The Myth of the Working Poor

Originally posted by The Big O


I know why, they're trying to help their families out. Also, I don't know anyone, nor can I fathom anyone, who makes minimum wage being able to send 60-70% of their wage to someone else. 5.15 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks come out to under 11 grand. If they send 60% to someone somewhere else they're getting rid of almost 6500 bucks. That leaves them 4500 to live on, that's less than $87 a week.

But what you dont understand is you have 15 of them, thats $1500 a week and they can eat and rent a house with that. I see it.

Originally posted by The Big O

Myth 4. Families on welfare eat better than those of us who work for a living. If they didn't buy all the junk food and steaks they do and managed their money better, they wouldn't be poor.
The average Food Stamp allotment in 1990 was 79 cents a meal per person. For a poor person, no amount of good management" can result in sufficient nutritious meals through out the month, while on Food Stamps. We imagine what we see someone buy on food stamps is what they buy every week, but most food stamp recipients do one big shopping trip a month and try to make it last through the month.

I also have seen this to be #e! Will a dog eat porterhouse steaks? I have seen this with my OWN eyes.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by edsinger]

"But what you dont understand is you have 15 of them, thats $1500 a week and they can eat and rent a house with that. I see it."

What the heck do you mean by this? Are you implying it's okay because all they have to do is shack up with 15 other people and rent a house? Seriously, your math doesn't even add up. Even a two bedroom house with 15 beds is going to cost... oh forget it.

"I also have seen this to be ! Will a dog eat porterhouse steaks? I have seen this with my OWN eyes. "

What the heck do you mean here? Will a dog eat porterhouse steaks? WTF?

Originally posted by Soldier
It is already possible for everyone, through hard work, to own thier own car and home.

That's simply not true. It never can be 100% true and I can deal with that, but in cases where the government can to limit that by bringing capital where others won't to create jobs, the government should do so.
All you've got to do is run around town for about an hour. Gas up your car, go to Walmart, and stop at Mc Donalds. In my experience, you can in that one hour meet over a dozen people in their late 20s or 30s who would have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to live on their own, and even then there is little or no way they can afford to own rather than rent. In today's economy (at least in my experience in Southern California) it takes about double what you'd make at 40 hours and minimum wage just to get by on your own.
If you're working class and want a home, get married, work 60 hours a week your whole life (your spouse too), never had kids, never get seriously ill, and if you don't mind living in the boondocks or a slum that would be a big help too.

And every day there are students who put themselves through college with part time jobs and government loans.

What percentage of the total population though? I assume we both recognize that there are many highschool graduates who do not see college as being financially possible. Ever notice how heavily the armed forces, especially the navy, lean on that college money as an incentive? Why would that be an effective way of getting people to join the armed forces if most people could manage by other means? (I'm reminded of some prominent historical figure who said "No man would join the Navy who had the contrivance to get himself into a prison instead..." but I digress.)

I think that government intervention in the market is nearly always a bad idea.

In certain ways I would agree. This is because many forms of government intervention represent an attempt to ignore or over-power market forces. This is perhaps the greatest reason for the failure of socialism. Making investments in order to put people to work is nothing new though, and it works. I just think the government should plan it and do it more regularly instead of considering it strictly a bail-out for hard times.

As for limiting corporate profits, this is a VERY bad idea. The concept of the corporation is by far one of most important inventions in history. It has allowed man to discover new lands, create new inventions, and create unheard of wealth for billions.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that we simply cap profits. I'm suggesting that in some cases, especially medicine, the government monopolize R and D, production, etc and take the corporations completely out of the loop. Capping profits ignores market forces- undertaking development and production at-cost as a public work does not. It's perfectly viable.
The corporation is simply a machine for raising capital to support a venture. It does in private business what the government does in state business. It does not innovate- it equips and pays the innovators. I believe that things such as the development and production of medicines are part of vital healthcare infrastructure and as infrastructure are state business, not private, and not subject to profiteering. The government should raise the capital to equip and pay the innovators just as well as they are currently paid, but should take no profit on its investment or on the distribution, essentially offering medication at wholesale, as well as increasing efficiency by eliminating R and D redundancies between companies.

Progressive taxes are a good thing, but you can't go overboard. Progressive taxes only work if those being taxed don't feel as if they are being punished. People are willing to pay more, within reason. If the taxes become unreasonable the tax payers will flee or find a way to hide thier money. Pick out the countries with the most progressive tax systems and cross reference that with the Forbes list of wealthiest people. How many millionaires are there in Sweden.

I agree with you on the point that you can't over-tax the investors to the point of breaking the incentive. I'm not an economist and I'm not pretending to be qualified to deal with the numbers here. I am simply speculating that there is quite possibly room for rearrangement in our tax code without breaking the will of investors. We know for a fact that the higher tax brackets can handle higher taxes because they got a tax cut not that long ago.
If indeed there is room for an adjustment, we should make it, and target the benefit very carefully at people who at this time do not own homes but would choose to invest in one if they are allowed to keep a little more of their income each month.

Like I said, I'm not an economist, but what I do understand is that our economy works not on the accumulation of money, but on the circulation of it. You don't judge the economy by how much money people can amass, but on how much money is moving and the quantity of goods and services that are acquired by consumers as a result. So we want money to circulate. Money floats. It inevitably ends up with the rich people because they are the ones you buy stuff from. To keep it circulating, you have to keep a good flow of cash to the bottom in the form of take-home wages, so that it can begin circulating back towards the top again.

As for the corporations paying more because they benefit from the employee's free education, that arguement doesn't make sense to me. Who benefited more, the company who hired an educated employee, or the citizen who was able to get a high paying job with the education.

Maybe it's just me, but the main tangible benefit of an education is employability. Sure you understand things and you feel good about yourself, and nerdy girls like you, but the big payoff is that you can get a job. Now if I alone have to pay the cost of learning how to do a job, what exactly am I getting out of this? The joy of working? What it amounts to is that you are working just to pay for your room, board, and job training. Most reasonable people in that situation, given the opportunity, would go the way of Henry David Thoreau- disappear into the woods, grow your own food, and evade your taxes. There is no sense spending 1/3 of your life at work and 1/3 of your life resting up so that you can go to work tomorrow if all you get for it is room, board, and the ability to pay your taxes.

Now the corporation on the other hand is making out pretty good on this deal. They are making a profit- the people behind the corporation have plenty of discretionary spending in their budgets, and they have their serfs to thank for that- the common man who basically works for just enough to survive, and of course to pay for the privlidge of living under his government. Let those people, who have money to spare, take a portion of that, and share in a portion of the burden of education- which they are benefiting from equally with the student. The wealthy still have plenty- maybe less than they want, but plenty, and the working man at least has a little allowance for himself now so that he can hope to actually own his things rather than rent them, and god willing, maybe even do that and have money to spend on the occasional luxury.

I know I have an uncommon viewpoint, but I think it's important to remember that civilization, economics, etc are a tool, but now men serve their tools. You spend your whole life away from home, so that you can afford a home. You work yourself sick so that you can afford a sick day. Something has gone wrong. Normally I'd say if I don't like it I ought to just walk away, but the world isn't as big as it used to be. We don't all have that option. So, it seems fitting that the majority of the world population- the people who spend more time maintaining these tools than using them- should lean on the boss to get things fixed.

We need to get away from this idea of punishing corporations. They are not evil. They provide jobs for the people.

To have a wealthy man share his wealth with the people who make him wealthy is not a punishment. They're welcome to their mansions, they're car collections, their fountains, and even their golf (although I consider golf an arrogant, elitist game which perfectly symbolizes the hardness of heart of rich men in a world where people starve to death every day- keeping in mind that the world is bigger than just America). They can keep all of that. But then with all that money people have sitting around and have nothing better to do with than buy a third house to spend one month out of the year in, might I humbly suggest that they pay their dues to the society that supports them.


I'll lay it out for you barney style- I know the truth is that this is never going to happen. It wouldn't be good for business for Americans to own their homes or their cars, or even their freakin video tapes. Renting keeps the money flowing upward. If we had an ownership society, almost all of the working class would inevitably pass on homes to their children. Those who depend on us to rent, lease, and borrow on credit would be done for. Those who try to use fines or workplace policies as mechanisms of control, would lose their power. Look at the growing phenomenon of employers who try to regulate what you can do in your off-duty hours, smoking cigarettes for example. That would be finished in an ownership society where people could afford to be on strike or between jobs without missing their rent payment.

So my rant is over now, and forgive me if it's a tad militant. It's certainly not personal. I simply believe that the state of things is about excess and control, and that this is not the way things have to be.

Originally posted by The Big O

"I also have seen this to be ! Will a dog eat porterhouse steaks? I have seen this with my OWN eyes. "

What the heck do you mean here? Will a dog eat porterhouse steaks? WTF?

I mean I have seen people purchase this item for the dogs since they can not by dog food with food stamps. I saw it happen.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Good thread. I disagree with those that claim ATS has a liberal slant, to me ATS has a 'lean to the right' of about 12 deg.

You obviously weren't here when we all voted to see how ATS standed during the last US election. John Kerry blew Bush out of the water if memory serves me correctly. Libertarians also had a good showing as well. Only around 45% of active ATSers voted but it was still an eye opener.

*Sigh*

Im enjoying how everyone on purpose skipped reading my post on page 1 heheheh!
Everyone here is in denial of the bigger, bigger, bigger, picture LOLOL!

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012

*Sigh*

Im enjoying how everyone on purpose skipped reading my post on page 1 heheheh!
Everyone here is in denial of the bigger, bigger, bigger, picture LOLOL!

What that we are all under the control of a 'secret' society? Come on back o reality.

It would be nice if you came back to reality from this nonsense about how poor people don't work for a living so they deserve their plight. Ah well some people just arent satified unless they've made so much money that the poor are starving to death on the streets.

Just remember the poor mans answer to predatory capitalism is predatory crime. Crime after all is just another form of capitalism, capitalism at it's most pure in fact. Eventually the poor bastard is going to realize he stands to make more money by cutting out the middle man and just taking what he wants. It never ceases to amaze me how all you laisezz faire capitalists react with surprise when the people eventually revolt burn down your sweatshop and brutally kill your family. The only reason it doesnt really happen in America is because times arent bad enough yet. Give it time though if the maniacs running this country get their way its only a matter of time before the blood starts to flow again.

Sad but true....

And yet the poor in this nasty capitalistic country are better off than most of the rest of humanity! Says a whole bunch about our system doesn't it?

I mean in sub saharan Africa, a TV set would do the poor no good there with no electricity now would it?

while I admit that their is alot of abuse of the welfare system from the recipients of it. I would suggest that there is just as much abuse of it from the business sector. occupations that once offered a livable wage now offer much, much less. and businesses are more willing to hire headhunters to venture south of the border looking for their employees than to provide those employees with a livable wage. and yet, when it comes to the consumer end, the sneakers made with slave labor from their world nations still cost $100 bucks, housing is outrageous, medical care is through the roof, the cost to feed you family has increased the past decade considerably, energy prices are up, taxes are up.....the same businesses that want cheap labor so badly that they are willing to hire headhunters for employees that they need an interpreter to have a conversation with and build factories halfway across the world for the cheap labor show no interest in passing any of this savings down to the american consumer...and why should they? their employees will at least have enough to keep them alive and working no matter how little they pay them, thanks to our fine social services programs!


just what do you expect these 6, 7, 8 dollar an hour workers to do....work their 8-10 hours and then go home to their cardboard box and eat rats?

then who would rent the thousand dollar apartments? the hundred dollar sneakers, the hundred dollar perscription medications, the overpriced food, electricity, gas, ect. ect...

our whole economy is just a scam....with taxpayer money being diverted through the welfare system, along with the financial systems credit offers, just so the people can afford the basic necessities and just enough of the other stuff to keep it running.

maybe this is why Bush and buddies wanted to create a second class of citizens through the immigration laws....people used to living in cardboard boxes and eating rats.....our social services systems are too costly, and this outsourcing bit just ain't all they hoped for, and well, they need another source for their slave labor.

When you compare the poor in the USA to the poor in other industrialized countries you find that the poor and some of the middle class here in the US are worse off, due to 43 million people having no medical coverage and some of the ones who do still being forced into bankruptcy due to the health care system we have here.

Most other countries equal to us have universal healthcare for all of their citizens.

Then let us not forget Katrina where thousands died due to having no transportation out of the city and the local and federal governments pitiful tardiness in response to the needs of the people, this also showed the world the poor here in America.

So perhaps you should try and convince the people who have no access to healthcare and the millions of people living in poverty here in America that poverty is a myth.

Originally posted by goose

So perhaps you should try and convince the people who have no access to healthcare and the millions of people living in poverty here in America that poverty is a myth.

Well Socialistic government works well then? Comparing my paycheck here to what it would be in these 'wonderland' countries, I would rather have more of my money that I earned to spend as I see fit instead of spreading the sweat and earnings of my labor around.

European poor may be a bit better off for sure but how many of them own cars?

People in the situation of being working poor (most of us), unfortunately have to tackle this issue on their own, it all starts...by making decisions.

Where can we learn how to make decisons?

Schools and our educational system nowadays should have changed their curriculum long ago, from grade 1 up, slowly teaching children (they have roughly 14 years for pete's sake!!!!!!!! to educate a child) how to live and survive in our society. We, should be interested in getting our educational system to change and adapt, and teach fundamentals to children, and not when kids are fully grown, and too many that can't afford a post-secondary education miss out.

I don't think our generation can change much, except through personal trial and error, but we can help to change the experiences of our next generation.

For example, kids could be split in 4 groups a class. Each month, one group has to "work" for cash, coming up with their own ideas how to work for this money (one day a week lemonade stand at the company their parents work at, instead of going on a field trip with the other kids to the local baseball stadium, or odd jobs around the school, maintaining a veggie garden etc). With the money they have earned, they have to buy class supplies for the other kids in their class (pencils, paper, books, etc - kids have the ability to make enough money, they're one of the biggest target markets, I have no doubt, that kids doing this would sometimes make more than we do).

Through this they learn the responsibility of earning, and providing for others (family), become resourceful when the going gets tough, and learn that not making that money has consequences for others as well, not just them. By not always being able to go with the other kids on field trips, but having to work instead, they learn sacrifice for something bigger - for others, and that's life.

Because all their other classmates are doing this, and because it is being taught at school, they learn that this is normal, everyone does it, not just their geeky parents. They learn to budget. They learn that there is no need to steal (this will always exist, but maybe attitudes towards it will change, like with smoking, drinking, drugs, and other "negatives") from others, with time, they can have anything they want. They earn respect, and they learn to earn it, in a positive way.
By the time they hit high-school, they'll be playing the stocks, and learning about investments. There is much more connection with the older generations, and surrounding businesses, "lower-class" kids learn the ropes just like "upper-class" and are not as intidimated by big companies, big dreams, believe in themselves and see things for themselves on the horizon their parents may not have seen.

Of course, parents and businesses would have to volunteer to help teachers with this kind of project, but I have no doubt that many would. Focus on true life skills on a scale like this would have to be a constant effort, not just a once a year project in high school. And it has to start from grade 1. Kids love making money, it makes them feel big! They love having responsibility, so why not give it to them on a scale they can handle? Instead we tend to take them away from it, and then wonder why they haven't learned to cope with it.

It's not just parents, society as a whole has to take interest. There has to be a balance to the whole instant gratification, have fun now, pay later, money is everything mentality.
Of course there is interest somewhere in maintaining this type of society, but we must take care of our end as well, and put up limits.

I know some schools have already changed to include more realistic, useful topics, but seriously, this has to happen on a much grander scale, and like NOW.



Proverbs (ch. 22, v. 6):
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.


And, but this is a really different topic, but we really need better role models.

Soraia,

there are plenty of tasks in the shop that I work in that the preschool kids in the daycare center across the street could do..I think the schools should start heading towards being mini-businesses, by the time that the kids hit high school, they'd be supporting their own education by doing subcontract work in a variety of occupation that ARE VALUED BY SOCIETY...and that society is and will always be willing to pay of living wage for..
but that isn't the problem...before there was a working poor, there were slaves....there has always been a need for this extremely cheap labor...a desire to build wealth through their labor. this won't change. so, let's say that we manage to get all the kids adequately trained in those "valued occupations".....we will still need cashiers, we will still need (or want) burger flippers, file clerks, ect...unless you are proposing that these kids are gonna be the ones we use for these not so valued occupations, well....who's gonna do them? and where are all the valued jobs gonna come from to employ all the adults?
the problem isn't with our education, the problem lies in our value systems...our society wants the cashier, file clerks, the burger flippers, ect...but they fail to see their contribution to society as worthy of a living wage...the people who do those jobs as worthy of life....

I think rather than focusing soley on the culture of welfare dependency (which by the way I don't agree with either) we should also try to move away from the culture of making a buck off the back of the working man, the rampant capitalism that is practiced both by govt and big business. Btween the welfare scroungers and the blatant rip offs practiced by the latter we're being pretty effectively screwed and kept down.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by goose

So perhaps you should try and convince the people who have no access to healthcare and the millions of people living in poverty here in America that poverty is a myth.

Well Socialistic government works well then? Comparing my paycheck here to what it would be in these 'wonderland' countries, I would rather have more of my money that I earned to spend as I see fit instead of spreading the sweat and earnings of my labor around.

European poor may be a bit better off for sure but how many of them own cars?

A small pittance of your tax dollars goes to social programs so rest easy on that one, most of your tax dollars goes to defense and contractors like Halliburton and Black Water who are getting wealthy off of this war.

Most people overseas who live in countries that have universal health coverage only pays slightly higher taxes than we already do in the states.

Personally I would rather pay a few dollars more in taxes than to know because of my greed a baby is sick and dying and can't get treatment because it was unfortuanate enough to be born poor. I'd rather pay a few dollars more to know a child or an elderly person is not starving in America.

Originally posted by goose
A small pittance of your tax dollars goes to social programs so rest easy on that one, most of your tax dollars goes to defense and contractors like Halliburton and Black Water who are getting wealthy off of this war.

Ah that's it attack the Administration and such. You are WRONG. The Defense budget is at most 600 Billion out of a 2.5 trillion budget. The great majority of that is social programs of which we speak. the 75 trillion that is thrown around as 'debt' owed is 99% for entitlements, which we gladly give out to those that never pay in so that the democratic voter base can continue to grow.

Originally posted by goose
Most people overseas who live in countries that have universal health coverage only pays slightly higher taxes than we already do in the states.

Horse PUCKY - You had better check that one, we have the lowest taxes of the major industrialized countries (Oil emirates excluded of course). Our tax rate is far less and the Rich are now paying more of that burden.

Originally posted by goose
Personally I would rather pay a few dollars more in taxes than to know because of my greed a baby is sick and dying and can't get treatment because it was unfortuanate enough to be born poor. I'd rather pay a few dollars more to know a child or an elderly person is not starving in America.

Move to California where health care is free, unless you are a citizen, then you have to pay.

Try and get in an emergency room out there (I KNOW THIS ONE PERSONALLY), 4-5 hour wait because those illegals and those without insurance use it as a doctors office because they can not be turned away. The first sign of nationalized health care,

Second, go to Canada and ask them how great their system is. How many Canadians are driving south of the border to get quality health care here while passing US Seniors going north to buy drugs?

Move to France - Its nice there...

Originally posted by edsinger
Try and get in an emergency room out there (I KNOW THIS ONE PERSONALLY), 4-5 hour wait because those illegals and those without insurance use it as a doctors office because they can not be turned away. The first sign of nationalized health care....

The reason for these problems with 'socialized or nationalized health care' isn't because it’s free, it’s because it’s free within a capitalist society. In a true socialist society, that was run on a cooperative non-authoritarian (yes NO government not more) way, then hospitals could be run as needed to cope with the workload, not a budget.

Do you really think you have more right to health care because you have more money? Would you rather have people dying in the street because they can't get health care? What's better for society as a whole? The problems we have are caused by too many people thinking of themselves first instead of considering the effects of their actions on society as a whole.

And I'm not sure what emergency rooms you go to but I have visited the one at the St.Francis hospital in San Francisco a few times and never had to wait any more than a regular Drs visit. I think you are really over reacting to these social problems that won't just disappear by taking away social help.

Businesses and corporations get far more help than the 'poor' do from your government. If you want your capitalist system then you have to except that it will create a poverty class and should be prepared to either live with consequences of ignoring the problem, or doing something constructive to alleviate it. But of course capitalism is fueled by greed and greed won't allow you to consider sharing.

I don't think I should have better health care than those without money, heck I am low-middle class, but I PAY FOR MINE every week.

When I did not have a job, nor any way to get help to have my daughter born, I could get NONE because I owned 50% of a piece of land worth $3500 that my dad is buried on. I had to sell my truck to pay the doctors BEFOREHAND.

So don't give me a line of crap, my son broke his shoulder and went to the ER, he waited 3.5 hours and nothing. My wife got up and took him to a smaller one 1 hour away and got service in ~35 minutes. WE HAD INSURANCE and it did not matter.

Let some of the medical workers comment on this, ask them about the workload.

It is not fair nor right to have those that are here illegally breaking the laws getting free medical care. Its bull^&%&.

maybe we should offer it to the entire world?

and well...in this world, with it's terrorists with biological weapons and desires to kill off the evil americans, with it's bird flu, sars, and other killer diseases ready to sweep across the country and kill thousands...(hey, this is the message that seems to be blasted across the airwaves often)...do you really want you child going to school with a bunch of sick undiagnosed kids, or do you really want to go to work with that sick, undiagnosed co-worker. if someone drops dead next to you with some weird rash, aren't you gonna want to know just what they died from...wouldn't you prefer that they drop dead in an isolation ward in a hospital somewhere instead?

I recently overheard a conversation between my supervisor and a co-worker....the super was having a fit because my co-worker had to take time off work to go and register for wic.....
what can I say, we don't get paid enough to take care of ourselves, and she has a kid and one on the way.....
but, if you were an employer, which would you prefer...employees taking time off once and awhile to go to one or two sources to get the subsidies they need to extend their paycheck enough to make ends meet, or for them to be standing outside of your company with cup and hand for part of the workday hoping someone drops a few dollars into it?

if all these programs would be cut, just how do you think wal mart would feel if all their employees set up tent cities in their parking lot after their landlords evict them because hud refused to pay their rent....

heck, how would you feel if your employer came to you and told you that your salary had to be cut, since these programs aren't around anymore to help the other employees in the company, and well, starving employees aren't gonna be good employees...

go ahead, pull the social programs....let's take a look at just how great our economy is!!! I bet there would be alot less griping about these programs and more appreciation for these programs then!!...

Well how about the other direction, lets just make everything free! have no incentive to do squat! I grew up in the deep south and can tell you that entitlements only breed more democratic voters.

Safety nets are one thing, but they soon get out of hand and become EXPECTED.


I am not for all entitlements being dropped, not even close, but I sure as heck don't like giving more out each year.

How do I feel? Well since I will see none of the social security that I am paying every week, maybe I would like to have that back so I can pay down the debt that I have that paid for my school. Yes Government debt, I had to pay whilst others were GIVEN it.

Strange huh?

Yeah socialism is grand, it works so well in Europe....