unless revenue is increased 76% to offset the increase in expenses....the subsequent product price increase to the consumer is necessary to maintain a profit margin of between 3 -4%.

 

Jason, the poor repukes are just brained washed by FAUX NEWS AND RUSH LIMPBALL. The rich ones know the real scoop , but they all have one thing in common . It is impossible for them to empathize with anyone less fortunate than themselves !!!!!