Right on!

I don't care if the article was left or right, it makes sense.

Let me tell you a story...

A man and his wife come to America with 7 kids, the oldest not old enough to work and the youngers just a few years old. No one speaks English. The man takes a janatorial job that pays just above minimum wage. The women takes a minimum wage job that she has to be "bused" to because she has no car. The charge to be "bused" to her job takes a big chunk out of her daily earning.

With hard work, determination, help from welfare and help from family and friends, the family can just make it by. Eventually, the family is off welfare, can afford a car for the father, then a car for the mother, then kids get old enough to work and contribute. The family eventually can afford to buy a house. Kids go off to college, get married, etc...

25 yrs after coming to America, both the man and women still work. The man at the same job for almost 25 yrs. They still own a house, have 3 cars, happy children and grand children....in a few months the man will retire as a citizen of the US with a pension and will draw on Social Security. He's active in his community and with a national political party (I won't tell you which). The woman will continue to work until she hits retirement age.

If you don't think there was resistance or hurdles based on race or ethnicity for that family along the way ...you will never understand. Yet, I don't read anything in Williams article that indicates a racist message.

I suppose folks from different background will get a different message from the article, but I hope common sense is...well common in the readers. I suppose that's what my father would say. He'll deserve retirement in a few months....

Supe, do you honestly think that the present welfare system helps turn the MAJORITY of welfare recipients into responsible people? Do you think that the comments in the letter above are all wrong? I do not think the majority of conservatives are calling for doing away with all public assistance, but the current system just plain sucks, it rewards and promotes a lazy, irresponsible lifestyle. If you cannot see that then you have blinders on.

This has nothing to do with racism,but I feel that all resale mark-ups are another form of welfare. Given we all need retail points of purchace, but how many times have you seen that resale is the largest profit taker of manufactured goods including farming. I'm sure some economist/sales rep will chime in stating the necessity of retail sales and try to justify
their position
J/M .02c

Souk, your story is about personal responsibility, AND welfare, AND having good friends, AND having family which contributes. Those are important factors.

Now, back to this:

They could become contributing members to society and hence are not worthless. No-one is worthless.

Prove to me that more than 0.1% of the population is living off the system long term AND doing so because of laziness and I'll have some sympathy for your arguments.

And on that note -

A lot of mfg's use that form of distribution to the general public for several reasons

1- sharing of costs with marketing

2- sharing of product liability

3- another way to guarantee return on production through contracts

4- allows multiple points of distribution - saving on costs, all the way around.

Another way of viewing a retailer is not as a vendor for a chosen item but more as a sophisticated marketing service. A manufacturer puts it there, and the salespeople / marketers expend the time and the energy to make guys like us all understand.

Believe me, I'm coming from a sales and marketing background. If there was a way that the manufacturers could eliminate retail and still make it profitable - they would.

rjp

Many, if not most of us, were not/ are not middle class and choosing to have children in a responsible manner. Twenty-four years ago I worked 70-80 hours 7 days a week to pay for my son's birth and associated care. He's a college student today and like the Ever Ready bunny the bills continue. As far as the imaginary couple is concerned, maybe having children just isn't something they can afford but maybe at a later time.

best you can come up with Lendaddy? - someone else's personal insults - how about sticking to the subject matter? - rather than acting like a spoiled schoolboy.

Sure, I'll just start going door to door, across the nation. Of course, I couldn't just ask, because no one would admit to scamming the system, so I'd have to observe them for a week or so to see if their activities are consistent with their claimed disability. I'll get back to you in about two thousand years.:rolleyes:

I feel that I was being very generous with my 1% comment, because in my personal experience, 100% of the people that I have came into contact with that are on welfare or disability are taking advantage of the system. All were capable of working, and actually most of them had side jobs that paid in cash, in order for them to avoid having to report the income, and therefore forfit their government benefits. In the four years I worked in the mobile home park, I had probably the most contact with the welfare cases, we often ended up making repairs to their homes pro-bono to keep them within standards of decency. I admit that I am negative about welfare and disability as a whole, but of all the people that have responded to this thread that have personally been in contact with the system, how many had something positive to say?

One of my favorite stories was told by a guy I work with that had a civil case in state court in Topeka. His case was being heard on the same day as the disability appeals, and as he parked, the man parked in front of him got out of his car and RAN across the street and up the courthouse stairs. When he hit the door he developed a prononced limp, and lo and behold, he walked into the courtroom that was having the welfare hearings.:rolleyes:

Randy,
Not trying to eliminate the retailer, as noted, just trying to point out that the mark up on resale is not justified. Professional marketing , give me a break.. just another avenue for the MBA's to justify 4 years of college in the art of resale profit greed.
I'm saying that a growing proportion of the business grads are in profit taking and at a unjustified level compared to the labor force. Education does not give licence to take advantage of people although I must admit, capitalism is based on it. A good example is the 7% commission realtors take on home sales. On a $200,000. home that's 14k for what ... paradeing a couple of people through and closeing. It's highly unlikely the guy's who actually built the home, taking months, made that kind of profit. It's not uncommon to see 50-100% markup on industrial parts just to cover "overhead". We can debate what is really nessary but when all things considered, the bulk of profit should go to those that created/crafted the product.

Tim

Believe me, if price is what drove sales and volume, then top line (retail) wouldn't exist. That being said, is it price, or is it value that drives people to buy?

What determines fair? Whether or not the guy sititing on the other end of the table can survive for less? What about risk? The guy that's gotta put the money up front to build the house? If it doesn't sell, he doesnt eat. He hires a Realtor to sell it - just to be sure it sells. If you don't buy, the sales guy doesn't eat. If that happens, then the market corrects itself through attrition or re packaging.

What I mean is that selling an item to the general public is a lot harder than most think it is, that's why the business is what it is. If you don't see the value then you don't buy. Now, how do you find a way to make it a value? Well, there you go - sales force.

As I said before, if there was a way that they guy who made the product could handle the risk, and sell to the end consumer without the middleman (sales) they would. Historically, that never works out though.

Parting words - It ain't the price that's gonna close 'em, it's the value.

Just my $ .02.

rjp

\

Hey Cat, don't forget me... I was the one who thought of it first. Anytime I see your name I automatically think of that post....

rjp

Randy,
Agreed totally, but ...The argument is this, why is resale taking the lions share of the profit? There is not a lot of risk selling food/cars , or houses. How many times have I /you sat down celebrating in some high end resturant with a healthy bonus from some sale, and said ...maybe we should get the crew a pizza party for this?

I wouldn't be sure about who's making the most - I've always believed everything is priced according to what they can get away with - what we're told ain't always the truth unfortunately. A true, commission only salesperson comes to work, answers the phones, does the dirty work all for free - until they sell something - Hunger is a big risk and a great motivator.

Just like you I do believe in sharing the wealth wherever I go - when I land something good everyone gets a piece - whether it's lunch or booze, whatever -a little grease keeps me in the front of the line whenever I need something!

rjp:cool:

Matt

I tried to figure out the number, and gave up... hence I handed it over to you.

What I did find was something (reputable) which suggested that less than 2% of the population "depend" on welfare (more that 75% of family income from welfare) and that only around 20% of people on welfare are long term (>5 years).

It is pretty bad statistical practice to multiply those numbers to get the number of those dependent on welfare in the long term, but I'm gonna do it. That makes 0.4%. Given that includes people who may genuinely be unable to work, and a degree of solo parents for whom a job isn't necessarily the best choice (I believe that, because I believe in parenting), then maybe my 0.1% on welfare out of laziness isn't far off.

Seriously, being on welfare long term would suck. Sure, you don't have to work, but as you've noticed you do have to live in a trailer park and do cash work to make ends meet. For a certain bad apple percentage of the population, this is apparently acceptable. I'm happy to see a minor level of abuse and have a functioning welfare system for those who need it.

Why is it that I can accept that some soldiers do bad things in war, but few soldiers are bad people, yet many conservatives can't accept that most on welfare need it, and only a few are screwing the system?

I can't provide an educated argument to your numbers Cameron, I only know what I have seen in my little microcosm of life in the mobile home park. I'm sure they're out there, somewhere, but if I'm going to do research I could be studying for finals.

Fair enough - I couldn't be bothered either.

Its not really fair to judge all welfare recipients based on a sample from a trailer park.

The numberts are much greater. they are only low because of the way they "define" welfare.

I got data from your govt, but the site is non-functioning, so I had to use the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040722025943/http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators03/

Specifically, chapter 2

If this misses out other classes of welfare, I apologise.

It is based on percentage of income received from TANF (or ADFC prior to that), food stamps and SSI. I decided over 75% was a suitable number (because everyone assumes those on welfare don''t work at all). (see the first table under "Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence" for the 2% total figure).

I got 20% as "long term" from "Indicator 10. Long-Term Receipt".

You all have convinced me. All those welfare recipients are worthless. Let's just round them up and euthanize them.

Not even remotely close to what we're saying. {damn I need some better emoticons} :)