Intellectual capability of career welfare individuals

[Modelworks]

Put all the policies in place that you want to and it will not change a thing. People that are okay with living off welfare are damaged people. Damaged people I define as people that grew up in an environment where they were never taught values like self worth, paying your own way, and most have very low self esteem. These people don't care about doing anything with their lives, they live day to day, and if they see someone else getting something for free, they want it too , whether they need it or not.

I see people all the time go to food banks, when you ask them why they went, knowing they have plenty of food, the response is always the same "it is free", tell them they don't need it though, "it's free" . There is no moral thinking involved.

Until you teach people self respect you can't change welfare, the school system or anything else.

The only way these people will change is when they are forced to. That means letting people go homeless, letting them go without food, not supporting them so that they are in distress enough to make the changes needed. If a child steals candy then you buy the child the candy and tell them it is okay, you will buy it for them now, they learn nothing. The way the system works now is like giving an alcoholic alcohol for free then expecting them to quit.

 

[nehalem256]

Your post got me to thinking.

Do career welfare individuals have a type of disability, a type of mental disability?

Only if immorality is a mental disability.

Maybe they are afraid of failure at their job, so they do not try.

Maybe they have some kind of disorder where they do not deal with stress very well?

I remember reading the weare99tumblr blog and some kid complained that he had social anxiety and so could not get a job, and was upset that the government would not pay for him to go to college... because you know there are no social situations at college right?

Stop sucking at life.

 

[Texashiker]

I remember reading the weare99tumblr blog and some kid complained that he had social anxiety and so could not get a job, and was upset that the government would not pay for him to go to college... because you know there are no social situations at college right?

I work with a lady (she is a nurse), any kind of situation out of the ordinary and she freaks out. Mostly what she does is paperwork.

If she has a problem printing something, her stress level just explodes.

What should be a normal lets get it fixed type of situation, turns into a "WHY ISN'T THIS WORKING!!!!!!" type of situation.

This lady is in her late 40s, or somewhere in there?

 

[Jhhnn]

How do you know they don't have that stuff?

And people manipulating/abusing the system is OK because rich people manipulate/abuse their systems? Awesome.

Lameness. Accusations require require substantiation other than the urban mythology of fringewhacks.

I volunteered as a weekend handyman at Denver's Warren Village for some years.

http://www.warrenvillage.org/

I never claimed that abuse of the system was acceptable either by rich or poor. Your apparent worship of wealth apparently leads you to think that what Mitt does is OK, even though he damages the system much more than any welfare mom.

 

[actuarial]

The economy is not a zero sum game. If someone switches from pure consumption to producing at least part of the wealth he consumes, the society is richer for it. That helps create more jobs and more wealth.

That's not a reason to not have a safety net, but it's an excellent reason to shake loose those healthy people who try to turn it into a hammock.

Sure the economy isn't a zero sum game, but it's also not unlimited. There isn't the demand needed (and demand would actually decline I imagine) to sustain everyone working 16 hour days 7 days a week.

The question, to me, is are we close to maximizing our economy and do we still have incentive for people to work. I'm not sure about the first point, but I believe the second point is still a resounding yes, at least in Canada.

I lived on welfare as a kid for a period of time after my dad lost his business (the classic small business undercut by larger business) and I know it's not a place you want to be.

 

[werepossum]

Sure the economy isn't a zero sum game, but it's also not unlimited. There isn't the demand needed (and demand would actually decline I imagine) to sustain everyone working 16 hour days 7 days a week.

The question, to me, is are we close to maximizing our economy and do we still have incentive for people to work. I'm not sure about the first point, but I believe the second point is still a resounding yes, at least in Canada.

I lived on welfare as a kid for a period of time after my dad lost his business (the classic small business undercut by larger business) and I know it's not a place you want to be.

I'd argue that the economy actually is unlimited until you start running out of resources such as energy and raw materials. Virtually everyone with a home or a car would like a more expensive home or a car if money were no object; most everyone has something they'd like to have but don't. There is almost nothing so elastic as demand. When I was a kid I had maybe three or four pairs of "good" jeans; now I have maybe two dozen. I have things I never even dreamed of owning when I was growing up, things that hadn't even been invented then, on a ~50k income. If I had a much higher income, I'd have a more expensive motorcycle, a bigger, nicer house, a more expensive automobile. I'd travel more and stay in more expensive places. Grow the pie and everyone gets a bigger slice, and rest assured we'll run out of filling long before we run out of appetite.

I'd agree that welfare is not a place most of us would want to be, but there is a class of people for whom welfare is most definitely a place they want to be. These are the people who cannot really conceive of themselves having a job that pays enough to justify the loss of freedom and time, for work does take away a huge portion of your life. Some of these people are just bone lazy, but a lot of them were created by concentrating the very poor in projects. As there are increasingly fewer opportunities for the uneducated and the unmotivated to earn a good living, so will the number of these people increase. One's attraction to welfare is directly proportional to one's options; you find no licensed medical doctors for whom welfare is a place they want to be, but rather a lot whose options (at least starting out) are minimum wage jobs with very limited advancement.

 

[nehalem256]

I lived on welfare as a kid for a period of time after my dad lost his business (the classic small business undercut by larger business) and I know it's not a place you want to be.

But then you have the significant problem of people making choices where it is the only place they can be.

 

[actuarial]

I'd argue that the economy actually is unlimited until you start running out of resources such as energy and raw materials. Virtually everyone with a home or a car would like a more expensive home or a car if money were no object; most everyone has something they'd like to have but don't. There is almost nothing so elastic as demand. When I was a kid I had maybe three or four pairs of "good" jeans; now I have maybe two dozen. I have things I never even dreamed of owning when I was growing up, things that hadn't even been invented then, on a ~50k income. If I had a much higher income, I'd have a more expensive motorcycle, a bigger, nicer house, a more expensive automobile. I'd travel more and stay in more expensive places. Grow the pie and everyone gets a bigger slice, and rest assured we'll run out of filling long before we run out of appetite.

As someone who works in the retirement business, I can promise you that at least at the extremes personal demand is a function of free time. Nobody working two jobs has much time for golf.

I'd agree that welfare is not a place most of us would want to be, but there is a class of people for whom welfare is most definitely a place they want to be. These are the people who cannot really conceive of themselves having a job that pays enough to justify the loss of freedom and time, for work does take away a huge portion of your life. Some of these people are just bone lazy, but a lot of them were created by concentrating the very poor in projects. As there are increasingly fewer opportunities for the uneducated and the unmotivated to earn a good living, so will the number of these people increase. One's attraction to welfare is directly proportional to one's options; you find no licensed medical doctors for whom welfare is a place they want to be, but rather a lot whose options (at least starting out) are minimum wage jobs with very limited advancement.

I'd agree. I personally don't think we've gotten into the problem area where there are so many people that it invalidates the original purpose of that safety net though.

 

[actuarial]

But then you have the significant problem of people making choices where it is the only place they can be.

I have no clue what this means.

 

[nehalem256]

To extend on people making choices that make it so they can only survive on welfare

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/08/phyllis-schlafly-debunked-single-parent.html

Note that the chart uses 2 scales. One for single-parent and one for 2-parent families in order to try and distort the picture.

A single mother with young children and no job skills cannot get a job to support her family and pay for day care.

 

[Texashiker]

A single mother with young children and no job skills cannot get a job to support her family and pay for day care.

What would be nice, if fortune 500 companies were required to pay a certain minimum wage, and provide access to daycare.

Why should apple be allowed to exploit cheap labor in china, then pay their employees here in the states low wages?

Why should walmart be allowed to make billions in profits, and return so little to the community?

If we "really" wanted to end welfare, make companies that can afford it pay their fair share to the communities.

 

[nehalem256]

What would be nice, if fortune 500 companies were required to pay a certain minimum wage, and provide access to daycare.

At least be honest in what you are suggesting. You think fortune 500 companies should pay single mothers more than other people.

Or to put it more simply. Unequal pay for equal work.

Why should apple be allowed to exploit cheap labor in china, then pay their employees here in the states low wages?

Why should walmart be allowed to make billions in profits, and return so little to the community?

If we "really" wanted to end welfare, make companies that can afford it pay their fair share to the communities.

What does fair share to the community mean?

And why shouldnt we expect people to should their fair share of moral behavior?

 

[Texashiker]

At least be honest in what you are suggesting. You think fortune 500 companies should pay single mothers more than other people.

Or to put it more simply. Unequal pay for equal work.

Isn't that what the ceo and board members get? Unequal pay for unequal work?

Close factories here in the US, send labor overseas, cut cost by hundreds of millions, that new found profit then goes into the bank.

~ EDIT~

How can companies justify paying ceos tens of millions, making billions in profit, but yet paying employees here in the states minimum wage?

 

[CitizenKain]

Only what gets reported.

Why do the welfare queens get dropped off at the local office in a 30K Caddy.
Why do they have the latest cell phones ($200-300)
How come they have the $1500 Flat Panel TV with XBox, Wii and a $2500 stereo system blasting.
How are they able to afford the $15 CDs but claim to not have food money?

Answer:
They have learned to manipulate the system. Others are taking care of her and it is their" stuff, so she does not have to declare it.

to you it may be a myth; to others; we have seen it happening all the time

Look at you parroting rightwing myths like a good little follower.

 

[nehalem256]

Isn't that what the ceo and board members get? Unequal pay for unequal work?

Not at all. You are advocating that if a company hires me for a job I be paid less than if the hire a single mother.

1.) This is blatantly opposed to the concept of equal pay for equal work.

2.) This obviously means I would be hired instead anyway. Companies are not stupid(or at least not THAT stupid).

 

[Texashiker]

1.) This is blatantly opposed to the concept of equal pay for equal work.

How can a ceo justify a yearly salary of tens of millions?

Take zuchenberg for example. He invented a popular website, does that mean his is worth billions of dollars?

steve jobs, bill gates,,,, how do we justify a persons worth?

Is bill gates worth billions because he surrounded himself with smart people?

 

[nehalem256]

How can a ceo justify a yearly salary of tens of millions?

Being a CEO and being cashier at McDonald's are clearly unequal jobs.

I would agree CEO pay is inflated. It is likely a result of the same basic problems of public unions, where you are negotiating your salary with people who are your "friends".

Take zuchenberg for example. He invented a popular website, does that mean his is worth billions of dollars?

1.) He largely only has paper wealth.

2.) How many jobs has his company created?

 

[Incorruptible]

Its time to end welfare. Let these people stop wasting taxpayers money

 

[actuarial]

To extend on people making choices that make it so they can only survive on welfare

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/08/phyllis-schlafly-debunked-single-parent.html

Note that the chart uses 2 scales. One for single-parent and one for 2-parent families in order to try and distort the picture.

A single mother with young children and no job skills cannot get a job to support her family and pay for day care.

So then instead of increasing welfare in general offer subsidized daycare (which is what we do in Ontario). Also, kids eventually will be going to school. Which significantly reduces daycare costs.

In don't think there's any case where I live where welfare income > minimum wage work income - daycare costs (after subsidization).

 

[actuarial]

Being a CEO and being cashier at McDonald's are clearly unequal jobs.

I would agree CEO pay is inflated. It is likely a result of the same basic problems of public unions, where you are negotiating your salary with people who are your "friends".

It's the result of having extremely large companies. Taking $1,000 off the annual wage of every worker makes a much bigger difference when you employ 25,000 than when you employ 25.

The difference between many small business and one large business is in the first case you end up with many wealthy people and in the latter you end up with a few extremely wealthy people.

 

[spittledip]

I bake or fry the chicken that pecks my hand

Would you consider curry or barbecue?

 

[nehalem256]

So then instead of increasing welfare in general offer subsidized daycare (which is what we do in Ontario). Also, kids eventually will be going to school. Which significantly reduces daycare costs.

In don't think there's any case where I live where welfare income > minimum wage work income - daycare costs (after subsidization).

Subsidized daycare is really no different than welfare.

And it seems you are agreeing with me. Single motherhood essentially cannot exist without government bailouts.

 

[Texashiker]

Single motherhood essentially cannot exist without government bailouts.

Sure it can exist without welfare. Or at the very least reduce the burden paid by the taxbase.

But only if the companies that can afford to pay their fair share were required to do so.

Could you imagine what would happen if walmart was required to pay a minimum wage of $15 an hour, but could not raise prices?

That probably sounds like socialism, and it probably is. Free fall capitalism is not the answer.

I worked at places where people were fired for even talking about forming a union. There was never a hope of bargaining for better wages or benefits.

 

[chucky2]

Lameness. Accusations require require substantiation other than the urban mythology of fringewhacks.

I volunteered as a weekend handyman at Denver's Warren Village for some years.

http://www.warrenvillage.org/

I never claimed that abuse of the system was acceptable either by rich or poor. Your apparent worship of wealth apparently leads you to think that what Mitt does is OK, even though he damages the system much more than any welfare mom.

So the randomly filmed woman bitching about her electricity while behind here there's a big flatscreen, xbox, etc was faked?

People I personally know getting assistance and spend money on not-needed sh1t doesn't happen?

Millions of people misusing/abusing the system, thereby indoctrinating their kids that it's OK, do more damage than Mitt? Prove it.

 

[Texashiker]

Millions of people misusing/abusing the system, thereby indoctrinating their kids that it's OK, do more damage than Mitt?

My wife and I know a local high school teacher.

One day the teacher was talking to his students about what they wanted to do when they get out of school.

A student raises his hand, says he wants to get his monthly check in the mail like his daddy does.

True story bro.