Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?

[figmentPez]

One of the arguments against raising minimum wage has perpetually been "But it'll raise food prices, you'll pay more for a Big Mac!"

Only three countries in the world pay more for their Big Macs than the US does. Among the countries that pay less are many who have higher minimum wages than the US. Including Denmark which has a minimum wage for fast food workers (who are unionized) of ~$20 US.

How much less is Denmark paying for Big Macs, despite paying them a lot more than the $15 an hour everyone is worrying about? Big Macs in the US averaged $5.71 in the US for 2020, in Denmark they went for $4.58. Big Macs made by $20 an hour labor are 59¢ cheaper!

 

[Tress]

I had this same argument with someone I know. They believed that the costs of any minimum wage hike will immediately be passed onto the consumer, and somehow that would actually hurt the lower class more. I pointed out that if you jack up the prices of things like fast food, their sales will drop and the companies will lose even more. So corporations will probably do the smart thing and just leave prices the same. A Big Mac is not suddenly going to cost $11 dollars, and if it did people are going to go to Wendy’s instead.

I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.

 

[Celt Z]

I think this has been mentioned here before but it bears repeating: the cost of things continued to go up while minimum wage remained stagnant for the past, what, 30 years? They've BEEN passing on the cost of things to the consumer regardless of the cost of employees. We've gotten into this mess because greedy people have been getting away with this con.

 

[Dubyamn]

I had this same argument with someone I know. They believed that the costs of any minimum wage hike will immediately be passed onto the consumer, and somehow that would actually hurt the lower class more. I pointed out that if you jack up the prices of things like fast food, their sales will drop and the companies will lose even more. So corporations will probably do the smart thing and just leave prices the same. A Big Mac is not suddenly going to cost $11 dollars, and if it did people are going to go to Wendy’s instead.

I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.

People who have this argument have no understanding of economics. The price you pay is generally not influenced by the cost of the thing to make. Price is decided based on where the company will make the most profit. For example the 25% tariff on goods imported from China I haven't seen the price for any good in my life jump by 25% because such a jump would lead people to not buy as much and they would lose profit.

 

[Ravenpoe]

2020: These people are ESSENTIAL WORKERS and are heroes, risking their own health to save our economy.

2021: Fuck no they don't deserve $15/hour

 

[figmentPez]

My mom put forth the most bizarre argument I've ever heard against raising the minimum wage. She said she read an article by a reporter who tried to find people living on working minimum wage jobs and couldn't find anyone. Apparently she says that everyone she interviewed said that they were making more than minimum wage and thus it was a myth that we need a minimum wage at all. Which is the biggest fucking strawman argument I have ever come across, and I'm also calling bullshit that she couldn't find anyone who has had to get by on a minimum wage job. This wasn't a reporter who set out to find the truth, this was someone looking for propaganda.

Wow, there's high turnover in jobs that don't pay enough? Wow, tell me something that shouldn't be fucking obvious. And, no, it's not high turnover because the people don't deserve more money. People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.

 

[DarkAudit]

My mom put forth the most bizarre argument I've ever heard against raising the minimum wage. She said she read an article by a reporter who tried to find people living on working minimum wage jobs and couldn't find anyone. Apparently she says that everyone she interviewed said that they were making more than minimum wage and thus it was a myth that we need a minimum wage at all. Which is the biggest fucking strawman argument I have ever come across, and I'm also calling bullshit that she couldn't find anyone who has had to get by on a minimum wage job. This wasn't a reporter who set out to find the truth, this was someone looking for propaganda.

Wow, there's high turnover in jobs that don't pay enough? Wow, tell me something that shouldn't be fucking obvious. And, no, it's not high turnover because the people don't deserve more money. People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.

Tell your mom, with every bit of disrespect I can muster, "Right here! RIGHT FUCKING HERE!!"

 

[TommiR]

I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.

A multi-billion dollar corporation might be able to eat the cost if necessary. I'm more worried about the small mom-and-pop businesses that do not have such deep pockets, where labour costs usually make up a higher percentage, and who do not have the pricing power to offset such an increase in expenses. And that increase might not be limited only to labor costs, as any suppliers might also be affected by the wage hike and come under pressure to increase their prices.

People talk about how such an increase in wages will bring in more business, and make the employees more diligent and loyal, and decrease employee turnover. I hope they are right, and the trade-off will be worth it to the small businesses.

I think this has been mentioned here before but it bears repeating: the cost of things continued to go up while minimum wage remained stagnant for the past, what, 30 years? They've BEEN passing on the cost of things to the consumer regardless of the cost of employees. We've gotten into this mess because greedy people have been getting away with this con.

I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.

People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.

Worth, or value, is quite subjective I think. I presume you are talking living wage levels of minimum wage here. While I can understand the appeal of the concept of every working person enjoying a decent (as opposed to merely passable) standard of living, my main concern with above-market-rate minimum wage like arrangements is that they constitute price controls, which have their own challenges as they often result in market inefficiencies. Linked to that is that a minimum wage may disproportionally impact the most vulnerable, those who do not possess much in the way of marketable skills, as the cost may incentivise employers to seek labor saving alternatives to hiring people for low-skilled jobs.

 

[DarkAudit]

IDGAF about economics lectures. I should not have to try to live on $25 for two weeks after I make my rent payment. If I had to pay utilities, I'd be completely fucked.

 

[Bubble181]

Well that's the thing, isn't it? By now, in many parts of the USA, the minimum wage doesn't even get you to the "merely passable" standard of living anymore. I don't think anyone really thinks minimum wage should guarantee you a three bedroom house, a car, two vacations abroad a year, and yearly splurges.

 

[Celt Z]

I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.

The article you linked to shows an average hourly wage, not the minimum wage, which is $2 an hour less than the numbers you're using.

 

[PatrThom]

I'm more worried about the small mom-and-pop businesses that do not have such deep pockets, [...] and who do not have the pricing power to offset such an increase in expenses.

The usual rejoinder to this is that "...no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." Which is not to say that mom-n-pop businesses shouldn't exist, nor that Mom and Pop should be prohibited from starting their own business, but rather that they should not go into business in the first place unless they will be able to provide a living wage to their employees.

And the usual rejoinder to that is that no mom-n-pop is ever going to be able to pay out sufficient wages for its employees to be able to provide for a family, shelter, transportation, healthcare, education, retirement, etc., especially when that business is first starting out, though then the immediate response to this should really be... why should it have to? The only reason that "a living wage" is so high to start with is because we have the notion that it is employers who are expected to shoulder this entire "wage" burden. If government were to assume the burden of the cost of a universal need* such as healthcare, for instance, then the amount required to achieve a "living" wage would be reduced.

Deriding businesses for "not paying a living wage" (or forcing them to short-change employees or else go bankrupt) while at the same time ensuring that the threshold for said living wage is set so high is effectively just an end run to ensure that there exists a barrier to entry for new businesses high enough that already-established businesses will see no new competition unless that competition is backed/funded by another already-established business (or its heirs).

In other words, only jacking up the minimum wage without also shifting some of that cost over to government is just going to magnify the influence of big corporations, drive more consolidation, shrink the market even more, etc. So when you hear those people saying, "What America needs is more small businesses!" it's because extant corporations want to eat them.

--Patrick
*and really, what is a government's raison d'être if not to handle its population's universal needs?

 

[Ravenpoe]

I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.

I would question your understanding.

 

[figmentPez]

I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.

So, if we're to believe that the average employee is making nearly $24 an hour, but we also know that the average fast food worker is only earning $11 and the average factory worker is only earning $14, and the average office worker is only making $14, and the average janitor is making $15, and the average restaurant wait staff is only making $9... telemarketer $11, grocery store worker $13, construction $18...

Just what jobs are dragging that average up over $24? Because I can't think of any common jobs that could drag all those up.

Wait, what are the most common jobs in the US?

Most common jobs in the US, and their national average hourly wage
1. Cashier $10.84 per hour
2. Food preparation worker $11.38 per hour
3. Janitor $11.60 per hour
4. Bartender $11.64 per hour
5. Server $11.72 per hour
6. Retail sales associate $12.17 per hour
7. Stocking associate $12.72 per hour
8. Laborer $13.13 per hour
9. Customer service representative $13.41 per hour
10. Office clerk $13.84 per hour
11. Administrative assistant $14.82 per hour
12. Line supervisor $15.08 per hour
13. Medical assistant $15.36 per hour
14. Construction worker $15.55 per hour
15. Bookkeeper $17.97 per hour
16. Mechanic $20.27 per hour
17. Carpenter $21.67 per hour
18. Electrician $26.45 per hour

Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.

What that tells me is that there are some very high paying jobs down the list that only a few people have, but are outliers that are skewing the average. Then consider that the 1970s number of $23.24 (adjusted) also came with an (adjusted) minimum wage of something like $9.46, which is about 30% higher than $7.25 we currently have.

So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.

 

[@Li3n]

 

[jwhouk]

When unions bargained away automatic COLA increases in the 70's and 80's in lieu of keeping their jobs, we lost the connection between what a person makes and what they need to live on. And the genie's not going back in the bottle.

 

[Dubyamn]

Worth, or value, is quite subjective I think. I presume you are talking living wage levels of minimum wage here. While I can understand the appeal of the concept of every working person enjoying a decent (as opposed to merely passable) standard of living, my main concern with above-market-rate minimum wage like arrangements is that they constitute price controls, which have their own challenges as they often result in market inefficiencies. Linked to that is that a minimum wage may disproportionally impact the most vulnerable, those who do not possess much in the way of marketable skills, as the cost may incentivise employers to seek labor saving alternatives to hiring people for low-skilled jobs.

If only there was research on the effect raising the minimum wage had on unemployment rates. But why would anybody actually research such a subject?

 

[Tinwhistler]

So, if we're to believe that the average employee is making nearly $24 an hour, but we also know that the average fast food worker is only earning $11 and the average factory worker is only earning $14, and the average office worker is only making $14, and the average janitor is making $15, and the average restaurant wait staff is only making $9... telemarketer $11, grocery store worker $13, construction $18...

Just what jobs are dragging that average up over $24? Because I can't think of any common jobs that could drag all those up.

Wait, what are the most common jobs in the US?

Most common jobs in the US, and their national average hourly wage
1. Cashier $10.84 per hour
2. Food preparation worker $11.38 per hour
3. Janitor $11.60 per hour
4. Bartender $11.64 per hour
5. Server $11.72 per hour
6. Retail sales associate $12.17 per hour
7. Stocking associate $12.72 per hour
8. Laborer $13.13 per hour
9. Customer service representative $13.41 per hour
10. Office clerk $13.84 per hour
11. Administrative assistant $14.82 per hour
12. Line supervisor $15.08 per hour
13. Medical assistant $15.36 per hour
14. Construction worker $15.55 per hour
15. Bookkeeper $17.97 per hour
16. Mechanic $20.27 per hour
17. Carpenter $21.67 per hour
18. Electrician $26.45 per hour

Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.

What that tells me is that there are some very high paying jobs down the list that only a few people have, but are outliers that are skewing the average. Then consider that the 1970s number of $23.24 (adjusted) also came with an (adjusted) minimum wage of something like $9.46, which is about 30% higher than $7.25 we currently have.

So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.

My wife is a manager at her job, and she doesn't even make $24/hour. And she's at the cap imposed by the business for her position.

 

[Tinwhistler]

State of Working America Wages 2019: A story of slow, uneven, and unequal wage growth over the last 40 years

Rising wage inequality and slow and uneven hourly wage growth for the vast majority of workers have been defining features of the U.S. labor market for the last four decades, despite steady (if too slow) productivity growth. In only 10 of the last 40 years did most workers see any consistent...

www.epi.org

• Slow wage growth persists: Consistent positive wage growth has occurred in only 10 of the last 40 years.
• Inequality continues: The highest earners (95th percentile) continue to pull away from middle- and low-wage workers.
• Policy matters: Wage growth at the bottom was strongest in states with minimum wage increases in 2019.
• Black–white wage gaps persist: In 2019, black wages exceeded their 2000 and 2007 levels across the wage distribution for the first time in this recovery. Even so, black–white wage gaps are significantly wider now than in 2000.
• Gender gaps defy educational attainment: Women with an advanced degree are paid, on average, less than men with a college degree.
• College graduates are losing ground: Wages for the bottom 50% of college graduates are lower today than they were in 2000.

Finally, we dispel some rather pervasive but uninformed myths about why wage growth has been so slow for most workers over the last 40 years. Slow wage growth cannot be explained away by positing education shortages, by including benefits and looking at total compensation, or by changing the price deflator (changing the way wages are adjusted for inflation). To the contrary, the potential for wage growth has been squandered on the very few at the top, leaving the vast majority of the U.S. workforce without economic power and the means to achieve a decent standard of living.

 

[DarkAudit]

In this town, hotel desk clerk is a minimum wage job. Hotel desk clerk with 10+ years experience is STILL a minimum wage job.

Which may explain why I run into so many people openly refusing to care about their work. But somehow I'm the asshole for calling them out on it.

 

[PatrThom]

In this town, hotel desk clerk is a minimum wage job. Hotel desk clerk with 10+ years experience is STILL a minimum wage job.

Yes but now you can add "Essential Worker" to your résumé.

--Patrick

 

[TommiR]

Thank you all for your replies. I'll attempt to address your points in this same post.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? By now, in many parts of the USA, the minimum wage doesn't even get you to the "merely passable" standard of living anymore. I don't think anyone really thinks minimum wage should guarantee you a three bedroom house, a car, two vacations abroad a year, and yearly splurges.

Looking at the discussions on the subject on the interwebs, one might wonder. Sometimes it seems that the majority opinion holds that minimum wage should be sufficient to fund conveniences that essentially approach a middle-class lifestyle. I guess marketing has been rather successful in transforming wants into needs with some people.

I tend towards a similar approach when it comes to the choices people make on where to live. Accommodation tends to be one of the biggest expenses in those expensive-to-live areas. If one's income level is not sufficient to cover the cost of the place where one would like to live, then would it be possible to look at more affordable options more in the appropriate budget range? To move to a smaller apartment further out, or to rent a room in a shared accommodation arrangement or something?

The article you linked to shows an average hourly wage, not the minimum wage, which is $2 an hour less than the numbers you're using.

Yes, the development of the real average hourly wage over time. As I seem to understand, though the line has gone up and down over the years, taken as a whole system the wages paid in the US have retained their purchasing power so the average wage will buy roughly the same as it did in years before.

And the usual rejoinder to that is that no mom-n-pop is ever going to be able to pay out sufficient wages for its employees to be able to provide for a family, shelter, transportation, healthcare, education, retirement, etc., especially when that business is first starting out, though then the immediate response to this should really be... why should it have to? The only reason that "a living wage" is so high to start with is because we have the notion that it is employers who are expected to shoulder this entire "wage" burden. If government were to assume the burden of the cost of a universal need* such as healthcare, for instance, then the amount required to achieve a "living" wage would be reduced.[...]
*and really, what is a government's raison d'être if not to handle its population's universal needs?

I agree with many points in your post. Though the discussion on the government's proper role in the labor marketplace is still ongoing, the effects of increasing automation on low-skilled and repeatable task jobs may require some form of intervention. We'll see what they come up with, but paving the way by making low-skilled workers even less employable by increasing the cost to employers seems, to me, to be an interesting approach.

I would question your understanding.

Alright. Can you show me where I'm wrong?

Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.

If we look at the median hourly wage, meaning the wage where exactly half of the wage earners are making less and half are making more per hour, then in May 2019 it was $19.14. Which would mean number sixteen on your list. It would seem that the majority of hourly wages listed are quite little for the usual american.

So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.

By and large, the average hourly wage seems to have retained its purchasing power, however. As I understand, much of the reason for increasing cost of education have been public sector cutbacks, which represent a conscious decision by policy makers on funding priorities, while the costs of housing seem to be a rather complex matter. Neither of these are the fault of a normal business owner, who I do not think deserves to be forced to pay for them. Other solutions to address the causes behind those issues should be found.

If only there was research on the effect raising the minimum wage had on unemployment rates. But why would anybody actually research such a subject?

Indeed. If only the findings of the different studies said the same, then things might be much easier.

 

[figmentPez]

If we look at the median hourly wage, meaning the wage where exactly half of the wage earners are making less and half are making more per hour, then in May 2019 it was $19.14. Which would mean number sixteen on your list. It would seem that the majority of hourly wages listed are quite little for the usual american.

You do realize that the median being lower than the mean is a demonstration of how skewed the high end of data is, right? I don't know enough about statistics to tell you how significant the skew on this data set is, but you've basically said nothing of worth. Without a graph showing the curve of incomes, median and mean are both pretty damn useless.

You're ignoring the fact that those who are below fall much further below, and those that are above rise much higher. Income inequality exists and you are doing nothing to disprove it. Nor have you done anything to show that those earning the least are still able to afford a reasonable standard of living.

Here, an article on how those who earn a middle income are earning less of the overall income. The top 5% gained a lot of income, their purchasing power is skewing the graph so that it looks like purchasing power has remained steady, while many middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

 

[Dubyamn]

Indeed. If only the findings of the different studies said the same, then things might be much easier.

So my study was a real world study based on actual facts while yours is an unproven estimation.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I tend towards a similar approach when it comes to the choices people make on where to live. Accommodation tends to be one of the biggest expenses in those expensive-to-live areas. If one's income level is not sufficient to cover the cost of the place where one would like to live, then would it be possible to look at more affordable options more in the appropriate budget range? To move to a smaller apartment further out, or to rent a room in a shared accommodation arrangement or something?

I moved out of my parents house in 1987. I worked at Taco Bell making $3.75/hour. The minimum wage was $3.35/hour, but I had earned a couple of raises over the previous 3 years.

That was around $600/month take home after taxes and stuff. Maybe a bit less. I could afford an apartment (granted in a shithole), utilities and food and not much else. Rent was $280/month. That left me 320 to pay utilities, eat, and afford a car. I paid about $150/month for car payments and insurance, and about $50.00/month in utilities leaving---$120 left over to eat, or about $30/week. I ate a lot of free food at Taco Bell. Didn't leave a lot left over for essentials like shampoo, toilet paper, etc. But I was an aggressive deals shopper, and often shopped at Fiesta where I could get crap sandwich bread at 2 loaves for a dollar. You could often get two dozen eggs for a dollar if you bought old ones. I ate a lot of egg sandwiches.

Minimum wage in Texas is now $7.50/hour. That's exactly double, as it so happens, to what I was making more than 30 years ago. Take home would be about $1175/month according to https://us.thetaxcalculator.net/hourly-wage-tax-calculator
Looking online, rent in that same shithole part of town is about $800/month. Notice that's more than double. That leaves 375 left over. Tell me that you can buy the same amount of stuff (car, insurance, food) with $375 these days as you could with $320 33 years ago.

Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution: 1964-65 through 2006-07

The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private...

nces.ed.gov

Take a look there, and tell me if college rates have kept the same pace as inflation, and if it's as affordable now as it was in 1988

 

[Tinwhistler]

Just wanted to add: I'm a top 5 percenter. I've got a pretty comfortable life. But I remember very well when I didn't. It sucked, but was doable. And while living on near minimum wage sucked in 1988, I managed. I could have likely managed to squeeze in some college classes in there, too, if I'd made harder choices about other things in life. Looking at today's numbers for minimum wage workers, I can't even imagine how they'd manage even basic necessities, much less a car and a few college hours at the community college.

 

[ScytheRexx]

One thing I never understood was all the blame on the people that suffer the most.

Not even talking about the jealous, "But I had to suffer why can't they suffer through it too!?" nonsense that some people have, but even going to things like raising the minimum wage, these assholes freak out how prices will go up. They don't question why they are going up, they just assume "the company has to pay more" and instead of looking up and seeing executives getting 40 million dollar sign on bonuses, they look down at the single mom working a double shift at McDonalds and Arbys while also having to get welfare just to survive, and call her a leech on society.

Guess what? The whole point of the free market is competition drives prices. McDonalds isn't going to raise your big mac by four dollars because they have to pay more money to employees, because Wendys might be able to only raise their cost by three dollars, and then Taco Bell finds out they only have to raise by two dollars, etc etc until equilibrium is reached. This is why other countries that saw minimum wage increases saw price increases of less then a dollar even in the worst cases. A population with more buying power is more important then your big mac being 50 cents cheaper.

 

[Bubble181]

Yes.

Now, however, there IS the thing that in the USA, there are still a LOT of human positions that have been replaced with robots/computers/other forms of automation in other countries. The higher minimum wage, the less such jobs will survive.
Gas station attendant, bag filler at the supermarket, whatever, are jobs much like an elevator boy, that are going the way of the dodo. It's also sensible to say that, well, such things maybe don't constitute an actual job. I remember in South Africa they have an actual real life person just standing at the start of road works to wave a flag and signal "careful, road works coming up" to drivers. That sort of "job" simply isn't economically viable.

The poorer a country, the more such made up jobs can be around - and are important as a way of keeping people busy. In a richer country, like say Belgium, such jobs simply don't meet productivity standards to exist.

On the other hand, of course, a lot of jobs DO still have to be done. But perhaps with better tools, to make the people more efficient. Belgian workers are still horribly overpriced, even compared to our neighboring countries, but we (partly) make up for it by having the most productive work force in the world (except for one Asian country, surprisingly not Japan, but I don't remember which one. Also, this may no longer be true).

If burger flippers cost a dime a dozen, you can have a dozen of them sit around in a mostly empty McDonalds. If they cost a dime each, you may just have one in that same McDonalds, and expect him to do the job of the 11 others as well. Obviously there are diminishing returns and all that (1 person can't man two tills and a frying pan at once) but exercises in raising cost efficiency will always also mean putting more pressure on people to do more in less time.

It can of course also be argued that American companies have already made those exercises, and the people now are simply underpaid for the amount of work they have to do.

And, of course, the big problem there is that some jobs simply can't be made more efficient by automation. A teacher teaching 50 kids at once isn't doing the same job as two teachers each teaching 25.

 

[Dave]

I want to remind everyone that at one time I was unemployed, on food stamps, and was living in the projects.

Without the safety net (and let's face it, the color of my skin) I would not have been able to get out of there. You will NEVER see me giving anyone shit for using food stamps to buy things that are luxuries. You will NEVER see me looking down on anyone having to use welfare to pay their bills, or housing assistance, or any other thing that I pay my taxes to cover. I would rather pay more so the families that need it GET more. Welfare and safety net fraud is a lot like voter fraud - it's never who they are TELLING you that are doing it. It's the doctors who are double/triple billing medicaid, the landlords who are fucking over their tenants, the foster parents who are only in it for the money.

Punching down at the poor and less fortunate is a fucking evil thing to do. I've been that less fortunate guy and it sucked. But I did what I had to do to feed my family.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I want to remind everyone that at one time I was unemployed, on food stamps, and was living in the projects.

Without the safety net (and let's face it, the color of my skin) I would not have been able to get out of there. You will NEVER see me giving anyone shit for using food stamps to buy things that are luxuries. You will NEVER see me looking down on anyone having to use welfare to pay their bills, or housing assistance, or any other thing that I pay my taxes to cover. I would rather pay more so the families that need it GET more. Welfare and safety net fraud is a lot like voter fraud - it's never who they are TELLING you that are doing it. It's the doctors who are double/triple billing medicaid, the landlords who are fucking over their tenants, the foster parents who are only in it for the money.

Punching down at the poor and less fortunate is a fucking evil thing to do. I've been that less fortunate guy and it sucked. But I did what I had to do to feed my family.

Been there, done that. I made *bank* on my patents in the 90's. I was unemployed for 3 years after the tech bubble burst. When I finally found work again, I was one week away from being homeless. In Texas, there seems to be a big stigma for using food stamps, welfare, etc. Everyone I know who's unemployed seem to want to 'tough it out', but after going through that myself, I always tell them to make use of social services as much as possible. Your taxes pay for the damn things.

 

[Bubble181]

I don't understand the too-proud-to-use-it crowd.
I mean, I do understand them in some ways, but in other ways....
You are (or were, or perhaps will someday, whatever) party taxes for this. If and when you need it, it's there to use - not abuse, or take advantage of. Being too proud to use it is like having your house burn down and being too proud to accept the cover money from the insurance.
Ehh yeah, good on you for being able to rebuild without it if you can, I guess, and sucks if your end up in a cardboard box... But either way, you're still an idiot for not accepting help when needed.
Also, un-Christian. Give people the opportunity to help you, dingus.

 

[ScytheRexx]

Here is the thing, these people only have pride when they DON'T NEED the assistance. The vast majority of the people that talk about how they would never go on these programs, do go on those programs when they need it, like unemployment, welfare, etc. I bet no one here can tell me of a family member that was offered a social program while on hard times and told them, "No, I am going to do it on my own."

It's never a problem for them when they need it, it's only a problem for them when they no longer do and now the people that do need it are "stealing my taxes". It's years of "welfare queen" propaganda and demonization, the lie that there is a literally army of people out there having babies and then watching BET on their new 60 inch flat screen they purchased with foot stamps and never work a day in their life. Remember when Fox argued how many people on welfare had refrigerators? Like it was some blaringly luxurious object for a poor person to want to have. I mean holy shit, we have people literally living in cardboard boxes and heating up trash can beans out of a fire in a barrel and they still think giving them help is too damn much.

They find themselves in the box a year from now? Dude will be screaming for help and then wonder why no one does.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Here is the thing, these people only have pride when they DON'T NEED the assistance. The vast majority of the people that talk about how they would never go on these programs, do go on those programs when they need it, like unemployment, welfare, etc. I bet no one here can tell me of a family member that was offered a social program while on hard times and told them, "No, I am going to do it on my own."

That's what I'm saying: I've known plenty of people who could have used assistance in Texas who've refused. I know, currently, a lady that could get SSDI benefits and won't. I think only part of it is pride. A very small part.

I think it's mostly bigotry and social stigma. Part of it is that they don't want to be one of 'those people' (you know, those people they looked down on when they were able to work themselves). Part of it is social stigma among their peers. People who have to take public assistance are considered 'less'. And you don't want to bring yourself down in the eyes of your friends and family. Part of it is good ol' racism--the 'black welfare mother abusing the system' is still a common enough meme 'round those parts. And they'd rather go hungry than put themselves in the same boat as one of 'those'.

 

[ScytheRexx]

I don't know man. I live in Texas, and while I can only give my own anecdotal evidence, but the few times I ever met someone that was super anti-socialist programs, struggling but saying they would never ask the government for help, always turned out to be they WERE getting the assistance, but simply told people they were not due to the "social stigma" of it all. I can't say for certain if that happened in your cases, but it seems to be the norm for me.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I don't know man. I live in Texas, and while I can only give my own anecdotal evidence, but the few times I ever met someone that was super anti-socialist programs, struggling but saying they would never ask the government for help, always turned out to be they WERE getting the assistance, but simply told people they were not due to the "social stigma" of it all. I can't say for certain if that happened in your cases, but it seems to be the norm for me.

I guess you'd know better than me what my friends and family have done