Kids are "on SNAP" because the adult "of working age" that is supposed to feed them is not performing their responsibilities...and the elderly apparently did not do so either (and their loser kids/grandkids are not taking care of them either). So, essentially 38M. It is easy not to work or prepare for the future when you know government will take money from someone that has/does...and give it to you.

The top 10 states with the most resignations? They're all in the 20 lowest-paying states in the US, with the exception of West Virginia, which is 21st. Basically, they are places where a lot of people don't make enough to live on.

The lowest resignation rates come from states with higher minimum wages.

Probably a coincidence...

What leads you to believe that the cost of living is so high in these places that people cannot live on lower wages? How did you determine that people that resigned were paid less in these states? Maybe they were the highest paid. Those would generally be the folks with the most opportunity to improve their work situation.

My wife and I just retired in a very low wage/cost of living area and were both making a great deal of money. Maybe wages have nothing to do with it at all. Maybe it is age or already having enough money to live on (in a low-cost) area.

If wages are/were not high enough to live on in these states, how will/do they live without wages (after resigning)? It seems that it would be just the opposite.

If the lowest resignation rates are in states with higher minimum wages (and a higher cost of living), maybe that just indicates that folks cannot afford to retire/resign there.

Low level jobs pay more than twice minimum wages in a lot of places...yet there are lots of openings and lots of people still choose welfare.

Flint:
You do realize that to get SNAP, you have to be below the poverty line, right?

That’s $17k a year for a family of 2.

Assume a standard 2000 hr/yr FTE, that’s $8.50/hr earnings (family of 2).

At $17k, you are not living the high life. M

And it’s guess that may be the crux of all of this…who in there right mind wants to ‘scrape by’? Any sane individual either alone or with a child, especially with a child, wants to do better. And has been said in PARF many times, entry level jobs are not supposed to be living wage jobs.

So perhaps people are wising up and just not doing them? Young folk are just avoiding that ‘route up’ and finding other paths.

Yes, but that is only if you have no undocumented income...and most folks getting SNAP probably have other forms of income (WIC, Section 8, EIC, free phone, reduced internet, etc.). It also assumes that only one (of the two) works which means that typically...a result of poor choices. A couple has to work very hard to only make $17K per year. It is not accidental.

I have met lots of folks that are happy to "scrape by" if they can live even reasonably well without working or doing work they enjoy for a few months each year (like river guide, ski instructor, lifeguard, hunting guide, etc.). Many work just enough to stay below the EIC and other social welfare caps. Most have other sources of income they do not report or reduced expenses by sharing a home, etc. I also know many that simply put off becoming an adult...and live at home with parents. They only work off and on...until they qualify for unemployment...and then "vacation." They never get past entry level but have cars, food, and a place to live. I know some that are 16-30 that have never held a real job. In fact, I know one guy that just turned 62 and he only had a job once (in high school) where he worked for KFC for a few months. A pretty smart guy too (an electrical engineer by education). He lives in the house he grew up in (like many) and fixes a lawnmower or computer now and then for neighbors for extra, nontaxed cash...but watches TV or surfs the web much of the rest of the time.

If you have an entry level job and a child, you already screwed up. It is not society's fault, but yours (unless you were raped). Entry level jobs are for people new to the work force...but one must keep doing them until they either qualify for a better job or more money. Most entry-level jobs have regular pay raises and even fast food pays pretty good in most places $15hr with insurance, paid vacation, and tuition in my rural area. One could eat like a king here with SNAP as food is easy to grow and game are plentiful. Most folks in rural areas did just that (without SNAP or other welfare) when I was young. Now they play video games and watch TV and their gardens are unplanted (as "food is free") ...so why would anyone work out in the hot sun to raise a garden?

I know so many contractors that never declared above poverty to avoid taxes and health care.
Every single one of them is now crying about their skimpy Social Security checks and want to back in to Medi-Cal. (California's free health care)

One of the weird customers we had was an "artist" and bragged about she never paid any income taxes. She would work at a seedy bars as a bartender, and she wanted them to pay her cash, and lived on tips. She had no bank account, no credit cards, and she laughed she did not even know her SSN as she never used it.

She should be about 50 now, and I wonder if she is homeless. She was a weird chick, and gross as heck with tats, piercings, and an artists view of the world. Her "art" was just trash in my view. She is either a mega millionaire (unlikely) or a homeless person with no source of support.

I wonder if she ever thinks her lifestyle was a problem, or if the world was just against her and her "art". Likely the later.

Flint:
Work Rules: With certain exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 years of age must register for work, accept an offer of suitable work, and take part in an employment and training program to which they will be referred by the SNAP office.

Generally, able-bodied adults aged 18 to 50 who do not have children and are not pregnant can only get SNAP benefits for 3 months in a 3-year period unless they are working or participating in a work or workfare program. There are a few exceptions.

From here: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/facts

So it’s not like the majority of folks get on this stay on SNAP. The only folks who are streamlined for easy re-apply are those over 60.

Most of these programs have limits to them. The days of the welfare queen are far harder to obtain.

Back to the topic, perhaps the young have seen how it used to be done and are deciding to do it differently.

The ironic bit is that as a nation we are close to the biggest transfer of wealth ever as the boomers begin to die off in mass. The young will inherit the earth despite system the old have created.

I think the WIC benefits for preggar's is a good program. The checks with the ability to buy core nutritional items.... The state's food stamp programs are heavily abused...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1663991414.jpg

It is awfully easy to register for work and ensure that you are not hired during your interview. I have interviewed many that ensured that I would never hire them on the spot. It is also pretty easy to not be "able-bodied." I have a tenant that is in her late mid to late fifties and gets SNAP. She does not work and has not since she initially rented the home 8 years ago. Her SNAP acceptance/payment paperwork is right in front of me.

If I recall, SNAP work requirements were waived during COVID starting in March 2020...just about the time when the government told me that I could not evict non-paying tenants. So, there really has been no work requirement...and welfare queens are everywhere.

Yes, the youngsters will inherit what their parents worked so hard to earn/save...but they will waste it all quickly. Just as they do now.

Flint:
So is she lying and cheating the system? Or is she fully within the rules and practicing ‘work avoidance’ (much like those who are wealthy practice fully legal tax avoidance-by using the in place rules)? Since you have her paperwork, if she is not within the rules, you can fix that right here and now.

You didn’t mention any backstory? Did her spouse die and leave them wiped out from medical bills? I was very close to insolvent when my wife finally passed. Only where I am today thanks to a zero % balance offer that just happened to hit my mail box when I very much needed it and allowed me to recover.

Crap happens to people despite how much one tries.

What I find comforting is that only 10% of our total population is on SNAP. Not quite elimination of hunger in this country, but pretty damn good. That means the remaining 90% is doing ok enough NOT to need help.

Like so many other metrics, for whatever reason we don’t pat ourselves on the back for how damn good this country is doing…like women an degrees. Or a myriad of other things. The fact we focus on single digit disparities it very heartening to me when doom and gloom is the message of the day.

I know Covid has changed my outlook a significant amount. I used to not question the corp wage slave grind. It’s just what you did to make money. But you know what, that money may buy things but it doesn’t buy peace. This year is going to be camping, gardening, and interaction with the extended family way more than the extra hours of work. I’ll make my contribution, but if I can telework and skip the 4 hours both ways, I won’t feel a twinge for doing so anymore.

It’s time to use the rules to my advantage.

I work in automotive manufacturing. Pre-pandemic, keeping labor rates low is/was one of the easiest ways to improve profitability. Many manufacturing companies used temp services to either bolster/buffer the work force. There no benefits to cover. It was easy to find $10 - $15/hr labor. The lower the staring wage, the less qualified. You get what you pay for.

During the pandemic these same people made more money staying home and collected whatever was available. BTW, all companies did too. It was an opportunity to reflect on ones career. Some retired, some jobs either were reduced or disappeared and some took stock at where there were going.

Post pandemic, retail and non-manufacturing companies raised hourly rates to reload their work force. Some returned and some didn't and all of us see this. My company raised the hourly rate too. But there is a problem: The starting hourly rate at my company competes directly with the stating rates of retail. Why would someone work in a factory when they can make almost the same money working at a retail store? As a result, we see a turnover rate of over 45% after 2 years ( I'm being generous here) And don't get me started on the skill set or knowledge level of new hires.

Young professionals are leaving after 2-5 years of employment. They have learned there is more mobility, opportunity and money than staying and getting 2%-3% raises every year. It is a different environment that I don't see changing anytime soon.

I have been in manufacturing for almost 50 years, 35 with my current company and I am reluctant to hire a recent grad - because I know they will leave. I hear all the time to those that leave "thanks, I learned allot form you". Bittersweet - but it doesn't bode well for the future state of manufacturing

It does not tell me how/if she is cheating. Her statement of benefits tells me that her income is $875 per month and she gets $250 a month in SNAP benefits. I have no way to "fix" it. I do know that she has decent car and furniture and a bunch of dogs (not allowed on the lease) ...and that she keeps electricity, phone and water turned on...but has not paid the rent once the government told her she no longer had to.

She is divorced and has been for the entire time I have known her. She has grown children. She is not hungry as she is morbidly obese.

I do not find it one bit comforting that 10% of the country has made such poor choices and been rewarded for them that other people's money has to be taken at gunpoint to feed them...in addition to the vast social welfare system provided to them.

I really don't see much recent good news to celebrate about. More women getting degrees is nice, but if they are not necessarily useful degrees (and they cannot provide for themselves) I am even less impressed. If I am taxed to finance their degree or repay their loans...I am even less impressed. Perhaps if they earned the money to pay for their own education, they would be a bit more selective in what they studied. I also see that men have increasingly entered the unemployed group (worker participation) at an alarming rate.

I am sorry to hear about your wife. I did not know. May you and she have peace.

People deserve to do what works for them…not just follow some blind path improving someone else and lining their pockets.

Not if others have to pay for it...as that infringes on those other folk's right to do what "works for them."

People just don't "deserve" other people's stuff (or time/money).

So how is tax avoidance any different morally than work avoidance?

People just following the rules.

Why is one a failure and the other not?

Kansas City Fed article. Doesn't answer all the questions.

Info on the writer.
Didem Tüzemen is a Senior Economist in the Economic Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the Executive Director of the Kansas City Research Data Center (KCRDC). Ms. Tüzemen joined the department in July 2011 after earning her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Maryland, College Park. She also holds a B.S. degree in physics and a M.A. degree in economics from Bogazici University in Istanbul, Turkey. Ms. Tüzemen's main areas of research are macroeconomics, labor economics, and health economics.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/how-many-workers-are-truly-missing-from-the-labor-force/

As of March 2022, the U.S. labor force participation rate remained one percentage point below its pre-pandemic level. After accounting for the effects of slower population growth and the aging of the population in the past two years, I estimate that around 2 million workers are missing from the labor force. Individuals age 65 and older, whose participation rates remain persistently below pre-pandemic levels, constitute most of the missing labor force.

I just read an article published by NYT, I believe on September 13, discussing the demographics and causes of the labor shortage. NYT routinely disappoints me with its writings, leaving important questions in my mind unanswered. But it also beats the other "news" sources. Check it out if you want to learn something. Folks wanting to be whiny and cynical would just be wasting their time of course.

I wholeheartedly agree to some extent, but you cannot actually believe that everyone who works for someone else is "following some blind path improving someone else and lining their pockets"?

You're broadbrushing that every business owner is some old mogul in a top hat chomping on a cigar while stepping on the necks of the plebes who got him to his lofty position.

That's so incredibly short-sighted. No one should automatically deserve anything--they should value the opportunity to earn what they desire.

I would challenge virtually every single one of these down-trodden employees to dare try to actually venture out on their own.

Dream up a concept.
Buy a building.
Design the space.
Coordinate and monitor the construction---carpentry, electrical, plumbing, low voltage....
Source, buy, and set up all FF&E.
Set up all the associated business accounts.
Set up a POS if a retail operation.
Handle permitting and licensing with the city and state.

Heck--the list goes on and on--and it doesn't just happen because you wish it would.

Nobody should EVER work where they're not appreciated and/or compensated to their individual level of competence and results, but people do not seem to want to actually earn anything anymore. They somehow feel that they deserve success, and that is a very unfortunate thing.

Exactly!

I was at a family gathering a couple of years back and one of the nephews is dating a chick that was raised in a well to do family. She was going to Colorado University, and studying business. She had never had a job in her life, certainly never ran a business. Yet her plan was to get a MBA, and go into government and regulate businesses, and enforce her vision of how a business should be run. I told her that is like saying she should work as a airline pilot instead, it pays more. She looked puzzled, and then replied she does not know anything about airplanes. I said, what difference does that make, you don't know one single thing about working or running a business, yet you want to regulate how a business can operate.

She did not like me or my answer, and I really don't care. My nephew broke up with her when he got a job at a electric utility company, and suddenly he was destroying the earth with the electricity generation. He was just a lineman, as most of the new employees start off at the bottom as a lineman.

I don't understand what you are asking. I am perfectly fine with paying taxes for any purpose in the Constitution. Being taxed for forced charity/redistribution is not in there...nor is it moral in any way.

Avoiding work and receiving social welfare is essentially theft. Taxing people (taking their money) to redistribute to others that did not earn it is the same. Theft...if not essentially slavery.

A slave's time/work product is owned by others (without consent). My salary was essentially a return for giving up a good portion of my time/life (@16 hrs a day 5-7 days a week). If I do not own my time or the product of it (it is redistributed against my will to others without them providing any value to me in return) ...I am essentially a slave. The recipients are much more like free men than I... They (or at least the government) ...are essentially my owner (because they own the product of my life/time).

I could not find the article you reference. That said, you would need to link the article if you really wanted anyone to read/discuss.

I doubt very much the NYT beats almost any other news source...as it is far from balanced and very often very far from being accurate.... running with almost any nonsense that is politically correct.

Snarky (whiney and cynical) remarks like yours above lead me to believe that the article simply reinforces/agrees with what you already believe and that you wasted your time by reading it. Maybe read something that is contrary to what you already think/believe if you really want to learn something...and don't insult others if you want to convert them.

It is also theft to not pay your taxes.

But we are not speaking of theft. We are talking, in BOTH cases, about following the rules currently in place for one’s own benefit.

Choosing to minimize work preformed to meet a regulation is a choice. Just as investing assets in a given way to minimize tax outlay.

If someone is willing to live on peanuts to meet sub poverty level welfare requirements, good for them. That juice in my mind is not worth the squeeze. But it’s still legal.

Where you clearly have issue is that it is a moral failure for the individual. That is an opinion. Some might call it clever and smart. The ultimate tax avoidance. Don’t make anything, government can’t take anything.

If the person is not cheating or scamming the system, more power to them. Again, wouldn’t be my lifestyle, but I can appreciate the ability needed to live that way.

Neighbor has 550 acres. He has tied up a lot of that as forestry preservation. His tax bill is ~$500 a year. My small 7 acres is $6800. He uses the system to minimize his tax base legally following the rules. I don’t begrudge him that.

I am not sure how you got to people not paying their taxes from people who are given money by a government that takes it from others. They are not related in any way.

If someone is willing to work for peanuts to get welfare, they are essentially stealing...even if the government/regulation allows it (it is not the intent of the law). I am fine with one avoiding taxes by not working as long as they do not accept social welfare (and they should not be given any). They are cheating/scamming the system.

As far as your neighbor, I suspect his property taxes are largely based on use. Apparently, our local government has created tax breaks to incentivize behavior they find desirable. It seems that you find increased forest preservation of value as well. It is not unreasonable to subsidize behavior that benefits all taxpayers...but they are not taking money from you to give to him without your/community benefit as social welfare does for those that choose not to provide for themselves and be a burden on society. Of course, if your neighbor's taxes are not based on value as yours are, if you do not value the results, you should work to put someone in office that agrees...but there is no parallel here.

It did not.

I do.

Find the article yourself and cut back on the personal insults.

The intent of the law is very much to allow as many people as possible to become gov't-dependent. Build a permanent constituency, grow it and then the gov't. program must also grow in scope, authority and budget. None of this is by accident. It's sold to the public under the guise of "helping people" or "giving a leg up." It's no such thing. It's vote buying and a scheme to grow the gov't. Nothing more.

You made the preemptive strike. Don't ask for what you don't desire.

As noted, there doesn't seem to be such an article. If you wanted to discuss, you would post a link or something from it that you found fascinating. Telling folks you read an article that was enlightening and implying everyone was too biased or stupid to do so (and providing no link or information from the article) does not exactly reek of sharing/good will. Just sayin'

It certainly appears to be the case. No one would ever go do a low-level job every day if they could receive about the same amount of money (taken from someone else) and stay home and watch TV and drink beer. I have to admit that it would have been easy to get caught up in it (it is intended as such) when I was young and working 3 jobs. I would have played basketball or watched TV all day (if I had owned one) instead of working hard ...and went out partying at night instead of playing janitor and cleaning offices and toilets.

Seeing that searching for information can be daunting for the inexperienced, I put this phrase in the search box:

"labor market article new york times"

This was the third article that appeared:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/business/economy/labor-participation-covid.html

You made an insult, to which he responded without an insult. You post this in response, then continue on with the personal insults

Perfect
You do not understand what is going on.

He is forgoing the use of the property for consideration from the government.

Pretty unrecognizable from your description and the incorrect date posted. What exactly was the point you were trying to make with your vague description of this article (that resides behind a pay wall)?

Here is an article which, despite its topic being "child poverty" rather than "labor market," discusses a concept that in my mind goes right to the heart of the title of this thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/us/politics/child-poverty-analysis-safety-net.html?searchResultPosition=1

The article discusses different efforts by two different political parties pursuing agendas which were different, and including bipartisan efforts. One of those political parties had a strong preference for rewarding people for working. The article, which is a NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, praises the success of this feature (the rewarding of efforts by poor people to get jobs). Helping people who are willing to help themselves.

“It’s not just about the amount of dollars that flow into households from the program itself,” said Robert Doar, the president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “It’s about sending a message that going to work is the path out of poverty. That message got through.”

Mr. Doar said the welfare law, by encouraging work, made policymakers more inclined to support other aid expansions.

“If you work, we will help you — Americans like that message,” he said.

Personally, I have always agreed with this and been frustrated by programs which incentivize laziness. And here we have the main question raised by the title of this thread. How are these lazy people supporting themselves? What dysfunctional and damaging policies are making it possible, even convenient, for people to have lives, and whole familial generations, of unemployment? It is apparently possible, due to misguided policies and programs, to receive income and resources for sitting on one's couch. It was, I thought, rightful for the NEW YORK TIMES to raise this very question.

As an aside, something about the article frustrated me substantially. It gave information which would allow a discerning reader to figure out that a substantial portion of the decline in child poverty since the early '90s was simply due to fudging the numbers. Basically, redefining the term "poverty." Moving the goal posts. But the article did not point this out. This omission, I thought, was dishonest.

Anything that is subsidized, you will get more of.................