Should voting be mandatory?

That is a very idealistic way of looking at how you think the problem should be addressed, but reality isn't like that. It's not going to happen that way. There are simply not enough jobs, let alone jobs above minimum wage. The heads of households have no choice but to get the jobs they can find.
and yet, employers often have difficulty filling jobs with willing workers.
 
Werbung:
Just for reference, average period of time aworker spends at min wage is 2 months.
This allows companies to keep kids at min and provide an aporopriate test drive for nonstudents.
http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/
"It is a common myth that very low-wage workers—workers who would see a raise if the minimum wage were increased—are mostly teenagers. The reality is that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would primarily benefit older workers. Eighty-eight percent of workers who would be affected by raising the minimum wage are at least 20 years old, and a third of them are at least 40 years old." ... "On average they earn half their families total income."

Where did you get that 2 months figure?
 
and yet, employers often have difficulty filling jobs with willing workers.
Of course, but what are the percentages? What kind of jobs at what wages? Is it a real problem or just some guess?

Until you can find statistics, I would reword that as "some employers sometimes have difficulty filling some jobs"
 
Of course, but what are the percentages? What kind of jobs at what wages? Is it a real problem or just some guess?

Until you can find statistics, I would reword that as "some employers sometimes have difficulty filling some jobs"
As an example, farmers say that they can't bring the crops in without illegal labor. That's one low skill, low pay job that goes begging. I'm not sure if anyone is even keeping statistics.
 
As an example, farmers say that they can't bring the crops in without illegal labor. That's one low skill, low pay job that goes begging. I'm not sure if anyone is even keeping statistics.
Migrant work involves substandard wages and long hard work in the elements with an away-from-home life in shacks.
...many serious violations of the North Carolina Migrant Housing Act, including: -Infestations of roaches, mice and rats; -Non-working toilets and showers; -Contaminated drinking water; -Lack of fire safety equipment....”
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012...nt-housing-violation-at-migrant-worker-camps/

No wonder there is a shortage and only undocumented aliens work in agriculture.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...ve-been-told-about-the-minimum-wage-is-false/
a good article to understand what is and is not true regarding min wage.
It's not all that good. The article is “true” as far as it goes, but gives a rather biased picture. The author says:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are about 3.6 million workers at or below the minimum wage.... That is 2.5 percent of all workers....

What he doesn't say is that he got statistics for the current federal minimum wage, %7.25. There are 30 states with state minimum wage above the federal limit they average around $8.00 per hour. Most people in those states would not be counted as being below the federal limit. The fair way to look at the picture is how many would benefit from the new suggested minimum wage, $10.10. That number from the US Dept of Labor turns out to be 28 million workers, or 18% of the labor force. That is much higher and more meaningful than the authors 3.6 million workers, or 2.5% of the labor force, where he largely ignores workers from 30 states.
 
Migrant work involves substandard wages and long hard work in the elements with an away-from-home life in shacks.
...many serious violations of the North Carolina Migrant Housing Act, including: -Infestations of roaches, mice and rats; -Non-working toilets and showers; -Contaminated drinking water; -Lack of fire safety equipment....”
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012...nt-housing-violation-at-migrant-worker-camps/

No wonder there is a shortage and only undocumented aliens work in agriculture.
I've never been to North Carolina, but I have worked in farm labor. Sure, it's hard work, it's hot and dusty, but it is a job and can (usually does) pay more than minimum.

It used to be teens (like me at the time) or people out of work, or transients who did farm labor. Now, no one is willing to take such jobs except for illegal aliens.

Seems to me it's too easy to sit back and let the government take care of you.
 
Seems to me it's too easy to sit back and let the government take care of you.
You have a very distorted imagination of just who welfare recipients are. Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.

Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A very small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.

I don't understand conservative thinking. In general what I see is that they:
(1) don't want welfare of any sort,
(2) don't want minimum wage to increase,

From the US Census Bureau,
In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate”

If conservatives get the “ideal” government they want just what do they think will happen to those 43.5 million people in poverty. Is there a plan? Do they even care?
 
You have a very distorted imagination of just who welfare recipients are. Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.

Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A very small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.

I don't understand conservative thinking. In general what I see is that they:
(1) don't want welfare of any sort,
(2) don't want minimum wage to increase,

From the US Census Bureau,
In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate”

If conservatives get the “ideal” government they want just what do they think will happen to those 43.5 million people in poverty. Is there a plan? Do they even care?
My stepmother technically qualifies. She lives in a retirement community with a 4 star chef and amenities out the wazoo. All is not as it can be made to appear.
 
My stepmother technically qualifies. She lives in a retirement community with a 4 star chef and amenities out the wazoo. All is not as it can be made to appear.
She is probably well enough taken care of that she would not get any type of welfare if she applied. So you are trying to deny statistics of millions of people with one anecdotal example which may fall flat.

My last question is serious and not rhetorical. I really want to know how conservatives think about poverty:
If conservatives get the “ideal” government they want just what do they think will happen to those 43.5 million people in poverty. Is there a plan? Do they even care?
 
You have a very distorted imagination of just who welfare recipients are. Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.

Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A very small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.

I don't understand conservative thinking. In general what I see is that they:
(1) don't want welfare of any sort,
(2) don't want minimum wage to increase,

From the US Census Bureau,
In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate”

If conservatives get the “ideal” government they want just what do they think will happen to those 43.5 million people in poverty. Is there a plan? Do they even care?
People over 65 qualify for Medicare and Social Security. They've paid for those programs, so they're not welfare. Moreover, those are not "income qualified" aid programs.

The government spent a trillion dollars on income qualified aid programs of one sort or another in 2011.

That does not count SS or Medicare.

The study factored in Medicaid, the federal health care aid program for low-income families. But it also covered 82 other federal programs that Sessions classified as "welfare" -- from food stamps to public housing to various tax credits for low-income families.
The CRS study found the federal portion of all that spending rose from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011 -- representing a 32 percent increase. Republicans on the budget committee calculated that, with total state spending on federal programs factored in, the total amount rose from nearly $800 billion in 2008 to over $1 trillion last year -- a 29 percent increase.

According to Sessions' office, the federal share is now roughly one-fifth of the budget.

Surely, there must be some compromise between "no welfare of any sort" and spending a trillion dollars on welfare.
 
The government spent a trillion dollars on income qualified aid programs of one sort or another in 2011.
The poor aren't the only ones to benefit from government largess.

From the Washington Post.
If you expand the definition of "government benefit" to include tax expenditures, … these tax expenditures added up to about $1.2 trillion in 2011. And they tend to flow disproportionately toward wealthier households:”
2-10-12bud-f3.jpg

Surely, there must be some compromise between "no welfare of any sort" and spending a trillion dollars on welfare.
That is my question to you. I would like to see a better way too. You conservatives are intent on lowering taxes and getting rid of welfare but I have never seen a plan that most conservatives agree upon to handle the 43.5 million in poverty. This is a serious question you have not answered yet.
 
Werbung:
She is probably well enough taken care of that she would not get any type of welfare if she applied. So you are trying to deny statistics of millions of people with one anecdotal example which may fall flat.

My last question is serious and not rhetorical. I really want to know how conservatives think about poverty:
If conservatives get the “ideal” government they want just what do they think will happen to those 43.5 million people in poverty. Is there a plan? Do they even care?
The point is that she and a huge number ofother seniors are counted as poverty levelers and getting govt benefitsm. She is not an anomalie.
What happened to them 60-80 years ago ?
No stacking cadavers like cord wood. Maybe people didnt get a new iphone every time a new one came out. Lettuce instead of arrugals. No ovetpriced lux cars.
I know.. hard to believe people can live sensably.
 
Back
Top