If you want to swing the cat in one of those you'd better find one with a short tail!
Welfare pays more than work in most states
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
If you want to swing the cat in one of those you'd better find one with a short tail!
You're not kidding and by the same token how much does someone a lot older really need. You see a lot of older couples nowadays rattling around in monster houses with 4 bathrooms.
Yeah, but back then (I'm guessing we're in the same generation, +- 10 years) it was *known* and *expected* that minimum wage earners were going to be startup kids still living at home getting their first job experience.
Even then, nobody figured you were actually going to live independantly on minimum wage. And ironically, in terms of purchasing power, minimum wage was higher then.
Go back to when you were a teen flipping burgers at Dairy Queen while the Lassies dished ice-cream.
Picture your reaction if an old fart was posted next to you in an apron.
States/provinces are run locally, so the states/provinces are pressed by voters to pay minimal-livable incomes to the down and out, while in the mean time, globalists are driving minimum wages down to the world average, which is 36 trillion gross world production divided by 6 billion people equals $6000 per year.
Presuming the 1% pushing for globalization so they can be kings, it means they get half, so now we're down to $3000 per year per person.
Wonderful. Hope you like beans, because Etheopians know how to exist on that.
Now.. *ahem*.. I'm seeing a dilema. It's serious and it could define everything about what it means to be Canadian.
I don't care if you hate me or like me or anything, I'm going to play a tune while explaining.
http://stuff.digitalock.com/aadiemus.mp3
What happened was, people like my European ancestors came here to get away from the hell-sh*t Europe was.
Now the principals of f*cking darkness are saying I should give away everything so nobody has anything.
Did your ancestors come here because they thought everything was equal? They came here to get away from that crap, and now...
http://stuff.digitalock.com/dune_prophesy.mp3
What if you really did have the last place on earth worth living in after climate change?
What if you had to stand up against the parasitic globalists who do no work... just tap on each-and-every international financial transaction with a "service" fee?
The killer will be they will tell you you are letting billions of others starve to death because you fed yourselves.
What would your hard-***-crossed-the-ocean-on-a-boat ancestors say?
What if Canada just declared itself an economic national park, with everything it knows about defense but kept secret for politenes?
Every time I think that, it brings me back to watching Coast Salish moving north to the Queen Charlottes, whereupon those get bothered by the KTinkats... Krist.
Anyway... Petro said something in a different thread.
He said something about identification of problem source.
I didn't know he had it in him.
Anyway... http://stuff.digitalock.com/dominique.mp3
What if you had the only place your ancestors ran away to to have a middle-class standard of living, and the forces of darkness are telling you to give it all away to show how good you are?
What did Jesus say to you-know-who when Mary scrubbed his feet?
Last edited:
Everyone on the left?
This I have to disagree with. If the safety net is of poor quality, then the minimum wage causes more harm than good since you're now in a situation where even a wage slightly below the legal minimum would be preferable to social security, yet the law would then be forcing a person either to work under the table or go on social security which is even worse. Where is the compassion there?
Now, if the social safety net is of high quality, people would naturally choose to jump ship and seek government help.
So in the first instance, minimum wage is harmful; in the second, useless. In fact, one could argue that if social security is better than minimum wage, that is a good thing in principle, as long as a person could seek assistance without penalty and have access to government services including skills training even while working, and should he be accepted for the training, be free to then quit his job without penalty.
When social security is better than minimum wage (or minimum wage worse than social security, however one wants to look at it), it means the gap is closed in that the momenet his wage is too low, he has social security to turn to. The moment social security is worse than minimum wage, then you have a gap there whereby a person who would ratehr work at slighly below minimum wage is now forced onto social assistance at even less than that.
That depends. Should the government hold the line on inflation, then they would simply be legislated out of the legal workforce and foced onto social assistnace. And with such a high rate of unemployment, you could immagine resources being so stretched that the system would be even less generous than it is now!
However, the other likelihood is that the the government decide to inflate our way out of unemployment, and then you are correct since while it may solve the problem of unemployment by bringing the real minimum wage back down to below equilbrium (thus making it redundant again as if there were no minimum wage, the usual dichotomy of minimum wage being either redundant or harmful at any given time, but never beneficial), but wen we consider that the rich can hedge against inflation whereas wage slaves cannot, inflation is in fact similar in its effect as regressive taxation whereby the poor are hit hardest by it.
Again, probably why some of the more progressive states have no minimum wage and still manage to have a greater distribution of wealth than quick-fix states like Canada that just raise the minimum wage without forethought.
lol, now you disagree, well it was your quote to begin with so not sure where to go with this one.
ah, so you don't like that parallel...okay
so what do you view your social responsibility toward your fellow man to be? It isn't quite clear.
To have laws that discourage downsizing is ridiculous. Then we wonder about suburban sprawl.
'yes there has to be a net in place first. Ideally our goal should be to make everyone as self sufficient as is possible according to their ability and then factor in there will be a percentage who will be capable but lazy.'
Sal, I never said I agree with this. You seem to be saying, if I understand this correctly, that we must improve the safety net before discarding minimum wage. I'm saying that while we may need to improve the safety net, we ought to scrap the minimum wage regardless since, especially in the absence of an adequate safety net, it just makes matters worse. It's like the government saying: we care about you so we won't allow you to work at below a certain wage, but if you can't find a job at minimum wage, then screw ya.
Sal, I never said I agree with this. You seem to be saying, if I understand this correctly, that we must improve the safety net before discarding minimum wage. I'm saying that while we may need to improve the safety net, we ought to scrap the minimum wage regardless since, especially in the absence of an adequate safety net, it just makes matters worse. It's like the government saying: we care about you so we won't allow you to work at below a certain wage, but if you can't find a job at minimum wage, then screw ya.
Yup
The welfare system is wholly an expression of the strength of the economy. Further, it is funded by the very businesses that people believe 'make too much money' or have some kind of tangible 'obligation'... All of this costs money and far more than the sum total of what is written on the cheques... As that population grows, the size of the administration army is forced to grow along side it, which in turn, is also funded out of the pockets of the tax paying public.
The problem is that it's a one-way street... There is no obligation expected from the recipients that pretend that it's their right.
You hit the nail on the head a few posts back in describing a system that required some form of input from those in that system, perhaps even a requirement that they live in specific gvt facilities and perform some kind of service in return.
As it stands, it's a lifestyle that someone can elect to remain in that keeps them in full dependence for the duration. For those that use that system to move through and upwards - great, it served it's function; but there is a growing number of recipients that don't make any real effort to move out and decide (in a de facto sense) to lean on it in perpetuity.