poverty and unisured numbers up

[CamB]

I know what your saying - but I still think human nature would screw it up.

For instance, church stuff is largely run by volunteers. Despite the fact that everyone who goes should be relatively motivated to help out, the work is largely done by about 5% (probably much less) of the people.

In NZ, the Catholic Church doesn't ask very hard for money (collection plate goes around, people have planned giving) - a church with a congregation of a couple of hundred families might get $100k p.a ($500/family).

I sometimes go along to an evangelical (non denominational) church with primarily a young (teens/20s) congregation, which I'd estimate to number around 500 (max). They get in over $500k pa.

The difference? The latter church really, really pushes tithing - a little talk about tithing in every service before the tithes are taken up.

People give because they are told to - not because they come to that decision by themselves. There is a problem amongst Christian people, despite biblical encouragement to contribute.

I just can't see the wider society stepping up to the plate for a charity-based solution to poverty. Would you give a quarter your income if you knew your neighbour gave nothing?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB

I just can't see the wider society stepping up to the plate for a charity-based solution to poverty. Would you give a quarter your income if you knew your neighbour gave nothing?

Ultimately social welfare programs end up damaging exactly those it intends to help by creating an attitude of entitlement or helplessness. Eventually it turns into a vote-buying ponzi scheme as it has for the democrats in the US. Ultimately it has resulted in a party without morals or issues other than wealth distribution.

If I thought the cause was great enough to infringe upon my neighbor's freedom and take his earnings against his will to give...I would certainly think that it is important enough to give whatever was necessary...regardless of what my neighbor gave.

Just as my neighbors did not choose to give a large portion of their life to military service.....It did not deter me or many others from doing so.

It is easy to speak in terms of lofty morality when it is another's money you spend or blood you shed. It is another thing to volunteer your own.

[Rot 911]

Originally posted by CamB
I sometimes go along to an evangelical (non denominational) church with primarily a young (teens/20s) congregation, which I'd estimate to number around 500 (max). They get in over $500k pa.

The difference? The latter church really, really pushes tithing - a little talk about tithing in every service before the tithes are taken up.

I think it depends on the location and religion. My wife and I go to the Lutheran Church here in our small town (168 people). Most everyone in town goes to that church. (I'm not Lutheran, my wife from South Dakota, is). First let me tell you Lutherans are serious people. Not much smiling in that church! They never talk about tithing, but they average $2000 a Sunday in donations. These people take seriously their duty to help the less fortunate.

Oh and don't think we live in some high end bedroom community. This town was built by Lutherans from Germany in 1880 and most of the people here are still farmers.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by fintstone
Ultimately corporate welfare programs end up damaging exactly those it intends to help by creating an attitude of entitlement or helplessness. Eventually it turns into a vote-buying ponzi scheme as it has for the republicns in the US. Ultimately it has resulted in a party without morals or issues other than wealth aquisistion.

[Superman]

Bull****. Jesus told us what to do. And what we find when we try it is that......it works. Heaven, they say, is a big pot of delicious soup, but everyone's spoon is ten feet long. so, you cannot feed yourself. but you can feed others and they can feed you.

So, just so you guys all know, this crap about "do them a favor and deny aid" **** is a bunch of hooey. I'm not buying it. Like Fint's belief that assistance hurts those it intends to help. Bull****. I wonder if you guys understand my postion on this one. Am I clear enough? sure, some of you guys are going to continue to whine and blame and criticize and be selfish. but that's not what your God asked of you. Is it?

"If you give a man a fish, he will have a single meal. If you teach him how to fish, he will eat all his life."
~~ Kwan-Tzu

[304065]

Superman, go have a lemonade or something and give the theocracy a breather.

I lately have changed my thinking on this issue and have what I consider two clear opinions, which are:

1) You don't WANT faith-based charity being responsible for the majority of social welfare administration. Why? Because it gives them too much POWER, that's why! If you could carve up the federal, state and local welfare budgets and redistribute them to faith-based charities, you might get more EFFICIENCY in the administration, but you might make the problem worse. Why? Because faith-based charities don't do much to help those outside the faith!

JESUS told us what to do? What about those who don't subscribe to the New Testament? Where do THEY go when their house burns down and they're out on the street? Do YOU want your local Mosque to be responsible for doling out charity in your neighborhood? Who will care for the Atheists? (Aw, to HELL with them! Literally!)

A SECULAR government administers welfare in part to maintain SECULAR control; and;

2) DONT give ME that worn-out NEW DEAL garbage about the "safety net." Maybe instead of cruising to the Country Club some of you left-wingers could go downtown and volunteer in the Inner City sometime, and get over your personal issues long enough to really LISTEN to people. You would understand that welfare programs are responsible for the perpetuation of a PERMANENT POVERTIED UNDERCLASS.

That's not going to get any better by throwing money at it. All that does is make it worse, provides the wrong incentives. People, and I mean all people, not just poor ones, respond to stimuli just like a house plant in the sun.

Now the more cynical among us would say that's exactly what "The Man" wants to happen. I think the real problem is not enough people get directly involved, they just expect the government to fix it like some kind of municipal sewer project that carries human suffering away from their manicured planned community.

We can spend all the money we want, but it's NEVER going to improve until a sense of CIVIC DUTY is restored here.

[Moneyguy1]

John:

Oddly, I agree with some of your post. While I lived in Roachester, I Volunteered time in two downtown homeless shelters. They were a microcosm of the outside world to a degree. There were the hopelessly lost and irretrievable, there were those who, if they could lose the booze would be salvagable, and there were the rest who resented the fact that in many cases they were "screwed" by the economy (Rochester has lost nearly 60k jobs in the past 20 years or so).

Some people need a temporary "leg up" and from then on can and will gladly take care of themselves. I saw one man, recently released from prison who went on to work as a carpenter and within 18 months owned a small City home and was saving to buy a second and rehab it for rental income. I saw others that would never do anything to help themselves. Strangely, most of those were not actually on the public dole and were truly "under the radar". I suppose that leads to a possible conclusion that there are actually more people out there living under bridges than the official numbers state.

I saw the welfare queens as well, those who would pop out another kid when funds ran short. There were fewer of these than I would have expected, though. There was a program that limited such income unless the individual was so disabled that working was simply out of the question.

It is a complex problem. And, despite fint's comments to the contrary, not all contingencies can be covered or planned for. There is a need for this kind of aid, although there are cases where the system is "used" by individuals for their own benefit just as the system has "used" people in the past to keep them compliant. Bread and circuses.

[Superman]

I appreciate your ideas John, but think you're substantially "all wet." You and the others who are inclined to blame the welfare system for the presence of disadvantaged people are trying real hard to sell something that just does not wash. Welfare system or no, those people are there. They were there before the welfare system was created, and they will be there regardless of what happens to a particular welfare program.

Having said that, I do understand a part of what you're saying, though I'm not going to agree that it's a major impact. That is, the tendency of welfare programs to discourage self-help. You and some others just love to pretend like this is the profile of the typical welfare recipient, and it's just not the case. And if you would take your advice and go ladel soup for those souls, you would understand this. I'm not going to stop everything and go do the research, and I may be wrong in my guess, but I suspect that the average welfare recipient has a job.

Sure, there are ne'er-do-wells on welfare. Granted. But this business of "let them eat cake" won't work for us any better than it worked for Marie Antionette. But if it makes a selfish person feel less guilty to blame poor people for their situation, then I guess it will continue.

Hey, if you want to place blame, here's something to check out: Our glorious "system" requires, demands and provides a certain significant proportion of workers that are unemployed. We've talked about this before. Right now, for example, you cannot put all those people to work. There simply are not enough jobs. Period. At 5% unemployment, there are jobs for only 19 out of 20 people who are looking for work. And that ignores folks who are not looking. The unemployed stands as the "available labor pool" required by a capitalistic system. If not for them, capitalists would have to bid workers away from each other. Wages would rise, the sky would fall, etc. so, it is necessary to create and maintain a cadre of unfortunate people. It keeps them available for work. It keeps them humble and insecure. It keeps us all a little frightened (there, but for the grace of God, go I). It keeps wages low. It's perfect. Now, if we can only get citizens believing that it's the fault of the welfare system........

[85eurocarrera]

Super, think 15 bucks an hour is enough???? How did you arrive at this number? Is minimum wage for people to make a living. I thought is for people to get a start in the work force, first job ect..

I am self employed, work my A## off, sometimes 7 days a week, so I can have a car and home in the suburbs and some other small pleasures in life. I make more than 15 bucks an hour but it took me a while, 20 years or so in the work force to get here. You make minimum wage 20 an hour and I will GIVE my bussiness to one of these deprived welfare recipents and I will gladly go work for someone else!

Again, please just show me how you get to 15 bucks an hour is enough.

[Superman]

Okay, I would characterize $15 per hour as a "secure" minimum wage. It pans out to abotu $260 per month before taxes. Let's say $2000 after taxes. Anywhere in the Seattle area, you're not going to find an apartment for under about $700 per month or more. So, that leaves $1300 or less per month for non-rent living expenses. So yeah, that's a livable wage.

$10 per hour and you're moving into an entirely different story. That's just over $1700 per month before taxes, and at that rate, in our area, you'd have to be fairly thrifty to make ends meet.

Oh and by the way, you mentioned another myth. The myth that the typical minimum wage earner is an urban teenager living at home. The average minimum wage worker is a rural head of household. I don't recall the cites, but I HAVE done that research.

Raise the minimun wage $15 and that $700 apartment will inflate to $1500 immediately afterward. You will never change a year over year average poverty level by throwing money at it. Poverty is a state of mind, not a state of money. There will always be a certain percentage of people that live in poverty just like there will always be a certain segment that is unemployed. Money cures nothing.

[85eurocarrera]

So Super, you are saying you just pulled 15 buck out of the air as a number? 10 bucks seems more like it? Are you trying to say that whatever it is, it needs to be more? Will it ever end? Why cant the market decide? This is a capitalistic society. Is this what you have a problem with?

I know lots of questions....

As far as the Myth of minmum wage you mentioned, I have to question your research. What is the definition of head of household? Would you agree that people should be able to get in the work force by the age of 16-17 years old at minimum wage? So even if you happen to become head of household after high school, took me till 26 before I bought my first house, I figure they should of at least had 1 raise at thier job to bump them over minimum right? Which brings me back to definition of head of house hold?

Joe

[304065]

Super, maybe augment that lemonade with a shot of Smirnoff. It's getting hot in here.

You are really going to have to do better than the old, "you guys aren't in touch with the people," argument. It's no good sitting around here trying to qualify oneself as being "in touch," as we all know we could be doing more productive things to help society than wasting time with THIS electronic jerkoff.

Since you're the smartest one here perhaps you could take a moment to explain the demand curve for labor? Remember the one with cost of labor on the vertical axis, and quantity of labor on the horizontal axis?

What was the rate of unemployment during the last boom economy? Pretty close to the "structural" minimum, if you take into consideration the fact that some people are switching jobs, and during that period they're considered "unemployed."

Or do you wish to reinvent the laws of economics to suit this discussion?

$15 per hour minimum wage? Great! We can accelerate the shift of all those dangerous manufacturing jobs out of the country. Too high a rate of on-the-job injuries, anyway. Hell, let's make it $20 per hour! Once you're interfering with the economy, why not impose rent controls also, to keep those mean and nasty landlords from overcharging for real estate! Fuel prices, regulate 'em! Groceries are pretty damned expensive as a component of the average wage-earner's monthly take-home, so let's regulate those, too!

The RICH will pay for it!

[Superman]

Joe, here is a table of demographics. You seem to be uninformed, or at least that's my impression. You'll notice that the majority of minimum wage earners are ages 25+ years. You'll also notice that they are typically white, most commonly female, note below the poverty level (which means they are working more than one job), more than a third are parents, etc. How 'bout you read, and then we'll discuss.

Mark, you posted some intelligent stuff recently, so you have vitriol immunity for the time being, but I have to say that I don't think that raising a few workers' wages will cause 110% inflation in the housing industry. And to both of you: No, I do not accept that there is no way out of being doomed to a situation where there are losers as well as winners. Yes, our current economic system demands this, and so I often wonder why you people blame poor folks, when your beloved economic systems causes this problem. Right now, you're right Mark. Rather than "capitalism," we should just call it "survival of the fittest." Yes, there are losers. No, there doesn't have to be losers, unless you're unwilling to explore alternatives to the "survival of the fittest" economy. And until you become willing to explore them, you've decided that you want a system that demands and creates the existence of poor people and unemployment.

Ummm, that's what economists do, Joe. They pull numbers out of a hat. In a former life I was a statistician. I can put it together in a glossy report that begins with targets and hypotheses, and arrive at a number that does not come out to an even dollar, or an even penny in fact, but that's all fluff. Fact is, the decision of what minimum wage to adopt is qualitative.

[Superman]

Oops. Here's the link. Let's stop pretending that minimum wage earners are high school boys living in daddy's house.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/lwlm99/turner.htm#Who

[Burnin' oil]

Super, this quote is from the link you provided and doesn't appear to support your argument regarding minimum wages.

Key Findings
A disproportionate share of minimum wage workers are teenagers and most do not live in poor families.
A sizable portion of minimum wage workers are poor parents.
Negative employment effects, if any, appear to be slight and are difficult to detect.
Minimum wages curb employer-provided training opportunities for low-wage workers and may reduce educational attainment for some at-risk groups.
Moderate minimum wage increases will not reduce poverty rates.

[Superman]

At the turn of the century there were 8 and 12 year-old boys getting hurt and killed in underground mines for pennies per week. 14-hour work days were common and there was no such thing as a "weekend." Young girls were similarly situated, but in garment factories. Then we had a little incident called the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. You have probably all seen the photo of the mangled fire escape stairway. More than a hundred young women were killed, and the nation woke up and passed sweeping labor laws.

These new labor laws were the most offensive you could ever imagine, to business. They mandated a minimum wage (at that time, a living wage. Probably would compare with the figures we discussed above, or maybe more, adjusting for inflation). They created a 40-hour work week, with a penalty for hours over that. They prohibited the employment of children under 14. Etc.

Now, if you had listened to business, they would have sounded like you guys. Like Chicken Little ("the sky is falling!!!!!!!"). According to them, our economy, productivity, inflation, etc...would destroy the nation. What really happened is known as the Roaring Twenties.

So no. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying your argument that making the minimum wage unto a living wage would hurt the people of this nation. Yeah, right. Raise these people's earnings so that they can have lives. And families. Off welfare. And you guys think that's what a disaster looks like? Hmmmm. I guess you probably think our economy is just peachy. Dubya told you so, right?

[Superman]

"disproportionate" is apprently not a synonym for "minority." Apparently someone thinks it should be lower, or higher or whatever. The brute fact is that teenagers form a small minority of the population of minimum wage workers. And the page says what I am saying. As you copied and pasted, "Moderate minimum wage increases will not reduce poverty rates." True. $0.25 increases in this wage are hardly meaningful. It still comes nowhere near a living wage.

[Westy]

Originally posted by Superman
Jesus told us what to do. And what we find when we try it is that......it works. . . . . some of you guys are going to continue to whine and blame and criticize and be selfish. but that's not what your God asked of you. Is it? [/B]

My my you seem to have two distinct attitudes. Does your God allow you to call his women split tails because you're mad at one??? I belive that was your very non-pious term. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Just curious.