Sequestration is BOVINE CACA!!!!

[A.Nonymous]

Let's get this straight: you're underfed so severely weakened and probably sick, your utilities were cut off then you were thrown out for not paying rent so you have no home, you stink, your clothes are falling to bits - how long are you going to hold even that minimum wage job?

But you've "paid yourself", you have a few bucks in the bank: everything's fine.

That's your plan?

Really?

You're absolutely right. Also, if you are on the way to the bank and aliens from outer space zap you with their death ray and you wake up in the hospital a month later you are also screwed. Your pay check has been uncashed for so long it's not going to be honored you have 30 days of hospital bills to pay your house had gone to pot in the month you've been out of commission and your utilities have probably been cut off too. I mean if we're going to come up with ridiculous scenarios at least throw a sci-fi element into it.

 

[Gmash]

Let's get this straight: you're underfed so severely weakened and probably sick, your utilities were cut off then you were thrown out for not paying rent so you have no home, you stink, your clothes are falling to bits - how long are you going to hold even that minimum wage job?

But you've "paid yourself", you have a few bucks in the bank: everything's fine.

That's your plan?

Really?

And don't forget, you can't spend that few bucks in the bank to pay your rent and avoid becoming homeless. That's for retirement lol. Some people are so out of touch its ridiculous.

 

[SiempreTuna]

You're absolutely right. Also, if you are on the way to the bank and aliens from outer space zap you with their death ray and you wake up in the hospital a month later you are also screwed. Your pay check has been uncashed for so long it's not going to be honored you have 30 days of hospital bills to pay your house had gone to pot in the month you've been out of commission and your utilities have probably been cut off too. I mean if we're going to come up with ridiculous scenarios at least throw a sci-fi element into it.

Well, quite.

Thing is, the scenario I described is not so far fetched when you're on minimum wage.

You simply cannot afford to pay for all the basics AND save. That's not happening.

If you choose to save, something has to give. You don't eat - good luck with that one - or you let your appearance go or your utilities get cut or you get thrown out of your home.

Any one of those and you're already on the slippery slope.

 

[sntaylor]

Apparently I'm not making myself clear. You pay yourself first. Then you pay for the necessities - food, rent, utilities (gas, electric, water, trash). Everything after that (smart phone, cable TV, Internet, eating out, etc....) is not a necessity.

no one is suggesting that these people would have smart phone etc I suggested people on the true bread line, re-read what I said about bills etc some people don't have the ability to keep money aside after paying those necessities, or they don't pay the necessities! One or the other!

 

[A.Nonymous]

Well, quite.

Thing is, the scenario I described is not so far fetched when you're on minimum wage.

You simply cannot afford to pay for all the basics AND save. That's not happening.

If you choose to save, something has to give. You don't eat - good luck with that one - or you let your appearance go or your utilities get cut or you get thrown out of your home.

Any one of those and you're already on the slippery slope.

It really is far fetched. There just aren't people here in America who are so starved they are weak and sickly. We are a country that is very well off and few in America don't have their physical needs met. I'll never forget when couple from South Africa came by our church to raise money for missions work over there. The guy mentioned that he was shocked that a) all Americans have running water and electricity in their homes and b) we have fat homeless people. He had never seen fat homeless people before.

Few Americans really struggle with the basics. Many Americans (and I've been guilty of this myself at times) struggle with keeping up a standard of living we've become accustomed to. We try to rent/buy something we can't afford. We try to wear designer clothes. We want to drive a brand new car. We want to have a fancy smart phone. We justify these things in our minds by telling ourselves they are "needs" when in reality they aren't.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I agree.

We were discussing the poorest of the poor. There really aren't that many of them and even fewer who are in that position by choice.

I'm not saying everyone is deserving or that there aren't those who play the system. All I'm saying is that the numbers are small and if you change the system - or throw it out all together - solely to exclude these outliers, you're also going to exclude a vast number of people who are deserving and who aren't playing anything.

Sure, you can go after the wasters, thing is that when that has been tried - which it has been pretty often - it has usually proved more expensive than simply ignoring them. I think the last drive we had in the UK cost a couple of billion and saved a couple of hundred million. Not the best investment.

 

[A.Nonymous]

They have passed laws here in the States defining exactly how long you can be on welfare. They are generally not enforced from what I hear. I would love a law that says you can get 6 mos assistance one time in your life. That would never ever happen though. 15% of our population is on welfare and 3-4% of them are dependent on it. It's ridiculous.

 

[Gmash]

One time in your life? You realize people can fall on hard times more than once, right? You want to put those people in homeless shelters? Nice.

 

[A.Nonymous]

One time in your life? You realize people can fall on hard times more than once, right? You want to put those people in homeless shelters? Nice.

Falling on hard times over and over and over again and there is no pattern of behavior there?

 

[SiempreTuna]

Falling on hard times over and over and over again and there is no pattern of behavior there?

Yup.

Like to see a source for the % of people who are dependent, of course but I accept that there are some.

There's another pattern of behaviour that is a major contributory factor in this - and very much in the news at the minute in the UK. This is businesses' pattern of refusing to pay people enough money to live on and expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab.

In the UK we spend over $5 billion (or a shade under 1% of total spending) subsidising working people because their employers are not paying them enough to live on. This subsidy comes in tax breaks, allowances and actual payments. I'm guessing the US does something similar.

This is taxation subsidising employers who are refusing to pay their way.

The goverment here is being lobbied to increase the minimum wage to a "living wage" - from around

 

[Gmash]

The people who have to go back on assistance several times don't really bother me, because it shows they are at least trying to get off of it. That is much better than accepting it as a way of life.

 

[SiempreTuna]

The people who have to go back on assistance several times don't really bother me, because it shows they are at least trying to get off of it. That is much better than accepting it as a way of life.

Good point, well made.

 

[ElasticNinja]

The goverment here is being lobbied to increase the minimum wage to a "living wage" - from around

 

[SiempreTuna]

I do wonder however if subsidising the very low paid in this way may actually be more economically efficient. A lot of these employers would be quite small, increasing the minimum wage in order to remove said government financial burden may not be a great idea, particularly in the context of high(ish) unemployment.

Yeah that's one of the very good arguments also being made. Doubtless it was part of the justification made for the payments initially.

The problem is that arguments for and against are persuasive because it's a complex issue. And you can be sure that whatever you do, the law of unintended consequences will apply.

I guess the point here is that dealing with the under privileged is complicated and simply cannot be reduced to facile statements like "people need to save". Sure. So what? People need lots of things. That's an aspect of the problem, not a solution.