Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »As someone who audited government programs for a few years, I wanted to add my piece to the discussion.
We have a problem with foodstamps, and there is a LOT of fraud in that industry. A few of my auditor buddies discovered a foodstamp/WIC ring that was bringing in millions. This happened within my office while I was working there, so it wasn't a friend of a friend, I saw the numbers.
And a lot of this money isn't taken from the feds, (where it would be a drop in the bucket) but rather from states who are struggling to get by. That is why these discussions are important and are taking place. States are struggling and having to decide where money goes. They don't have the budget the feds do. They aren't paying billions for new spy gear or corporate bailouts. Instead, they have to make hard choices. Should money be spent on soda when it could be spent on education? What about roads? Not to mention the part of medicaid/medicare they have to pay for, and general infrastructure concerns. They have problems. But will not allowing soda solve them? Probably not.
I think the government should be able to tell people what to do with the government's money. However, TBH, auditing food choices is rather expensive. Auditors like to make money. If the state needs to save money, they are better off just cutting the food stamp benefits some, and hiring a nutritionist to write and send everyone a recipe book/meal planning book which would fit within their foodstamp allocation.
Yes this is common. A community that writes a grant and gets funding for 20 new public transit buses can't change it's mind and use the money for repairs to public housing or a golf course.
The WIC program that has been discussed has very specific items that can be obtained with those funds. Are people turning it away?
I asked this before and did not get a response, but I am genuinely interested. WIC is a long-established program and has specific types of foods that are permitted, and is rather under the radar in that what is permitted has not been a political issue.
Let's say that SNAP was changed to permit only specific foods. Who decides, and what foods do you think they are. It's not like you can just decide on what YOU think is healthy, there will be a process, it may well be kind of political, likely it is by state. How do we all agree on what gets covered? How limited are you suggesting it should be?
Before you suggested in return benefits would go up, but it seems you have dropped that part of it, or not? Currently you can often have the benefits go farther if they are used at an approved farmers market, for example -- that's one carrot, not stick, way of encouraging healthy spending.dfnewcombe wrote: »Here is an opinion article with thoughts regarding the pros and cons of restricting SNAP purchases- soda which accounts for $0.05 per dollar spent by SNAP recipeints. (Which happens to be consistent with the spending of families who do not participate in the SNAP program).
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/pros-and-cons-of-restricting-snap-purchases/
I definitely favor the carrot approach.
From the Brookings link:
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
Well, for me, I wasn't self supporting when I worked at McDonald's and Dairy Queen. I found these jobs dreadful, and took an unskilled factory job, which at least was full time so higher paying. I asked for a semi-skilled job, and then a more skilled job, and then I joined the USAF to hopefully earn a skill and get money for college. The skill part didn't work out very well, as I ended up in a specialty with little application to civilian life, but the general job experience was invaluable, plus the money for college, and who knew health benefits were going to turn out to be so valuable.
I see entry level jobs in fast food as starter jobs. They take very little skill, and so the pay is commensurate.
Perhaps there should be mandatory basic personal finance classes in junior high and high school - this is how much X, Y, and Z jobs pay and this is how much it costs to support yourself, yourself plus one child, etc. The goal would be to encourage people to get the training or education they need to afford the life they want.
Regardless of yours or anyone's opinions about fast food jobs, the reality is that many of those jobs are held by adults, often by adults holding more than one job to try and make ends meet. The idea of fast food jobs as "entry level" employment for earnest, young, whir suburbanites is one of those quaint memories that hasn't existed for a couple of decades.
Short sighted legislators have already mandated that schools teach "consumer education" in many states. Those courses are about as successful as you would expect. A mandatory course such as you describe would be a failure under any circumstances, but especially in a rapidly changing world, it would be outdated by the second day.
Thousands and thousands of people have gone into "hot" fields or occupations when they start college, only to find those professions overcrowded and Pay suppressed when they graduate. Think MBAs, lawyers, teachers, etc.
5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »As someone who audited government programs for a few years, I wanted to add my piece to the discussion.
We have a problem with foodstamps, and there is a LOT of fraud in that industry. A few of my auditor buddies discovered a foodstamp/WIC ring that was bringing in millions. This happened within my office while I was working there, so it wasn't a friend of a friend, I saw the numbers.
And a lot of this money isn't taken from the feds, (where it would be a drop in the bucket) but rather from states who are struggling to get by. That is why these discussions are important and are taking place. States are struggling and having to decide where money goes. They don't have the budget the feds do. They aren't paying billions for new spy gear or corporate bailouts. Instead, they have to make hard choices. Should money be spent on soda when it could be spent on education? What about roads? Not to mention the part of medicaid/medicare they have to pay for, and general infrastructure concerns. They have problems. But will not allowing soda solve them? Probably not.
I think the government should be able to tell people what to do with the government's money. However, TBH, auditing food choices is rather expensive. Auditors like to make money. If the state needs to save money, they are better off just cutting the food stamp benefits some, and hiring a nutritionist to write and send everyone a recipe book/meal planning book which would fit within their foodstamp allocation.
Yes this is common. A community that writes a grant and gets funding for 20 new public transit buses can't change it's mind and use the money for repairs to public housing or a golf course.
The WIC program that has been discussed has very specific items that can be obtained with those funds. Are people turning it away?
I asked this before and did not get a response, but I am genuinely interested. WIC is a long-established program and has specific types of foods that are permitted, and is rather under the radar in that what is permitted has not been a political issue.
Let's say that SNAP was changed to permit only specific foods. Who decides, and what foods do you think they are. It's not like you can just decide on what YOU think is healthy, there will be a process, it may well be kind of political, likely it is by state. How do we all agree on what gets covered? How limited are you suggesting it should be?
Before you suggested in return benefits would go up, but it seems you have dropped that part of it, or not? Currently you can often have the benefits go farther if they are used at an approved farmers market, for example -- that's one carrot, not stick, way of encouraging healthy spending.dfnewcombe wrote: »Here is an opinion article with thoughts regarding the pros and cons of restricting SNAP purchases- soda which accounts for $0.05 per dollar spent by SNAP recipeints. (Which happens to be consistent with the spending of families who do not participate in the SNAP program).
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/pros-and-cons-of-restricting-snap-purchases/
I definitely favor the carrot approach.
From the Brookings link:
I certainly would favor this approach over the usual punitive approach taken in red states that try to use food assistance as a way to shame and punish poor people.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
Well, for me, I wasn't self supporting when I worked at McDonald's and Dairy Queen. I found these jobs dreadful, and took an unskilled factory job, which at least was full time so higher paying. I asked for a semi-skilled job, and then a more skilled job, and then I joined the USAF to hopefully earn a skill and get money for college. The skill part didn't work out very well, as I ended up in a specialty with little application to civilian life, but the general job experience was invaluable, plus the money for college, and who knew health benefits were going to turn out to be so valuable.
I see entry level jobs in fast food as starter jobs. They take very little skill, and so the pay is commensurate.
Perhaps there should be mandatory basic personal finance classes in junior high and high school - this is how much X, Y, and Z jobs pay and this is how much it costs to support yourself, yourself plus one child, etc. The goal would be to encourage people to get the training or education they need to afford the life they want.
Regardless of yours or anyone's opinions about fast food jobs, the reality is that many of those jobs are held by adults, often by adults holding more than one job to try and make ends meet. The idea of fast food jobs as "entry level" employment for earnest, young, whir suburbanites is one of those quaint memories that hasn't existed for a couple of decades.
Short sighted legislators have already mandated that schools teach "consumer education" in many states. Those courses are about as successful as you would expect. A mandatory course such as you describe would be a failure under any circumstances, but especially in a rapidly changing world, it would be outdated by the second day.
Thousands and thousands of people have gone into "hot" fields or occupations when they start college, only to find those professions overcrowded and Pay suppressed when they graduate. Think MBAs, lawyers, teachers, etc.
^^^This!0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »juliegilburd wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »juliegilburd wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.
The last statement does not make sense to me. Minimum wage in the U.S. is $9.00/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ($18,720 annually), that puts the earner in the 2nd to lowest income bracket for 2017, which means they would take home about $1400 if filing married/jointly. I just checked Craigslist and see an average rental for an apartment in Columbia SC could easily be $750/mo. (rents ranged from $575 up to $1200, though the higher end were clearly luxury apts.) So a budget for two people is supposed to look like this?
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more)
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120
Laundry $25
That leaves $150-$270 for all the rest... groceries (for 2), life insurance, internet service, healthcare co-pays, haircuts, clothing, car insurance. Not all of those are "necessities", but realistically are a part of most people's lives. How is that quite sufficient? Even if they do get some assistance through SNAP, I just don't see it as "quite sufficient." Even the lowest earners deserve to have an extra $100 a month to put in an emergency fund, you will notice there's no room for that in this hypothetical budget.
Took me forever to type this response, so apologies if anyone covered this angle in the interim.
I'm going to copy your list and make some adjustments - obviously I'm in the UK so serious pinch of salt required...
Rent $750
Utilities (gas/electric/water) $150+ (in my experience, this can be more) I pay £50 ~ $70 in the UK - is it really so much more expensive in the US? I have a big flat with 10ft ceilings, it isn't cheap to heat...
Renter's Insurance $15
Phone (basic cell plan for 2 people) $60 Twice my mobile bill of £15 gives me ~$40
Car payment $250 -OR- Cab/Bus fare for travel to/from work, stores, etc. $120 If you work a minimum wage job wouldn't you walk to work/stores/etc? I get the occasional local bus/cab/train, maybe £20/month ~ $25?
Laundry $25 Ehh???
Do you not have any sort of property/local amenity taxes to pay though? Or is it all income tax?
I do often find that people who have never had to live on less don't understand just how little it is possible to get things for. If you've never known any different they might well be happy with that
And they might enjoy the time they have too!
As a caveat I should have said, I'm using approximate figures, but trying to not be crazy-high on my estimates.
Property taxes are paid by the owner of the property (and theoretically incorporated into the rent amounts). There are state and local sales taxes in my state. Those are just paid at the store when buying taxable items. I live in a fairly low-cost state (Nebraska) have lived in a large city and in two different towns of <200 residents, and my lowest electric bill while living in an apt. was $60, highest about $150. (In a house, bills were $150 up to $375 at times). But there's also a separate natural gas company avg. $50-75/mo. Water bills range from $30-75/mo. Sometimes water is included in rent, but not always.
Yes, you have a point about the transportation. Walking and biking are mostly free except for shoes and maintenance. So we could eliminate that completely, or drop it down to $20/mo for ongoing maintenance.
If you live in apartment you don't usually have a washer/dryer. $1.25+ per load to wash, $1.50+ per load to dry. Average of 3 loads per week for 2 people (example - linens, business clothes, casual clothes) comes to $33 per 4 weeks.
Phone - that is straight out of my budget. Husband and I have 2 flip phones (i.e. not smart phones) with a very basic plan and it costs us $55/mo. When we each had a smart phone with internet the bill was about $175/mo.
Maybe I'm wrong about how these costs play out when compared over the US.
Wow - even the smallest places I've seen here have a washer at least - not always a dryer, but at least a washer.
I guess with the US being so much bigger some things do just cost more to provide than in a more dense country.
Unfortunately, this is one of those areas where "poor lifestyle decisions" are to some degree forced on people in certain living situations.
An inexpensive Washer can run $85 used... but unless there's a spot to put it in the house/apartment, it doesn't work out so well. Laundry fees at a pay laundry can run $25 a month. at which point, getting a washer/drier breaks even within 6 months or so.
Ya, it does cost more to be poor.
I'm south of Boston and in 2012 one bedroom apts with washer/dryer hookups started at $1200 a month. I found a place without them that I otherwise liked for $800/month. My landlord let me pay to have the hookups installed. Between the necessary plumbing and electrical work required, this was pricey, but it paid for itself quickly. I had the cash on hand to be able to swing that.
I got a used washer and dryer from Craigslist for $100 each and they lasted the four years I was there. Also, my landlord did not raise my rent once.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Driers aren't really a common necessity in the UK, most people, myself included, will just hang on the line or on airers in the house. In the summer, even those who do have one, are more likely to hang outside. We're surprisingly environmentally friendly in this instance!
I like having a drier as a backup and using the clothesline as a primary. My mom hasn't had a drier in 23 years.0 -
The snap system is terrible in the way they decide what you can and cannot have. There was a time when I needed snap and I was able to purchase a Wawa hoagie and as much candy as I wanted but I had to use real money if I wanted a rotisserie chicken cause it was hot. I’m not really on board with no soda you can’t force people to be healthy but they should make some adjustments to what is and isn’t allowed1
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Thinking about this from another angle: are (any, all) retailers obliged to accept food stamps? If not, the obvious effect of increasing restrictions/complicated things like them not being valid on random items is that more retailers will stop accepting them, reducing the choice and accessibility of the program. Depending on your point of view that's a bug or a feature.
I don't think so. There is a program here called WIC women infants and children... And it has a very specific things that you can buy with your WIC checks. You can only buy milk, eggs, cheese, legumes, and only certain types of cereals and certain types of fruit juices. If you are breastfeeding you are allowed to buy carrots and tuna fish as well. The restrictions on this program never stopped any retailers from accepting WIC. In fact retailers would get upset if they were found to be in violation and lost their ability to accept WIC purchases.
When I was a cashier we were frequently warned about spot Checkers coming in to test us and see if we would let certain items go with Wick when they shouldn't be. It was very serious to get caught allowing the wrong things to get purchased.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »We have food banks here, same thing, largely run by church groups and charities. Again you can't go every week and you have to be referred by another agency like a social worker etc. Even they try to throw in a "treat" like a packet of biscuits or some chocolate.
Same here.
A good majority on SNAP are elderly, disabled and children. Not these extreme cases that people seem to pull out their *kitten* whenever this debate comes up. They don't deserve treats or snacks?
They deserve and need their resources to be used for nutrient dense foods.
Only?
Need to prioritize. The government should provide assistance to ensure good nutrition so yes.
And if they already are providing good nutrition and have left over?
Then they are probably getting too much assistance.
Or they budget their assistance well.
Good for them. In that case they don't need as much.
To be honest, I would like to see restrictions on SNAP to allow payments for nutrient dense foods only. Along with that, I would be willing to increase the amount of payments.
So a grass fed ribeye would be ok?
Nope (although I did watch a guy in front of me buy one and a can of Pringles with a SNAP card and pulled out cash for a $11.99 6 pack of beer and 2 packs of cigs).
I would propose something along the lines of foods allowed in the WIC program. Nutritious, but not premium products.
WIC in PA didn't care if you bought JIf peanut butter or another more expensive brand. Didn't care if you bought store brand tuna or starkist. Generic cheese or Heluva Good.
And who gets to decide what constitutes "nutrient dense?"
0 -
This thread is making me stabby.
Some people act as if the poor need to be punished for having *kitten* jobs that don't pay a living wage but I will bet they have no problem with the government spending millions on a new fridge for Air Force One.15 -
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »We have food banks here, same thing, largely run by church groups and charities. Again you can't go every week and you have to be referred by another agency like a social worker etc. Even they try to throw in a "treat" like a packet of biscuits or some chocolate.
Same here.
A good majority on SNAP are elderly, disabled and children. Not these extreme cases that people seem to pull out their *kitten* whenever this debate comes up. They don't deserve treats or snacks?
They deserve and need their resources to be used for nutrient dense foods.
Only?
Need to prioritize. The government should provide assistance to ensure good nutrition so yes.
And if they already are providing good nutrition and have left over?
Then they are probably getting too much assistance.
Or they budget their assistance well.
Good for them. In that case they don't need as much.
To be honest, I would like to see restrictions on SNAP to allow payments for nutrient dense foods only. Along with that, I would be willing to increase the amount of payments.
So a grass fed ribeye would be ok?
Nope (although I did watch a guy in front of me buy one and a can of Pringles with a SNAP card and pulled out cash for a $11.99 6 pack of beer and 2 packs of cigs).
I would propose something along the lines of foods allowed in the WIC program. Nutritious, but not premium products.
WIC in PA didn't care if you bought JIf peanut butter or another more expensive brand. Didn't care if you bought store brand tuna or starkist. Generic cheese or Heluva Good.
And who gets to decide what constitutes "nutrient dense?"
Pretty sure it's a branch of the same organization that is providing the funds.3 -
This thread is making me stabby.
Some people act as if the poor need to be punished for having *kitten* jobs that don't pay a living wage but I will bet they have no problem with the government spending millions on a new fridge for Air Force One.
Me too. It's like people are deliberately running around being poor and fat so that everyone else can look down on them and feel superior. Because nobody here ever had a weight problem or anything.2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on
I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad. 3 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
I know there are abusers of the welfare system - there have always been, and always will be, those who will exploit anything to benefit themselves (not just at the welfare level but at many sectors). It's just very easy to make the poor people the nation's punching bag and pull out extreme examples to show how they're all worthless pieces of trash, the dregs of society...etc.
Most people want a decent life - they want a job that pays their bills and allows them some semblance of the American dream. Nobody WANTS to be stuck in a minimum wage job. Yet try to raise the minimum wage (which originally WAS intended by FDR to be a living wage, it was NOT intended to be a "starter job" wage for kids!!!) and everyone screams.
I have had people bitching in my area because there is a county transportation van that helps people (primarily elderly people but anyone is allowed to ride it for a token fee) get to places they need to go. We do not have public transportation per se here. The lady I knew was bitching because she had to wait on a bench at Walmart an extra 20 minutes before she could go home because the transportation van driver went off the normal route to pick up a young man who needed a ride to work. She was mad that he put her out and didn't have his own car! Are you kidding me? How dare he DARE to use a service like that when he wasn't old??! Why is he such a low life that he can't afford his own car? (HINT: THE ONLY JOB HE COULD FIND WAS AT WALMART)
I am sick to death of the lack of compassion and understanding for less fortunate people - it's disgusting, actually.9 -
We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
This is like an obese person looking at a thin person with envy.
A CEO salary has nothing to do with the fact that poor people exist. There certainly is a disconnect. A fundamental lack of knowledge of economics.5 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea..
Especially since it has nothing to do with immigration (although that's how the bill of goods is being sold) and everything to do with granting construction contracts ($$$$) to companies who are flush with our country's leadership.
6 -
GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Food deserts are a thing, unfortunately, which makes it very easy for well meaning policies to turn into a tax on those least able to afford it.0 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Given a choice between paying people while they look for sustainable jobs, and paying them for temporary work that creates something I think is harmful, I'll take the former.MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund. I do have some stock in a bank, and I get an invitation to the shareholders meeting every so often. But since I am a working stiff, I haven't been able to go.
Large corporations often get "incentives" from city governments. I can't help wondering who thinks that having a Walmart actually benefits a community. They create jobs that don't pay well and drive off smaller, more localized retailers. I'd love to see some long term comparisons of community health before and after a major source of low wage work moved in. Maybe I'm wrong.4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
This is like an obese person looking at a thin person with envy.
A CEO salary has nothing to do with the fact that poor people exist. There certainly is a disconnect. A fundamental lack of knowledge of economics.
No it is not like that at all. If costs need to be cut why not cut outrageous salaries rather than take away jobs from US workers and then get all pissy when out of work people need food stamps...7 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
3 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Given a choice between paying people while they look for sustainable jobs, and paying them for temporary work that creates something I think is harmful, I'll take the former.MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund. I do have some stock in a bank, and I get an invitation to the shareholders meeting every so often. But since I am a working stiff, I haven't been able to go.
Large corporations often get "incentives" from city governments. I can't help wondering who thinks that having a Walmart actually benefits a community. They create jobs that don't pay well and drive off smaller, more localized retailers. I'd love to see some long term comparisons of community health before and after a major source of low wage work moved in. Maybe I'm wrong.
Not defending Wal-Mart but how many "local"/small business retail/serice jobs have pay that is significantly different than Wal-Mart or chain restaurants?1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
I think the wall is a stupid idea.. but to at least try and be positive - folks are gonna get paid to build it. That beats food stamps or even cash handouts any day. I really think we should be aiming to build society up such that rubbish minimum wage jobs are genuinely entry level. Then the exact form of assistance programs won't matter so much because they'll just be temporary stopgaps. It makes me sad to see folks getting so passionate about it - it's like the cause of them being needed has been given up on I know it's needed now... but it still makes me sad.
Given a choice between paying people while they look for sustainable jobs, and paying them for temporary work that creates something I think is harmful, I'll take the former.MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Not all shareholders get to vote. I can't vote on anything in my retirement fund. I do have some stock in a bank, and I get an invitation to the shareholders meeting every so often. But since I am a working stiff, I haven't been able to go.
Large corporations often get "incentives" from city governments. I can't help wondering who thinks that having a Walmart actually benefits a community. They create jobs that don't pay well and drive off smaller, more localized retailers. I'd love to see some long term comparisons of community health before and after a major source of low wage work moved in. Maybe I'm wrong.
Not defending Wal-Mart but how many "local"/small business retail/serice jobs have pay that is significantly different than Wal-Mart or chain restaurants?
My very limited experience of working in the USA (aside from as a contractor) was at a small, family owned liquor store for $6 an hour. I don't know that Walmart would have been paying any more or less than that...0 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
The government would probably like it if they got jobs (better jobs) and stopped needing welfare. But as it's their dime it's their rules so they can (and will) put as many caveats on it as they want.
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
heres the thing....when i was a kid and my parents didnt have money. they didnt buy soda and junk, also my mom didnt drink alcohol, though they enjoyed it. why? because they needed the money to put healthy groceries in their childrens bellies. if people work and still dont make ends meet, then maybe they hould spend their own money on junk, and cigarettes and whatever else.
second. its not the governments money they are giving away, but the taxpayers income tax money. tell you what...it burns pretty bad when you are busting your *kitten* in the grocery store and people come in and order whole ribeyes with their food stamps....not even to mention the huge bags of chips and cookies.
AMERICAN grown foods....fine...everyone should be entitled. you want oreos and soda/ get a damn job5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?
I guess it would depend on what I could afford based on my income.
I frequently shop at the local family owned, and more expensive, supermarket even though it is considerably more expensive than Walmart because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is and support our local people ...and I have also tried shopping in small local stores, knowing I will pay more, before going to Amazon.
So, if I am in a position to pay more and help my community, I will do that.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »We have our politicians to thank, I am sure, for the loss of so many good jobs in the US. People try to blame the working class (again) for wanting "cheap products" and giving rise to Walmarts taking over the nation and China imports replacing American made goods (jobs) but the real reason is the stockholders of corporations want more profits - higher profits come by cutting costs which comes from cheap labor overseas.
Given that the majority of shareholders are pension funds you'll find that it's still people. I appreciate that there is a perception that shareholders are already rich individuals, but the reality is that it's the expectation of both low costs now, and decent incomes in the future that are the issue here.
Whilst I'm not in the US, about 60% of my company is owned by institutional investors. We've also got a customer base that's driven by lower costs squeezing at the other end, which does make for some challenging times.
I'd also make the observation that most buyers are driven by one or two of three things; time, cost and quality. You can't have all three, but you could get two of them. Are you really sure that organic production is giving you what you want?
Well then those people should insist that the corporate hot shots not have such gigantic salaries hmmm? There is a disconnect somewhere - people are getting squeezed and it's not CEO's, and most of the people MOST HURT by this don't even have money for their own homes let alone money to buy stocks.
Which is it then, shareholders or CEOs?
My point is that US workers have lost jobs due to production being taken overseas in order to increase profits.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is a combination of sourcing to low cost countries and increased automation.
Say you need your grass cut. You could hire a company that would pay 5 people to cut the grass each with a small hand implement and it would cost $150. Or you could hire a company that sent 1 person with a riding mower and it would cost $50.
What are you doing?
I guess it would depend on what I could afford based on my income.
I frequently shop at the local family owned, and more expensive, supermarket even though it is considerably more expensive than Walmart because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is and support our local people ...and I have also tried shopping in small local stores, knowing I will pay more, before going to Amazon.
So, if I am in a position to pay more and help my community, I will do that.
Obviously, you're free to spend your money as you choose, but if you really wanted to help your community, instead of knowingly paying for overpriced goods, wouldn't your money make a bigger impact if you were to donate it to a food bank? The people who are happily charging you a 'community' premium don't need the help.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions