Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Ge is just the tip of the iceberg.

They earn it by hiring lobbiest and donating to the politician or political party. It also doesnt hurt giving, i mean hiring, a politicians spouse to a corp. board seat. I never realize how prevelant this has become in the last 15 years until researching it. I'd love to see a 60 Minutes expose' on this practice.

 

Thanks for info. Im not well informed. I just read or saw somewhere Canadian lumber was not making it into the US market.
I think with the shrinking payscales and job opportunities peoples choices on home sizes will be changing market demands. Advertising and propaganda will change the consumers mind from big is better to small and affordable is better.

 

Letlovin

I hope you get well soon.
*
I’ll ask you how do you make these people work, if you volunteer for something or do it for profit you are likely to be motivated to work, how do you force people to do the job if they have no such motivation?

Then why not offer them a real job? Create the situation where jobs are available that pay a living wage?
*
As I’ve said why not push to create jobs with living wages that can allow people to have healthy and fulfilled (even possibly happy) lives? And conversely why not try and help people to get those jobs?

Again this implies that all these unemployed people are lazy and wouldn’t work if offered a living wage. So how do you require them to work if they don’t want to?
Try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353
*
To me your approach seems simplistic and prejudiced – ‘people are not working they must be lazy therefore we must force them to work on menial tasks which will teach them not to be lazy’

WOW you really do like to go with your prejudices - remember you don’t know why they are not working and you don’t seem to want to find out and instead seem to be going with your prejudice in thinking that ‘a good number’ are just lazy.
And the accusations you level at me seem to be driven by your prejudices - I’m not saying that it might not be some personal deficiency, only that if that deficiency was known it could be tackled. I’m not saying that the best way to tackle the problem is to ‘give them more money’ but to help them (if it is about drug addiction or alcoholism giving more money would be the wrong thing to do). I’m not saying they should be given ‘awesome jobs’ just offered jobs that pay a decent living wage with prospects of improving their lot (and not jobs that mean they may carry on needing assistance meaning the state is subsidising low paying employers).
*
But are they lazy?

A good number, what number, what percentage, what data is that number based on, can you supply the evidence?

*

Why are they not working?

Exactly but why not try and find out rather that just shrugging and saying that most are just lazy?
*
Are there jobs on offer paying a living wage, if not why not?

So you think people should work without getting a living wage?

It is a wage where people can live and don’t need any assistance to get by.

*

Do they have the qualifications for the jobs, can they be trained?

To me the question is do you want to help them and your society in general, it seems to me that yours is the self-interest/greed, individualist, short-termist, neoliberal based mentality whose first thought is ‘why should I help anyone but me’ without thinking that long-term it probably would help you.

Then I’d ask why isn’t it happening?

And again you don’t seem to want to find out preferring to step back into your individualist mentality.

And also stepping back into your prejudices, I’m not suggesting that ‘government should hold their hands throughout their life’ I’m trying to help them and society in general by finding out what’s wrong and trying to fix it.
You don’t seem to want to help you only seem to want to punish them because you think most of them are lazy.
*

To me the obvious and rational thing to do is find out why they don’t have a job and fix it. You don’t seem to even want to fix it you just want to punish those you think are undeserving.

But I have not even suggested waving a magical democratic wand or that it would be easy. I’m just pointing out that it seems simplistic to just claim that unemployment is mainly down to most of the unemployed been lazy as you seem to.

Why is the finding out why - ‘a fantasy’? I mean it’s just a matter of going and looking and asking. In the UK we already do it, we identifying problem families and individuals and trying to tackle their problems. You don’t seem to be tackling the problems but instead just seemingly wanting to punish people for what you see as laziness.

 

Letlovin

OK – I’d still ask why they are not working.

In your reply you say you don’t now why and don’t seem to care about finding out and anyway you seem to think that most are just lazy.

Just making people work 10 hours a week may not tackle why they haven’t been able to get a real job.

If it is down to a lack of jobs or deficient skills then not matter the amount of litter picked up its not going to help. If it is down to alcoholism or drug addiction then all you are doing is getting an alcoholic or drug addict to pick up litter its not getting them better, and if its down to depression or say acrophobia you might be just pushing someone to suicide or having a fit because you’ve dragged them out into a public space to pick up litter.

 

Scratcho


People need jobs, we don’t want make work (the classic example being employing someone to dig a hole and paying someone else to fill it in) what’s needed is genuine infrastructural projects - to me maintaining parks and picking up litter should already be done and if it isn’t been done then those job vacancies should be filled.

So the government pays for some project say a fast speed rail network, then many people are employed to build it, not just manual labourers directly but indirectly architects, accountants, steel makers, machinists, etc, etc, etc With the proviso that all those working on the project have to be US citizens and US firms employing US citizens as well as been tied to training and apprentices been given to new people by those same participating firms.

 

Indie

OH Yes the same old dodge you’ve use so many times – to repeat – if I explain you claim it is too long and demand I be concise, but if I do concise you claim it is too simplistic and demand I explain. The result is always the same – you not answering what’s been said or addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your views.

You want me to condense – well you are a dishonest debater who has no rational or reasonable arguments with which to back up your views.

 

Indie

Oh you and your misrepresentations and twisting of my words –

First of all I’m still unsure of the details of your ideas on this subject because you refuse to debate honestly so a lot of what I’m going on is what you seem to be implying.

You seem to be saying that you would force all unemployed to work (labourers next to accounts next to artists, next to machinists next to computer programmers etc).

This would be at the lowest wage possible even when that might mean many would still need assistance.

You really don’t seem to have a clue as to what these forced labourers would do.

*

I believe the Works Progress Administrationand Civilian Conservation Corps projects were voluntary.

I believe they paid the local average wage (even above it).

They were employed doing real work that genuinely improved the material and cultural* infrastructure of the US.

*

I’m not against such public employment on public works I’m a Keynesian after all but to me they are about helping the people involved and society at large.

The problem I have with your ideas is that you seem to be more about wanting to punish the unemployed rather than help them while creating a forced labour force that would seem to be about driving down wages which would only seem to assist the few rather than society at large.

I’ve explained that at length above but you seem unwilling to address the criticism

*the WPA helped with the education of large numbers of young people as well as employing tens of thousands of artists to produce music, theatre, sculptures, murals and paintings.

 

Bal,

When you're unemployed your primary objective should be to find employment. Obviously every person who is unemployed and seeking employment wants to find employment which pays a living wage or more, and would like it to be one which provides long term security. When that is unlikely to happen for a length of time, the next best objective is to find some employment which will provide at least some of your needs. There's always some kinds of jobs available, and in some cases depending on the individual needs may even provide a living wage until a more desirable job can be found.
Government should not be looked at as an employment agency, and most businesses provide training tailored to the jobs they have available, so government provided job training is much less helpful than government creating an environment in which employers can determine the costs of adding to their employment roles over a longer period of time, which is a major factor currently reducing job availability.
I've always found that most everyone is willing to give 'help and assistance' to those having problems, but few people are willing to assume full responsibility for others for any great length of time. When you see someone struggling it makes you want to help, but when you see someone unwilling to show an effort, it diminishes the desire to help. And I'm not implying that to be the case the majority of time, but it is some of the time.
Then again, we could always just provide a one way ticket to the UK, where you have all the answers.

 

Indie

Well I’m sure I’m not the only to notice you are still not addressing any of the outstanding criticisms of your views.

How did I put it so concisely - you are a dishonest debater who has no rational or reasonable arguments with which to back up your views – that’s it.

Some of your needs, you mean you want people to work for less than a living wage, take a job where they will need to receive assistance to get by? You want the state is subsidise low paying employers? That’s just a way of driving down wages and one of the reasons why the real term incomes of the middle and lower groups have stagnated or fallen while the wealth of a few has ballooned in the last 30 odd years of neoliberal thinking.

But you do think it should control a massive army of cheap forced labour?

I think governments efforts would be better spent trying to bring about the conditions where people can get real jobs.

Again this seems confused – lets see you think training people is bad but making them a forced labourer is good? Why?

You think businesses are the only ones that can train people? Why not government if it helps people get jobs yes a business might give specific training for example they might have bespoke software but a general knowledge of computer systems and applications would still help.

And what do you mean by “employers can determine the costs of adding to their employment roles” in the light of your suggestion that the state should subsidise low paying employers? Again you seem to be saying you want employers to be able to cut wages, even to the point that they are no longer a living wage?

Again you seem to be more interested in pushing the interests of the few over the majority.

 

I can tell you about robotics. Before I learned the trade with which I have made a living since 'late '67, I put dashboards in Mustangs in the sub-assembly part of the Ford plant in Milpitas ,California from 64 1/2 until when I quit. That plant closed,but if you care to take a tour of an auto plant today,you will see that many,many jobs are now done with robotics. You can see commercials on the boob tube occasionally showing robots doing jobs that used to be done by people. Those positions filled by robots did/do NOT mean that those replaced were put somewhere else in the factory to continue to make a living wage. Nope--those jobs are gone. Replaced by FAR fewer people to keep the robots working. They look pretty cool as they mindlessly do their "jobs". Not sure those displaced would agree.

 

Bal,

Just what is it you think I need to back up? Exactly what do you think we're debating?
I think it should be quite clear that my view is that each one of us has to exert 'some' effort in sustaining our individual lives, and it is NOT the purpose or responsibility of government to impose controls over society in an attempt to achieve greater equality or eliminate individuals from taking responsibility for their own mistakes.

Certainly, many people work two or more jobs to achieve a living wage, and receive no government assistance at all. Yes, it would be much better to subsidize those who are working for low paying employers, until a higher paying job can be found or their low paying employer finds their value worth providing them a higher wage. The individual needing help needs to take some responsibility for their needs. You habitually complain about the wealth of the few, yet I've seen nothing that you've proposed which would reduce their wealth in the least, which Keynesian economics only enhances the growth of.

No, I don't think government should have much involvement at all in the labor force, leaving that to the free market where the products and services we need and want are the primary source of job creation.

When government is continuously tampering with rules, regulations, and tax laws which along with other costs have to be taken into account businesses have to exercise caution to remain profitable. Unlike government businesses survive only by making a profit, which is no different than the employee who is looking for the greatest reward for his labors. Any job is a real job, I think you might mean a job which pays well, but some people, even some college graduates lack the skills to earn what they 'think' they are worth.

What is it that confuses you? Where have I said that I think training is bad? I only said most companies provide training to fit their specific needs. What kind of work does government train people to do? If you have a High School diploma that should suffice for the majority of jobs in society. Should government be training the unemployed to become scientists, neurosurgeons, astrophysicists, or the like? I never said people should be forced to work. Opportunities should be made available to earn some or all their needs if they wish. They might force themselves to take advantage of the opportunities that are availed them, but no force should be exerted.

Actually I would prefer to keep the private sector out of the picture and downsize government in areas where jobs could be made available on a temporary basis for persons without employment until they can acquire more permanent employment.

You're amending what I have written to fit your response. The private sector is where more permanent jobs should become available, and not subsidized by government at all. I made no mention at all about cutting wages. While I'm not interested in pushing the interests of the few, it would appear that there's no satisfying you unless a suggestion is made which can be seen as taking something away from the few.

 

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

 

says the guy who boasts of the US constitution but he doesn't live there. you're just like a capitalist... saying one thing and doing another... off capitalizing from the misfortune of others. i wonder what those people think of you

 

On this note, if we where serious about housing projects, there would be a job for anyone who wanted....... People on unemployment could just be given jobs fixing infrastructure in run-down areas...... Until you can't look around and tell you're in a poor area, there's obviously work to be done.

 

Balb, didn’t you read the part of Individual’s post that you quoted? He tells you where the jobs are coming from and why they are not being done when he states: “Many things are likely left undone in every community due to lack of funds and lower priority in [those] where funds are being spent.” The statement also explains why such is not undercutting “those doing real jobs” (your terminology) – since the work is NOT being done for various legitimate reasons, no one is being “undercut”.

You go on to state:

That’s already been explained, i.e. “due to lack of funds and lower priority”. You must know what some of those “unimportant tasks” are since your “scheme” (again, your terminology) involving someone called “X” uses “pick up litter (or some such)” as an example yet you claim such has not been mentioned.

How is it that you are so very, very good at understanding things that weren't said, yet so very inept at understanding what was ACTUALLY been stated.

Has it crossed your mind that those employers offering training which, as has been pointed out is “specific to the jobs they provide and changes that require retraining of existing employees”, may have a definite number of positions open for those people once trained. Should those firms offer training for a specific job when no such position is to be available after the training is completed?

Under the "scheme" you attribute to Individual, the employer might just as likely see that "X" had been doing whatever he could to provide for himself and that "X" was not likely to believe himself entitled to the maximum benefits the employer had to offer while performing his assigned duties only to the minimum standard.

Your “alternative scheme” demonstrates how little you really know of the “state sponsored” training available in the US. Of the 6 states of the region I live in, all six have “state sponsored” training programs available at little or no cost to those wishing to better themselves by learning a skill or trade. Within 25 miles of my home there are no less than four community colleges offering these programs. Many of those taking the classes offered by these programs are those who already have jobs and are looking for ways to advance – and most of those people are paying the full tuition and are accepted into the programs only if ‘slots’ are available after an application deadline for those seeking tuition assistance or displaced worker status.

Some states, rather than require the unemployed to actively seek work in order to receive benefits, accept full-time attendance in (approved) career training programs as fulfillment of the obligation to seek work.

The opportunity is there. These programs are well advertised – many states have “career centers” (formerly called “employment offices”) – they’re not hard to find on the web.

The bottom line is that training programs are abundant in the US as are “assistance” programs designed to allow or encourage participation in such programs. Perhaps able bodied/minded welfare recipients should have the choice of either the community service type of work (which you have termed “forced labor") or attendance/participation in one of the already available programs in order to qualify or remain qualified to receive benefits? Or would that be “forced education” or maybe “skill indoctrination”?

 

But RooR, Bal has termed that sort of reasoning "forced labor" and claims that any such action would "undercut" those with "real" jobs.

 

I don't care what bal called anything...... We often find ourselves diametrically opposed in what we think should be done, and sometimes even on opposite sides of the fence on the greater issue, like on guns.

I don't think it should be for a pittance, however. I think there should be well paying jobs fixing shit up, with new-deal type systems to try to get money to the older relatives of workers, etc.

If republicans had a hand in setting a system like that up, yeah, it would probably end up forced labor.

 

You are right about that.
All this living wage stuff has cause a lot of financial crisis in the USA and probably Europe too. You want prices to remain low yet demand that unskilled labor be given a so called living wage. As a person hwo refuses to take government benefits and has spent a great deal of time without a real job in the past several year I can tell you if I wanted to eat and have electricity I had to get out there and find whatever I could to make some money. I was grateful as hell to work for any wage, find metal or other things to resell take odd jobs ect...

I am so glad that other people who work hard did not have to pay for me to lay around and collect what ever I was qualified for and I know I could have gotten food stamps and public housing too.

The longer you stay out of work the harder it is to get back to work because you do get lazy.

I think the government should not regulate small businesses and tell them how much they have to pay people. If I want to work for less than minimum wage that is my business not the governments. Probably a lot of young inexperienced people could find a job if businesses could hire young workers at below minimum wage and prices of goods and services might go down or at least stop climbing.

 

All this living wage stuff has also caused a lot of living.

 

Bal
Can you specify which of the ideas you have labeled as "neoliberal" has had the effect and how?

That would be a great way to help the unemployed. But, can you say where these "decent jobs…" are to be had. Statistics YOU have provided show US manufacturing to be about 20% of what it once was. Careful analysis will show that the US economy (and wages) started the long-term decline when manufacturing employment decreased and service industry employment increased – such was cause rather than effect in that respect.

When one is unemployed, isn’t almost any job a betterment of their condition? During those few times that I have been (unintentionally) unemployed, anything producing a net gain was better than sittin’ on my ass complaining or blaming someone else.

Successful employers provide a wage (and/or benefit package) that allows them to retain their productive employees, knowing that anything different would be to their own detriment. You seem to suggest that employers should provide jobs even when they have no work for those that you would have them employ or to continue the employment of those that aren’t productive. In the real world, people are hired and paid to produce something – something that their employer can provide to others at a profit. You seem unable to understand or unwilling to admit that if such employer cannot realize a profit from the production of his employees, then it is impossible that he continue paying them.

How, when, or where has anyone said that the unemployed should be punished? No need to provide the quote – just link to the post, please. Thanks. The racist comparison isn’t really becoming – it only affords the opportunity to put a more negative spin on what you claim is implied and disagree with.

Get real: this HAS been addressed – anyone with your incredible insight should have understood the concept and intent when initially proposed. In reality, what difference is to be made of what work would be done so long as the community benefited and those performing the work were able to continue receiving benefits until they could gain employment more to their liking? The continued “forced labor” label is no more than negative spin and misrepresentation.

And I will repeat – where (and what) are the jobs you would provide or have others provide?