BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

Start a thread called "Ways to Encourage Work"

Of course the very first answer will be that removing restrictions on jobs is the #1 thing to do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that rules that make it hard to get or give jobs are a problem.
Right now I think the problem is that there are few jobs because there is little spending. There is little spending because there are few jobs. Eventually this will change..... I hope.
The number of poor is not less than it was before gov programs so obviously the charitable programs did just as well. Now that it is a hundred years after the invention of the Alms Houses we could certainly do a whole lot BETTER.

The main reason that you don't see charities today providing basic needs is because the gov is doing that. There is no such thing as a charity to provide health insurance because there is no need for such a thing.

Charities that provide clothes are not maxed out. But charities that provide food are. Which reflects the lack of donations. And of course people don't donate as much as they could because they know that most of the poor are actually fat, they know that food stamps exist, and they know that most of the people who go to food pantries for food are actually using it so that they can make their mortgage payments easier. I am not saying that people should stop giving to food pantries. People should just not be under the illusion that they are providing food to starving people in a country where virtually no one starves.

And what about countries with larger gov programs? They do not have any less poverty as a result - in fact often more.

Worldwide the number 1 cause of starvation and human suffering is wars between governments or similar organizations.

Number two cause is gov programs that encourage sloth and waste.

Number three is drought which does not cause starvation in the US.

#4 is disability

#5 is self determined laziness. I also think this is the smallest reason which is why I don't blame the poor for being lazy when too few of them choose laziness entirely independently.

I do not believe that a lack of government programs would drive anyone into criminality. Even being poor is not the cause of criminality. But a culture that glorifies criminality and thinks that the "five pillars of character" in any way address the problem is in trouble.
As I mentioned, a sixth reason is that there are not enough available jobs at any skill level.

I agree that clothing and some household items ares not problems. They are readily available at many thrift shops. Government or charitable food and shelters can't supply the demand. There are 57,687 homeless people in my state, there are many reasons other than you cite. I think you see one of the problems -- criminality is glorified. Kids wear their pants way low because that's what they do in prisons.
 
Werbung:
Right now I think the problem is that there are few jobs because there is little spending. There is little spending because there are few jobs. Eventually this will change..... I hope.

As I mentioned, a sixth reason is that there are not enough available jobs at any skill level.

I agree that clothing and some household items ares not problems. They are readily available at many thrift shops. Government or charitable food and shelters can't supply the demand. There are 57,687 homeless people in my state, there are many reasons other than you cite. I think you see one of the problems -- criminality is glorified. Kids wear their pants way low because that's what they do in prisons.

Remove the minimum wage and all the silly regulations on hiring and employing people (keep the good laws) and there would be virtually no unemployment. And I am including self employment in that.

Would a few be employed at rates that would not be enough to support themselves? yes but they are not supporting themselves now anyway so what difference does that make. Now they are on food stamps and they dont work but with bad jobs they would be on food stamps and working - working on gaining skills that would allow them to move up the ladder to better jobs. Despite the few still most would be employed at rates that were appropriate for their skill level while they gained even more skills.

And if they did not want to work at bad rates then they could peddle their wares and not be thrown in jail for not having a license to sell pencils. In cities today where beggars can make a very good wage those who were willing to wash your car window legally could do much better.
 
Speaking of homelessness:

"Amidst the din surrounding the global economic meltdown, Americans might be excused if we haven’t paid too much attention to the youthful rioters roiling London and other British cities.

Still only a fool would shrug their shoulders at the images of a new blitz brought on not by high-flying bombers but text- messaging thugs making a mockery of British Police.

The pundits and talking heads from the U.K. I've heard recently offering explanations for the riots generally fall into two camps: the unrest is either “mindless violence” or “social injustice.”

There are the inevitable calls for:

A) A get-tough memo to the police to get back control of the streets and restore England’s suddenly –tarnished image ahead of next year’s Olympic Games or...

B) More social programs and employment opportunities for the underclass.

All these measures actually make a lot of sense, yet there is an underlying feeling that at the end of the day the key to society’s challenges on both sides of ‘the Pond’ does not always lie with more government intervention.

Indeed, British Prime Minister David Cameron summed up the fears and frustrations of many when he asked;

"Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations? Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences... Reward without effort.”

So how do we begin to fix what’s broken?

Jay Goldinger might have the answer. For the last 805 Sundays, he and a small cadre of volunteers have stood on the frontline of Los Angeles’ forgotten jobless and homeless population and delivered change we can truly believe in. Goldinger’s initiative called "Food on Foot" does not merely give out food and clothing to the down and out but has helped turn many of them into productive taxpayers.

His tough-love approach is one that works to motivate people to take responsibility for their actions. Participants start by sweeping the streets. A completed week then brings cards redeemable for food. Ten consecutive weeks brings greater incentives and rewards. For those who don’t miss a week, they can, during the course of a year, get help with medical and dental problems and even see a $3,000 bank account opened in their name while being provided with safe housing and help getting a real job.

What’s the catch?

Accountability. Backsliding is never rewarded. And there is another key component. Jay demands of everyone—random acts of kindness-- like sharing some food, guiding a blind person across the street, helping an elderly person with their shopping…

Simple acts that remind us it isn’t how much you amass but what you are prepared to do for others that should define our worth as human beings. These simple acts challenge people clinging to the lowest rung of society to validate their self-worth and to realize that victimhood isn’t a coat that protects you from the elements but a straitjacket that locks you in to a cycle of misery.

To date, Food-on-Foot boasts an 89% success rate; roughly the reverse percentage of success enjoyed by government-funded programs. Oh, and did I mention that from Day 1 Jay has refused any and all government funding?

For a few hours on Jay Goldinger’s 804th Sunday, I was a foot soldier in Food On Foot’s three- hour outreach in a parking lot near Sunset and Vine in Hollywood.

A few hundred homeless and handicapped people were helped with clothing and food, while people who want a way out are rewarded for a week’s worth of “a job well done”. Two have graduated to “gray shirt” status as they inch closer to rejoining the general population-with no help from Uncle Sam.

Jay told us that when a new group of workers sign up, he provides each with a mirror and offers this admonition: "Take a good in the mirror. You are looking at the enemy; the only person holding you back from a bright future.”

In a time of growing economic uncertainty and growing incivility in the political commons and social unrest, maybe Jay Goldinger is on to something. Maybe it is time for all of us -- including those of us in the the political and social elite -- to visit the Internet and shop for some mirrors for ourselves. Maybe the reflection in the mirror will stir us to remember the real reasons we were all put here in the first place.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...-key-to-defeating-homelessness/#ixzz1WT9ZZY3e
 
Speaking of minimum wage:


Minimum wage. One of the first things Democrats did after taking back Congress in 2007 was raise the federal minimum wage 41% from 2007 to 2009. Result? The unemployment rate went from 4.4% in May 2007 to 10.1% in 2009. It is 9.2% even today -- four years later.

As for teens, the unemployment rate went from 14.9% to 27.1%, the highest ever recorded, meaning since 1948. Today it is still a high 24.5%. And for blacks: from a low of 7.9% in 2007 to 16.5% in 2010. It is still a high 16.2%.

The Democrat Congress also decided to apply the same minimum wages to American Samoa. Results? Near-decimation of its economy, one that had been based largely on low-cost tuna canning and textile work.

... employment fell 19 percent from 2008 to 2009 ... tuna canning employment fell 55 percent from 2009 to 2010... Average inflation-adjusted earnings fell by 5 percent from 2008 to 2009 and by 11 percent from 2006 to 2009.

Of course, some of the increase in unemployment was a result of the Great Recession. But the Employment Policies Institute did a study to separate the effects for the most vulnerable group: males aged 16-24 without high school diploma. EPI's answer: the minimum wage increase killed over 100,000 jobs (31% of the lost jobs) for that demographic.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_tea_party_right_about_everything.html
 
Speaking of homelessness: ....
Speaking of minimum wage: ....
As I said once before you are more optimistic about people than I am. I spent the first 18 years of my life in Detroit. My brother and I delivered papers and worked as stock boys. My neighborhood friends weren't interested in jobs, did lots of shop lifting breaking and entering, one blew himself up, others married very early, and one stabbed his wife to death.

Some kids and younger adults will be reached by reason and motivation, many won't. There is a general breakdown of families. I agree the government can't change things either.

As far as minimum wage. I have no idea what would happen if that were revoked. Some states have higher min wage laws than the feds. Will the states continue with it ? Maybe some. I can understand your examples that a minimum wage suddenly being applied will lead to a shock in the system. However just what would happen if it were suddenly eliminated is anyone's guess in a country that is too used to it. It may or may not have a deterrent on crime
 
As I said once before you are more optimistic about people than I am.

Yes I am. Yet I don't see that that it makes a difference since I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants to Congress the power of expending the money of their constituents on welfare. Weather we are optimistic or not about people's ability to take care of themselves the fed just does not have the constitutional power to shower them with money.
 
Yes I am. Yet I don't see that that it makes a difference since I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants to Congress the power of expending the money of their constituents on welfare. Weather we are optimistic or not about people's ability to take care of themselves the fed just does not have the constitutional power to shower them with money.

Of course they don't. You don't need to patronize me.
 
Of course they don't. You don't need to patronize me.

By "they" do you mean the Fed? I never pegged you as one who believed the Fed does not have the power to redistribute. I am not sure I am following. Which also makes me think that we are not talking about the same thing since I did not mean to patronize.
 
By "they" do you mean the Fed? I never pegged you as one who believed the Fed does not have the power to redistribute. I am not sure I am following. Which also makes me think that we are not talking about the same thing since I did not mean to patronize.

You said, "...the fed just does not have the constitutional power to shower them with money."

That is quite obvious. So I replied of course they don't.

What is obvious is that there is fundamental problem in substandard wages and joblessness to the extent that the feds do it anyway and I agree with that. Many repubs and especially the tea party want to get rid of most if not all social services to those who need it. They are either blind to the problems or don't give a crap. It seems to me their attitude and possibly yours is f*ck the poor.

I don't know where you live, but where I live homelessness is a big problem. The city is trying to get rid of them. Where do they go? The police are actively trying to erase the problem. With no real solution in mind.

These people are trying to get jobs, and have help from social services.

But social services are swamped. Not everyone can live in Tent City. For those that don't, this is the attitude of the police.


Be sure and watch at least the first minute of each video to see where I'm coming from.
 
You said, "...the fed just does not have the constitutional power to shower them with money."

That is quite obvious. So I replied of course they don't.

I wonder if we are as in agreement as it seems.

What is obvious is that there is fundamental problem in substandard wages and joblessness

Just what is wrong with "substandard wages"? If a person makes the fully informed decision that a wage is best for him and an employer makes the decision that without fraud it is best for them too then why should the gov interfere in that contract between the two?. A "substandard" wage might be all a homeless person could get but it would be a stepping stone to a better job just like an internship offers a substandard wage but is a stepping stone. Same goes for high school kids. Breadwinners for a family would never make that decision - unless they are Will Smith in that movie and I would add it worked out very well for him.


to the extent that the feds do it anyway and I agree with that. Many repubs and especially the tea party want to get rid of most if not all social services to those who need it.
I assume you mean federal government social programs. As long as the needs of those who need it are taken over by non federal go or private programs then what difference does it make? And if you are against showering the poor with money from federal programs then aren't you also in favor of doing away with federal gov social programs?

I would add that no pub politician seriously has offered any proposal to actually get rid of any fed gov social programs.

They are either blind to the problems or don't give a crap. It seems to me their attitude and possibly yours is f*ck the poor.

Or the third option which you have heard before but choose to ignore is that they care just as much as anyone else but would prefer to use non federal gov programs.


These people are trying to get jobs, and have help from social services.

But social services are swamped. Not everyone can live in Tent City. For those that don't, this is the attitude of the police.

Be sure and watch at least the first minute of each video to see where I'm coming from.
It has always been and is my longstanding policy not to watch videos. You are free to post a text copy of the video.
 
It has always been and is my longstanding policy not to watch videos. You are free to post a text copy of the video.
Perhaps you will accept my synopsis of the videos...

The first video is from USA TODAY about a "tent city" that was legally built on 20 acres provided by Bishop Robert N. Lynch and the Diocese of St. Petersburg:

Catholic Charities USA is the national office for local Catholic Charities agencies and affiliates nationwide. Catholic Charities USA provides strong leadership and support to enhance the work of local agencies in their efforts to reduce poverty, support families, and empower communities.

Catholic Charities USA's members provide help and create hope for more than 9 million people of all faiths each year.
And even though it's called "tent city" the charity is building small garden style sheds for people to live in, as well as providing Coleman tents:

garden_shed_2_lg.jpg


coleman_tent_77Big.jpg


The thrust of the video is about the "new" homeless, people who do not suffer from the usual maladies associated with the homeless but have found themselves, because of the poor economy, unable to find employment. I do think it's important to note that this seems to be done entirely by private charity and on private property.

The second video is of police literally cutting down, and removing, tents that have been illegally placed on public property somewhere in St. Petersburg. Unlike Catholic Charities legally built "tent city", these illegal impromptu "tent cities" have no rules or standards, there are no bathrooms or other sanitary facilities, it's just anarchy - which attracts the worst kind of trouble.

I hope my synopsis has helped. :)
 
I wonder if we are as in agreement as it seems.
Not at all.
Just what is wrong with "substandard wages"? If a person makes the fully informed decision that a wage is best for him and an employer makes the decision that without fraud it is best for them too then why should the gov interfere in that contract between the two?. A "substandard" wage might be all a homeless person could get but it would be a stepping stone to a better job just like an internship offers a substandard wage but is a stepping stone. Same goes for high school kids. Breadwinners for a family would never make that decision - unless they are Will Smith in that movie and I would add it worked out very well for him.
That would certainly accelerate poverty and the wage disparity trend in America. An OECD study shows that upward mobility in the US is a myth. Yeah, screw em.
I assume you mean federal government social programs. As long as the needs of those who need it are taken over by non federal go or private programs then what difference does it make? And if you are against showering the poor with money from federal programs then aren't you also in favor of doing away with federal gov social programs?
I never said that. I only agreed that there was nothing in the constitution about "showering." "Showering" is your word not mine.
Or the third option which you have heard before but choose to ignore is that they care just as much as anyone else but would prefer to use non federal gov programs.
... which would never have enough resources to do anything except a few new high profile programs as in the 250 tents and little shacks which were funded partly by the local government and partly by a number of different charities.

Charity can't come near to handling the 57,000 homeless in Florida. For that level of Tent Citys, startup costs here would be over $200 M. Add $42 M more per year if their optimistic guess of $2 per day per person is correct. So you saying you don't want the fed gov to fund it is equivalent to saying "aw screw em."
 
Perhaps you will accept my synopsis of the videos...

The first video is from USA TODAY about a "tent city" that was legally built on 20 acres provided by Bishop Robert N. Lynch and the Diocese of St. Petersburg:

Catholic Charities USA is the national office for local Catholic Charities agencies and affiliates nationwide. Catholic Charities USA provides strong leadership and support to enhance the work of local agencies in their efforts to reduce poverty, support families, and empower communities.

Catholic Charities USA's members provide help and create hope for more than 9 million people of all faiths each year.
And even though it's called "tent city" the charity is building small garden style sheds for people to live in, as well as providing Coleman tents:

garden_shed_2_lg.jpg


coleman_tent_77Big.jpg


The thrust of the video is about the "new" homeless, people who do not suffer from the usual maladies associated with the homeless but have found themselves, because of the poor economy, unable to find employment. I do think it's important to note that this seems to be done entirely by private charity and on private property.

The second video is of police literally cutting down, and removing, tents that have been illegally placed on public property somewhere in St. Petersburg. Unlike Catholic Charities legally built "tent city", these illegal impromptu "tent cities" have no rules or standards, there are no bathrooms or other sanitary facilities, it's just anarchy - which attracts the worst kind of trouble.

I hope my synopsis has helped. :)

You have gone above and beyond in providing a synopsis.

Yes, bad economies cause all sorts of hardship including homelessness. I think the us gov should stop screwing up the economy and stop standing in the way of people who want jobs and employers who would hire them. The gov messes it up in multiple ways making it worse for people.
 
Not at all.

That would certainly accelerate poverty and the wage disparity trend in America. An OECD study shows that upward mobility in the US is a myth. Yeah, screw em.

Either the study or the interpretation of it is bull.

From wiki on a study of mobility:

"The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[2] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility."

So for a person in the bottom quarter a majority of the kids were not in the bottom quarter and a sizable number moved to the top quarter. And this does not even take into account that their mobility is slowed by government policy as well as social factors like whether or not their parents taught them to be productive or tv watchers. I would add that for the study to be complete we would need to talk about the numbers of people who move from the top to the bottom, or from any other quarter to any other. There is quite a lot of movement. We would also need to discuss movement that occurs within one persons lifetime and not only compare what happens to kids of parents.

"I never said that. I only agreed that there was nothing in the constitution about "showering." "Showering" is your word not mine. "

Ah, yes I figured you would be zeroing in on that word. Clearly the level of government handouts can be characterized as showering. But we could just state it more simply and say that the constitution does not allow for the gov to be giving any amount of money to those with needs.

... which would never have enough resources to do anything except a few new high profile programs as in the 250 tents and little shacks which were funded partly by the local government and partly by a number of different charities.

Would the private sector have enough money to provide for people's needs in comparison to the gov? Since the gov only gives money that was first taken from the private sector the private sector must have at least as much as the gov would have and in most times even more.

But the main difference is that the amount of enabling that would take place from private sector programs would be smaller so people with needs would actually learn to fish and take care of their own needs while becoming productive members of society.

Charity can't come near to handling the 57,000 homeless in Florida. For that level of Tent Citys, startup costs here would be over $200 M. Add $42 M more per year if their optimistic guess of $2 per day per person is correct. So you saying you don't want the fed gov to fund it is equivalent to saying "aw screw em."

Again, private sector always has larger resources than gov so if there is not enough money then people MUST learn to take care of themselves. Of course if they do learn to take care of themselves then they are a part of the private sector and therefore the private sector DOES have enough resources.
 
Werbung:
Either the study or the interpretation of it is bull.

From wiki on a study of mobility:

"The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[2] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility."

So for a person in the bottom quarter a majority of the kids were not in the bottom quarter and a sizable number moved to the top quarter. And this does not even take into account that their mobility is slowed by government policy as well as social factors like whether or not their parents taught them to be productive or tv watchers. I would add that for the study to be complete we would need to talk about the numbers of people who move from the top to the bottom, or from any other quarter to any other. There is quite a lot of movement. We would also need to discuss movement that occurs within one persons lifetime and not only compare what happens to kids of parents.

"I never said that. I only agreed that there was nothing in the constitution about "showering." "Showering" is your word not mine. "

Ah, yes I figured you would be zeroing in on that word. Clearly the level of government handouts can be characterized as showering. But we could just state it more simply and say that the constitution does not allow for the gov to be giving any amount of money to those with needs.



Would the private sector have enough money to provide for people's needs in comparison to the gov? Since the gov only gives money that was first taken from the private sector the private sector must have at least as much as the gov would have and in most times even more.

But the main difference is that the amount of enabling that would take place from private sector programs would be smaller so people with needs would actually learn to fish and take care of their own needs while becoming productive members of society.



Again, private sector always has larger resources than gov so if there is not enough money then people MUST learn to take care of themselves. Of course if they do learn to take care of themselves then they are a part of the private sector and therefore the private sector DOES have enough resources.
Well, you certainly live in HappyVille. These are quotes from three articles in today's paper.

Many in U.S. slip from middle class, study finds
Nearly one in three Americans who grew up middle-class has slipped down the income ladder as an adult, according to a new report by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Angel Food Ministries suspends food deliveries for September
The Monroe-based nonprofit, which has faced legal and financial problems in recent years, said Wednesday it is suspending its food distribution for September -- the first time in 17 years. It's unclear when distribution will resume.

Hunger danger levels still high
More than 17.2 million households had difficulty feeding family members at some point last year, as the rate of "food insecurity" in the United States continued to hover at near-record levels, according to a report released this week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 
Back
Top