Welfare pays more than work in most states
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
I fully agree with what you say, however I think this is a situation where possibly the Gov't should pitch in because if the handicapped person isn't working the Gov't pays the full shot and you can't realistically expect Joe Blow Greasy Spoon to be able to afford $20 an hour for washing dishes.
This does not automatically mean we should reduce welfare payments. If welfare payments are too generous, then yes. In other cases though, where welfare payments might already be at the right level or ven too low, then there ought to be no problem with it being higher than minimum wage as long as the minimum-wage earner can also benefit from it, and of course with the conditionthat some kind of skills training is attached to it.
My opposition to the notion of an official minimum wage naturally influences my ideas here though. Clearly if I oppose minimum wage or raising it in principle, then we cannot use that as a benchmark for welfare.
The existing welfare program allows for a person to choose that option as a replacement for working for a living
The existing welfare program is in most cases unimaginative, inadequate and demoralizing. However it is good for people who refuse to work. I know someone who has had a spell of illness and bad luck, who's lost everything he's worked for for many years. They are nothing short of heartless.
So then the question is, is the welfare programme too generous? That's a genuine questions, since I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
That being said, if on welfare, he should also be working in community work, in skills training, or doing something else to develop himself and/or his community.
Also, I tend to be hesitant about welfare in the form of money. There may be people on social assistance who use that money responsibly and I certainly don't want to tarnish everyone on welfare. but we never know. Instead of money, perhaps we should consider providing room, board, clothing, toileteries, etc. directly.
For those who cannot find decent work in the private sector, and also don't want room and board provided for the, then maybe some kind of peace corps whereby they can earn a slightly lower than private sector wage for the work done, but in exchange for skills training and job security. For those with particular talent, maybe something like the military, x years university or trades training, etc, followed by y years of service.
I don't see why a peace corps could not function along a military structure of sorts.
I didn't say a word about employers being scum bags, but now that you mention it, yeah a lot of them are as far as wages go and many other things too like benefits, vacation time etc. especially for employees who are uneducated or incapable of gaining employment elsewhere.
The idea of a business is profit not employee support. They pay the highest wage to those who produce the most profit for the company. So if you think places like fast food chains and retail conglomerates are going to notice how Jimmy pushes the broom and give him a liveable wage because of it then you have not been in the working/business world long enough to know how they operate.
I am not especially pro union but they certainly have their advantages when dealing with corporations.
Well subsidization is not a bad idea JLM, not bad at all. We already do it for student summer employment. If a company will hire a student they subsidize the company so much per hour for the student. This is not a bad idea for people who are marginalized and want to work but also need a safety net. It could save us money long term...yes.
Machjo, could you please explain to me how minimum wage hurts the poor? Thanks.
It has to do with the economic concept of equilibrium price. If what the employer is willing to pay is more than minimum wage, then minimum wage is redundant. If it is less than minimum wage, then he either breaks the law and pays under the table or does not hire him, essentially legislating him out of the market. Most likely if a person cannot even land a minimum wage job it's because he has no sufficient sellable skills, minimum wage just making matters worse since then he cannot find any work at all.
Of course the government could have some kind of legally recommended minimum wage along with legislaiton surrounding it such as requiring the employer to inform the worker earning less than the legally recommended minimum wage of his right to quit his job and go on social security or access government-paid skills training without penalty. But again, if such services are well gunded by the government and worth taking, it makes the minimum wage redundant, and if their underfunded to the point where it would be preferable to just keep the job, then minimum wage becomes harmful.
So in no example is minimum wage ever beneficial. It's either redundant or harmful, never beneficial. I understand that the intention of minimum wage is well-meaning, but good intentions will only take us so far.
If the theory were fales, then the solution to low wages woudl always be to raise the iminimum wage, the sky's the limit.
All that said, I actually could agree to the idea of a legally recommended minimum wage along with certain laws pertaining to it, and would even support such laws to protect those earning less than th elegally recommended minimum. But of course a legally recommended minimum wage would not be the same as a legal minimum wage in that at least the option is left up to the worker according to his circumstances.
So how would you answer this then.
In retail they often will start their employee off at minimum wage which here in Ontario is $10.25 an hour and has been since 2010. So if they work for 40 hours a week their yearly take home salary is going to be under $20,000 a year. Rent in an apartment would be almost half of that. They do not get benefits and often not even 40 hours a week. How is removing that hourly wage and having the employer pay them less going to help them? 8O How can one possibly survive and why bother working for less? At least if they are on welfare they get their prescriptions for free and eye glasses (I think) and can go to the food bank once a week and pick up some food. Hell at ten bucks an hour how can they feed themselves without going to the food bank as well.
To take that away would be a corporate extravaganza.
"Minimum wage" is bad, for several reasons. It's a one size fits all for all occupations and companies. It's inflationary, every time it's increased costs to the consumer go up, the "dog" has been chasing the "tail" ever since W.W.II and the poor folks are just as poor today or maybe a little worse. "Minimum wage" will sort itself out on its own between employer and employee- Joe is a good solid productive worker who after approaching the boss for a wage increase several times has decided to quit and work elsewhere and his old spot is filled by someone who may not be as productive but is mandated to get the same wage as Joe was, the boss suddenly finds out he's not making as much money, so calls Joe back or he raises the wage in an attempt to get someone as productive as Joe.
no, you don't get "called back" to a minimum wage job because you are so awesome...no...a standard is set, if Joe doesn't produce what he has to Joe is gone...that's how that sector works...
minimum wage will sort itself out...no...here's how great a macdonalds was in the States at paying their employees....
Feds investigating McDonald's franchise over payroll debit cards - News - The Times-Tribune
we need minimum wage or corporations will screw the little guy not "help him"
But you're missing another side fo the picture. I'd say that if that person is better off on social assistance, he should be free to quit his job and go on social assistance without penalty. I somehow doubt many would go for such a 'deal'.
Also, you're looking at those who got hired. For instance, supposing I'm hiring 10 people at X salary. You raise the minimum wage, then I might hire X-Y people at the minimum wage and make them work harder. So now some are working like dogs whereas others are unemployed. Now those working like dogs benefit from a higher wage, but only in a kind of beggar-my-neighbour sort of way that hurts others.
If social security is decent, we won't need minimum wage since the moment wages drop too low, people will naturally flock to social security. If we need the minimum wage to legislate them out of work to force them onto social security, then we ahve to assume social security is not all it's cracked up to be.
Again, if social security is decent, then the moment wages are too low, people would naturally quit their job and go on social security. Clearly if people are choosing minimum wage over social security it's because they know social security is not appealing.
You seem to be suggesting legislating them out of work and then have social security pay them half of what they'd earn at slightly below minimum wage, even more cruel. How is it that minimum wage is cruel, but that social security at half that is 'generosity'?
Yeah, but who cares about the unskilled worker. We need to raise the minimum wage to put that sucker out of work so as to pretect jobs for the skilled workers, right?
Social Assistance is not a liveable amount of money and anyone who thinks it is should be forced to live on it for a year. Forced.
Have you ever worked in a minimum wage job because they do work like dogs..NO employer hires extra people to spread the work out... My managers used to hire minimum wage employees (retail runs on it)... if we could have hired them cheaper we would have... you don't seem to have a grasp of corporate/business environments with low paid employees. You are advocating labour laws from 200 years ago..corporations would love you...loooooooooooooove you.
Yes I have. And minimum wage makes them work like dogs.
Again, the minnimum wage benefits those who keep their job. What about the others? You yourself admit that social security is terrible, so why force people onto it throgu minimum wage legislation? Those who suffer the most are unskilled workers with no work experience, the very people it's supposed to help.
As for labour laws of 200 years ago, some modern countries today such as Sweden have no minimum wage legislation, and Sweden has a narrower wealth gap than Canada with minimum wage legislaiton. That said, Sweden also spends more on education and skills training for the unemployed, which I support,. In other words, rather than bandaid solutions, they hit at the heart of the problem: lack of skills.
There's one way to sort that out, and it doesn't take a Union, just organization among employees at a dozen outlets. First thing in the morning the boss gets told "you have until exactly 11:30 this morning to find another way (we prefer cash) or we are all walking just before the lunch rush".
Raise the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour and then they'd be complainging that they lost their job and got laid off because of the minimum wage increase. Would they really be better off?
At least at a lower wage they're earning something.
I think the generosity/stinginess of welfare has quite a bit to do with whether children are involved. Where there are children I think some effort is made to provide something closer to a subsistence standard of living.
Machjo, you can't live on less than minimum wage, you can't even live well on minimum...how can you not see that?...you want to take away what they currently have, why? Why are you making the poorest share the wage...that is backwards, totally and completely backwards...punish your lowest paid workers and spread the 200 dollars out amoungst 5 instead of two...
Makes no sense at all...none.
if you are desparately trying to feed your kids on that and pay your rent you aren't going to threaten anyone, in fact you are just happy to have the job...
and that is the sad part, not any different than slavery
you live on $8.00 an hour then and spread the rest of your pay out among the others ...let us know how it goes
Well you are never too old to learn:
A wage slave is a business slang term that describes someone who is completely dependent on wages earned from a job in order to secure and maintain the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. Typically, this individual has no other types of financial assets that are earning some sort of return that can be called upon in the event that there is an interruption in employment. One school of thought also holds that a true wage slave feels trapped into a particular job, holding the perception that he or she would be unable to secure another position that would pay as well or even better than the current position.
While many people utilize wages and salaries as their main means of income, the wage slave has no other source of financial resources to call upon in an emergency. There are no stock holdings to generate periodic dividends, nor certificates of deposit earning interest with a local financial institution. Often, the wage slave does not have any type of insurance benefits that help to offset lost wages in the event of an illness or a prolonged period of unemployment. Unless the individual remains employed and works daily, the flow of income stops and his or her ability to maintain the current level of lifestyle is adversely impacted.