Moochers Should Get Jobs

Was the 13.5% they invested all their lives not enough to keep them out of poverty? Seems like social security is a big Ponzi scheme and should be overhauled ASAP.

- - - Updated - - -

Leftist intervention in the economy prolonged the depression too. Unemployment a year after the crash was down to 6% and dropping. Then Hoover started spending like a democrat and it shot up and peaked around 25% after FDR got some big spending in too.

 

Well if you flood your country with unskilled labor i guess all they could get would be 2 bucks an hour.

or flood in unskilled labor and price em all out of work - great idea! Not only that pay them all to sunbake on the beach, big screen TVs, cell phones they all seem required!

 

Yes i have, and never once do i advice or steer them towards dependacny on anyone, nor lay their problems at the feet of others. Theres only one way to get ahead, thats to get productive and become responsible for yourself and your family. Geez you people act like humans couldnt live without govt welfare, we've done it for the best part of 100,000 years! I see you're another one claiming ive taking a quote out of context, exactly how have i done this? Did i add or change words? The anti white racist said what he said simple as that.

 

First solution: stop all Social Security payments to rich people. Rich people can be defined as anyone who can pay all their bills for the next six months without new income from anyone. When they run out of money they can reapply. Use that money to buy wholesale foods fom the poorest farmers in the country that produce them, giving those people a small boost to keep their farms running. Sell the food cheaply enough to those poor elderly people that their regular cash subsidies can handle it.

 

This is the rock that conservative politicials always crash on.

You can count on the average wingnut to rant endlessly about "free stuff", the undeserving poor, and doing away with entitlements. You will also see them call for the impoverishment of their fellow man, as some on this thread have.

They'll all cheer loudly, when some right wing clown or candidate makes a wild promise to cut some huge sum from the Federal budget (never, never from Defense, though).

But then, when the reporters ask what actual benefits and programs are going to be cut, everyone goes suddely vague and silent.

 

Do any of your responses ever have any relevance to what you're replying to? It's like you have nothing but red herrings to throw at people.

I swear no conservative around here is capable of a mildly relevant response. The issue was whether or not someone could take care of themselves with a job that pays less than minimum wage. Your comments are irrelevant to whether or not they can.

 

We hear complaints like this often and they are routinely directed at the likes of Wal-Mart. I watched a television interview with the CEO of Wal-Mart (or maybe it was the COO, not certain) but his point was rather clear. He was expressing how difficult it is for them to find sufficient numbers of workers in some areas while they get flooded with applicants in others. Obviously that follows unemployment numbers so they get more candidates in high unemployment areas.

Anyway, his point was that Wal-Mart is not a minimum wage company. Their average employee pay varies by state and locality, but the averages ranged from nearly $10/hour to $16-20 per hour in areas like North Dakota where the oil boom is sucking up all workers, leaving few to do the lower paying jobs. So they adjust their pay to the markets, just like all businesses should. It's just a bit disingenuous when we point a finger at big corporations and blame them for wanting slave labor. Look at companies like Verizon, BP, Shell Oil, Motorola, IBM, Google, Apple and others. The same big corporations we blame for things are the very ones paying high average wages and employing thousands of people. I just wonder which companies people believe would actually be able, without a minimum wage, to get workers to work at even lower levels? In my mind I can only think of places like Detroit where the economy has been decimated to imagine it even remotely possible, but even then I think taking government benefits would be higher paying so it would be foolish to work in that regard (and no I do NOT advocate people taking benefits over working, just saying).

I own a small business. I pay 2 employees. Both of those employees earn about 30% more than minimum wage. People are willing to do the work for minimum wage, but it's not beneficial to them to stay on the job if that's all I pay them. At a higher pay level they are encouraged to stay because available jobs in the same per hour range for people without any skills are very difficult to find. So we priced our jobs accordingly so we could train them, keep them, and have some level of pride for the hard work they do. It's manual work and does not require the highest of skills, but it's not about getting the most out of people for nothing. We're a business and we must retain people who have good customer service skills, who won't steal, who are honest and who want to work for good pay. We don't discourage them from learning new skills and moving on, but we make them know while they are with us that they matter and we appreciate what they do.

It's a balance. Businesses cannot simply just force $2/hour wages, if we had no laws to stop them, and expect to retain talented help. The economics just don't work. A competitor will just raise the wage a bit, pull their workers to a new company, and create an endless, and quite expensive, cycle of replacing employees and having to train new ones. It's just not worth it. The smarter business person pays fairly and prices their products or services accordingly to support their business at a profit level that is reasonable. Not doing so will price products or services right out of business, as will employee turnover that is too high to maintain the business model.

 

Looks like the Wal Mart spokesman read the script pretty well.

The average Wal Mart employee makes $8.80 and hour, has no health insurance or retirement benefits and very little upward mobility.

Wal Mart aslo schools these people on how to qualify for Food Stamps and Medicaid as a way of transferring some of their payroll costs to the taxpayers, even as the company's owners contribute to politicians who want to do away with both.

Sure, they pay high wages in the oil fields. But they're almost undoubtedly at the bottom of the scale there too.

 

Moochers Should Get Jobs

Does this include investment bankers/firms? Or corporate welfare/tax breaks? Or protected overseas tax shelters? Or all the non-taxed, "non-profit" churches which are not supposed to engage in politics?

 

It's imperative you watch the Documentary " Park Avenue " on Netflix