Food stamps, who are the recipients?

[iamwhatiseem]

17 pages, someone probably already said this...but worth saying again if so.

PERCENTAGE OF SNAP RECIPIENTS BY RACE, VS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION.

WHITE - 35%.....% of population.....62%
BLACK - 23%.....% of population.....15%
HISPANIC - 15%.....% of population.....18%

WHAT SNAP RECIPIENTS SHOULD BE.....

WHITE - 62%
BLACK - 15%
HISPANIC - 18%

Lesson kids???

 

[TooTall]

Population by race, including Guno's numbers:

• White: 62.6% of population, 35% on food stamps
• Black: 13.2% of population, 23% on food stamps
• Hispanic: 17.1% of population, 15% on food stamps

I wonder what his point is?

I mean, outside of "I hate white people".

USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

.

He was hoping members would just think his #'s meant a higher percentage of whites use food stamps than other groups.
He actually should have never opened this can of worms.

No I think he was just pointing out more white people use food stamps.

I agree, but according to his figures, more than half of the population is white. Hard to believe, but..............

Maybe I'm reading your statement wrong but 62.6% is more than half of the population.

I thought that when I posted "more than half of the population is white" that it meant 62.6% is more that 50%. Isn't that what Guno's post meant?

 

[TooTall]

17 pages, someone probably already said this...but worth saying again if so.

PERCENTAGE OF SNAP RECIPIENTS BY RACE, VS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION.

WHITE - 35%.....% of population.....62%
BLACK - 23%.....% of population.....15%
HISPANIC - 15%.....% of population.....18%

WHAT SNAP RECIPIENTS SHOULD BE.....

WHITE - 62%
BLACK - 15%
HISPANIC - 18%

Lesson kids???

Let's see if I got it right this time. Are you saying, for example that 23% of the US population is black and that they comprise 15% of the people getting SNAP. Once again, I question the number 23% and are you sure about the 35%? And, the numbers come to 73% of the US population. What happened to the other 27%?

 

[Dragonlady]

17 pages, someone probably already said this...but worth saying again if so.

PERCENTAGE OF SNAP RECIPIENTS BY RACE, VS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION.

WHITE - 35%.....% of population.....62%
BLACK - 23%.....% of population.....15%
HISPANIC - 15%.....% of population.....18%

WHAT SNAP RECIPIENTS SHOULD BE.....

WHITE - 62%
BLACK - 15%
HISPANIC - 18%

Lesson kids???

Perhaps the lesson is more blacks are working in the lowest paying jobs and because they are so poorly paid, they need these benefits more often than other ethnics to feed their families. Maybe what this statistic says is that blacks are being discriminated against in the job market.

The fact that a larger percentage of the black population uses food stamps than do other ethnic groups is a meaningless statistic. I know that racists want to believe that it indicates that blacks are lazy and don't want to work, but the fact is that the vast majority of people receiving SNAP benefits are working full-time jobs. That means that they aren't making enough money to feed their families, even though they're working full-time.

That would seem to indicate that blacks are more often relegated to poor paying jobs, which could indicate biased hiring practices.

 

[TooTall]

17 pages, someone probably already said this...but worth saying again if so.

PERCENTAGE OF SNAP RECIPIENTS BY RACE, VS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION.

WHITE - 35%.....% of population.....62%
BLACK - 23%.....% of population.....15%
HISPANIC - 15%.....% of population.....18%

WHAT SNAP RECIPIENTS SHOULD BE.....

WHITE - 62%
BLACK - 15%
HISPANIC - 18%

Lesson kids???

Perhaps the lesson is more blacks are working in the lowest paying jobs and because they are so poorly paid, they need these benefits more often than other ethnics to feed their families. Maybe what this statistic says is that blacks are being discriminated against in the job market.

The fact that a larger percentage of the black population uses food stamps than do other ethnic groups is a meaningless statistic. I know that racists want to believe that it indicates that blacks are lazy and don't want to work, but the fact is that the vast majority of people receiving SNAP benefits are working full-time jobs. That means that they aren't making enough money to feed their families, even though they're working full-time.

That would seem to indicate that blacks are more often relegated to poor paying jobs, which could indicate biased hiring practices.

Why does it indicate bias? People are generally hired on their qualifications and work record. On edit, I tend to agree with the rest of your post.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

17 pages, someone probably already said this...but worth saying again if so.

PERCENTAGE OF SNAP RECIPIENTS BY RACE, VS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION.

WHITE - 35%.....% of population.....62%
BLACK - 23%.....% of population.....15%
HISPANIC - 15%.....% of population.....18%

WHAT SNAP RECIPIENTS SHOULD BE.....

WHITE - 62%
BLACK - 15%
HISPANIC - 18%

Lesson kids???

Let's see if I got it right this time. Are you saying, for example that 23% of the US population is black and that they comprise 15% of the people getting SNAP. Once again, I question the number 23% and are you sure about the 35%? And, the numbers come to 73% of the US population. What happened to the other 27%?

Actually it is worse, I was not aware that I was looking at an older census.
Here is the Census from 2000.
Obviously, as a percentage of population, blacks - heavily-heavily comprise as the largest group receiving SNAP.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Actually - WTF...I see 50 different charts ect. claiming they are using the census as the source - but they are wildly different. The above one doesn't even have Hispanics??
At any rate, looking through numerous data..it seems Whites comprise of about 65% of the population...so the fact that only 35% of SNAP recipients are white, obviously then as a percentage of population overwhelmingly blacks make up the majority.

 

[TooTall]

17 pages, someone probably already said this...but worth saying again if so.

PERCENTAGE OF SNAP RECIPIENTS BY RACE, VS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION.

WHITE - 35%.....% of population.....62%
BLACK - 23%.....% of population.....15%
HISPANIC - 15%.....% of population.....18%

WHAT SNAP RECIPIENTS SHOULD BE.....

WHITE - 62%
BLACK - 15%
HISPANIC - 18%

Lesson kids???

Let's see if I got it right this time. Are you saying, for example that 23% of the US population is black and that they comprise 15% of the people getting SNAP. Once again, I question the number 23% and are you sure about the 35%? And, the numbers come to 73% of the US population. What happened to the other 27%?

Actually it is worse, I was not aware that I was looking at an older census.
Here is the Census from 2000.
Obviously, as a percentage of population, blacks - heavily-heavily comprise as the largest group receiving SNAP.

I believe Hispanics are considered white in the census.

 

[Dragonlady]

[QUOTE="TooTall, post: 9998049, member: 43491

Why does it indicate bias? People are generally hired on their qualifications and work record. On edit, I tend to agree with the rest of your post.[/QUOTE]

People are generally NOT hired solely on the basis of their qualifications and work record. They are hired because of who they know, because they will be a good fit for the company, and all sorts of other reasons, none of which have anything to do with their qualifications or work record. Studies have consistently shown that it's easier to get a job if you're good looking, that tall people are more likely to be hired than short people, and thin applicants are preferred to fat people. People are encouraged to network within their chosen fields because that's how you get hired or move up. Recently it was suggested by a political candidate that women should learn to play golf to enhance their career options. Nothing would be more helpful to their chances of closing the wage gap than learning to play golf.

If work record and qualifications were the sole criteria for a job, why do people have to interview for a job. Wouldn't you just look at the resumes you received and call references and hire the best person on that basis? Qualifications and work record are the entrée to the interview but you get the job on how you come across in person.

 

[Andylusion]

\\UOTE="SmarterThanTheAverageBear, post: 9994874, member: 50653"]
Son, come on now. 75% of the population collects 35% of the SNAP and `13% collects 23%. It's obvious to see that although more whites collect SNAP, blacks are MORE LIKELY to collect it.

Instead of focusing on the race of people receiving benefits, why don't you look at the numbers of people with full-time employment who receive benefits. SNAP benefits are a wage subsidy to any number of large, highly profitable corporations, but you never complain about corporations using what amounts to welfare as a wage subsidy.[/QUOTE]

It's not the corporation. That's the problem with you people. It's not hte corporation. Would it make any difference if it was "Bubba's Bar and Grill" who had employees on food stamps? What difference would that make? "At least it's not a corporation dur dur!" Makes no sense at all.

The problem is... people getting food stamps, when they shouldn't. Period.

Most of those companies pay a ton better than small mom&pop shops. I know, I've worked at those shops. I know others that have worked at those shops. The pay is better at Walmart, than any other similar store.

If you demand that companies drive up wages.... they'll hire fewer employees. Now those employees will earn zero. You think them earning nothing is going to get them off food stamps?

The solution is to cut food stamps. Nothing else will fix this problem.

 

[Andylusion]

People are generally NOT hired solely on the basis of their qualifications and work record. They are hired because of who they know, because they will be a good fit for the company, and all sorts of other reasons, none of which have anything to do with their qualifications or work record. Studies have consistently shown that it's easier to get a job if you're good looking, that tall people are more likely to be hired than short people, and thin applicants are preferred to fat people. People are encouraged to network within their chosen fields because that's how you get hired or move up. Recently it was suggested by a political candidate that women should learn to play golf to enhance their career options. Nothing would be more helpful to their chances of closing the wage gap than learning to play golf.

If work record and qualifications were the sole criteria for a job, why do people have to interview for a job. Wouldn't you just look at the resumes you received and call references and hire the best person on that basis? Qualifications and work record are the entrée to the interview but you get the job on how you come across in person.

First off... there is no wage gap with women. There is profession choice gap if anything. I can't believe the number of women who choose to go into "Social Work", or "Nursing", "Book Keeper". These are low wage jobs. A man going into those jobs will earn no better than a women. Men just typically don't.... and Women typically do.

Women still work more low-pay jobs report on gender wage gap finds - Los Angeles Times

If you choose to do a job that has a low market value, there is no one to blame but yourself. I work doing low-wage assembly work. The lady who works as a production engineer over my production department, easily makes 5 to 6 times my yearly wage.... why? GENDER DISCRIMINATION!.... er... no.... she does a higher paying job. She's an Engineer, doing engineering work. Has nothing to do with the fact she has breasts and I have balls. Has to do with the value of the work we're doing.

There is no gender wage gap. It's just bull. Sorry.

Now as to on what basis people are hired.......

I am reading into your post that A: You think the 'networking' deal is wrong. And B: You have never actually hired anyone as an employee for anything.

Let me give you a hint.... people lie. They lie a ton. The old fashioned "My word is my bond" and "A reputation is worth more than gold" belief system of America 100 years ago, is completely abandoned.

You can put all kinds of stuff on a resume. I've seen resumes that got people jobs, that were full of garbage that wasn't true. And you say... well... why doesn't the company check the resume?

Again, you obviously haven't hired anyone for a employment position. Some companies report getting over a thousand resumes, for a single job opening. You think you are going to check every single thing, on everything single resume? Really? It can take all day just to verify an individual went to specific school. Let alone his last 5 jobs, and even then, the individual can put a phone number to a buddy of his, who will lie through his teeth. Three of the companies on my own resume, don't even exist anymore. How do you verify that?

Not to mention, that legal cases have made it nearly impossible for companies to put out the warning about bad employees. If you own company X, and a bad employee that you fired, goes to company Y and applies for a job, and company Y calls you up... if you tell them "that guy is terrible!" you could end up sued in court, and pay thousands.

Well companies know this. Worse... many times a company will give an employee that they don't want, but yet too risky to fire, they'll give a glowing recommendation in the hopes you'll hire them, so they can get rid of them. Companies know that too.

Based on the above, companies are much more likely to hire through networking, than through a resume.

This is the fault of society and the law. The people on the left, have created their own problem. By attacking companies for firing people they don't want.... for warning others not to hire bad employees.... and by the general lack of honesty in the culture.... the result is companies are very reluctant to hire people based on their resume.

So now company tend to hire through people they know. You caused this. Your fault.

And here's the kicker... if you ever did run a business, and you hired a bad employee... just once.... you'd be hiring through networking from then on. One bad employee can ruin a whole year of your life, and cost you tons of money.

And by the way.....

One side note of interest. You gave the impression that you think "qualifications and work record" is all that matters.

You should know better. Have you ever been to a restaurant where the food was wonderful, and prompt, and timely....... but the waiter and staff was rude?

Ever had that? Years ago, more than a decade now, I went to a Pizza shop. I heard from a number of people that they had the best pizza in the area. It was a small private pizza shop. So I ordered a pizza, and went to get it. The guys in the store were absolutely terrible to me. I never went there ever again. Didn't matter about their qualification or work history, I don't deal with people who are jerks.

You can have all the qualifications in the world, and all the work history you want, and if you can't work together with people in the company, you are not wanted.

Most companies will openly admit, they'll take an employee that may not be quite a talented, as long as they can work well with the rest of the team. And you know what? They're right. Qualification and work history, is important, but it's not the only thing. If you are arrogant, or you have a chip on your shoulder about "gender wage gap", and you think you are entitled to something because you have a bit of paper from a school that say "I r smrt!" no sorry, you fail.

You have to humble, and decent of a person, and get along with others.... AND do your job well.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People are generally NOT hired solely on the basis of their qualifications and work record. They are hired because of who they know, because they will be a good fit for the company, and all sorts of other reasons, none of which have anything to do with their qualifications or work record. Studies have consistently shown that it's easier to get a job if you're good looking, that tall people are more likely to be hired than short people, and thin applicants are preferred to fat people. People are encouraged to network within their chosen fields because that's how you get hired or move up. Recently it was suggested by a political candidate that women should learn to play golf to enhance their career options. Nothing would be more helpful to their chances of closing the wage gap than learning to play golf.

If work record and qualifications were the sole criteria for a job, why do people have to interview for a job. Wouldn't you just look at the resumes you received and call references and hire the best person on that basis? Qualifications and work record are the entrée to the interview but you get the job on how you come across in person.

First off... there is no wage gap with women. There is profession choice gap if anything. I can't believe the number of women who choose to go into "Social Work", or "Nursing", "Book Keeper". These are low wage jobs. A man going into those jobs will earn no better than a women. Men just typically don't.... and Women typically do.

Women still work more low-pay jobs report on gender wage gap finds - Los Angeles Times

If you choose to do a job that has a low market value, there is no one to blame but yourself. I work doing low-wage assembly work. The lady who works as a production engineer over my production department, easily makes 5 to 6 times my yearly wage.... why? GENDER DISCRIMINATION!.... er... no.... she does a higher paying job. She's an Engineer, doing engineering work. Has nothing to do with the fact she has breasts and I have balls. Has to do with the value of the work we're doing.

There is no gender wage gap. It's just bull. Sorry.

Now as to on what basis people are hired.......

I am reading into your post that A: You think the 'networking' deal is wrong. And B: You have never actually hired anyone as an employee for anything.

Let me give you a hint.... people lie. They lie a ton. The old fashioned "My word is my bond" and "A reputation is worth more than gold" belief system of America 100 years ago, is completely abandoned.

You can put all kinds of stuff on a resume. I've seen resumes that got people jobs, that were full of garbage that wasn't true. And you say... well... why doesn't the company check the resume?

Again, you obviously haven't hired anyone for a employment position. Some companies report getting over a thousand resumes, for a single job opening. You think you are going to check every single thing, on everything single resume? Really? It can take all day just to verify an individual went to specific school. Let alone his last 5 jobs, and even then, the individual can put a phone number to a buddy of his, who will lie through his teeth. Three of the companies on my own resume, don't even exist anymore. How do you verify that?

Not to mention, that legal cases have made it nearly impossible for companies to put out the warning about bad employees. If you own company X, and a bad employee that you fired, goes to company Y and applies for a job, and company Y calls you up... if you tell them "that guy is terrible!" you could end up sued in court, and pay thousands.

Well companies know this. Worse... many times a company will give an employee that they don't want, but yet too risky to fire, they'll give a glowing recommendation in the hopes you'll hire them, so they can get rid of them. Companies know that too.

Based on the above, companies are much more likely to hire through networking, than through a resume.

This is the fault of society and the law. The people on the left, have created their own problem. By attacking companies for firing people they don't want.... for warning others not to hire bad employees.... and by the general lack of honesty in the culture.... the result is companies are very reluctant to hire people based on their resume.

So now company tend to hire through people they know. You caused this. Your fault.

And here's the kicker... if you ever did run a business, and you hired a bad employee... just once.... you'd be hiring through networking from then on. One bad employee can ruin a whole year of your life, and cost you tons of money.

And by the way.....

One side note of interest. You gave the impression that you think "qualifications and work record" is all that matters.

You should know better. Have you ever been to a restaurant where the food was wonderful, and prompt, and timely....... but the waiter and staff was rude?

Ever had that? Years ago, more than a decade now, I went to a Pizza shop. I heard from a number of people that they had the best pizza in the area. It was a small private pizza shop. So I ordered a pizza, and went to get it. The guys in the store were absolutely terrible to me. I never went there ever again. Didn't matter about their qualification or work history, I don't deal with people who are jerks.

You can have all the qualifications in the world, and all the work history you want, and if you can't work together with people in the company, you are not wanted.

Most companies will openly admit, they'll take an employee that may not be quite a talented, as long as they can work well with the rest of the team. And you know what? They're right. Qualification and work history, is important, but it's not the only thing. If you are arrogant, or you have a chip on your shoulder about "gender wage gap", and you think you are entitled to something because you have a bit of paper from a school that say "I r smrt!" no sorry, you fail.

You have to humble, and decent of a person, and get along with others.... AND do your job well.

Great post.
I have been in a position of hiring/firing for decades. And what you say here is accurate in the real world we live in. When I need to hire someone, the only thing I look at on a resume is:
1) Are there any significant gaps in their work history that need explaining?
2) Have they worked a lot of jobs in a short period of time?
3) If it is a position with specific needs, do they have any experience in that need?

That's it...I never read the hyperbole people write about their job experience, EVERYONE exaggerates on a resume.

HOWEVER - the interview is everything! It is not how overdressed you are, how polite you are etc etc. - it is ARE YOU LIKEABLE? Does this person seem like a nice person? Do they seem genuine or do they seem to be full of shit?
I would say at least 90% of the reason I hire a particular person is based on their personality once they have the basic qualification for the position. Do I like this person?
Yes - you have a solid chance.
No - you have no chance.

 

[Dragonlady]

Andrew, you make a lot of assumptions about me and all of them are wrong.

I strongly believe in networking both to find work and to find employees. And I have been in the position of hiring people to work for me.

I was responding to the post which said that people are hired on the basis of their qualifications and experience, and pointing out that these were the least of the reasons why someone is hired.

As for your wage gap comments, even when women and men do the same job, men are paid more. That's the wage gap and it still exists.

 

[Andylusion]

Andrew, you make a lot of assumptions about me and all of them are wrong.

I strongly believe in networking both to find work and to find employees. And I have been in the position of hiring people to work for me.

I was responding to the post which said that people are hired on the basis of their qualifications and experience, and pointing out that these were the least of the reasons why someone is hired.

As for your wage gap comments, even when women and men do the same job, men are paid more. That's the wage gap and it still exists.

I went based on the post, not on you as a person, because I don't know you as a person. Your post, just like my post, is all we can go by. Sometimes we get that wrong. That happens. It's not personal though. This is a public forum, not me make a value statement of you intimately. I don't know you well enough to assume either way.

If what I say doesn't apply to you, then you shouldn't be offended because you know better.

As for gender wage gap. There are a number of other factor, that also play a part.

For example, my direct supervisor at work, is a man, and he works really hard. He often comes in early, and leaves far later.

That woman who is the Engineer over production, never comes in early, and often leaves early..... why? Because she's a mommy, and has to drop off the kids at school, and pick them up after.

Guess who is paid more? Who has more value to the company? The person who can come in early, and stay over any time needed? Or the person who comes in late and leave at 4, no matter what?

Guess who is called, and disappears when Timmy get's sick?

Guess who disappeared for 4 months after having a child?

Guess who couldn't go the Florida for a customer install?

Guess who can't go to the up coming trade show to drum up business?

Guess who couldn't fly to China last year, to deal with a business contract?

My manager did all of those things, and didn't disappear for months.

The Engineer lady did, and couldn't do all those things.

Which has more value to the company?

The guy does. He does more, is more flexible, and available, and thus more valuable.

It's an absolute fact, that if one or the other were to leave, my manager leaving would cause far more problems than her leaving. Which we know, because she's been gone for 4 months, and we've been fine without her.

If he left, tons of stuff wouldn't get done.

- "hey can you help us get this order out? Robert isn't here"

"Um. no I have to pick up Timmy, see you later bye!"

Which one SHOULD be paid more? The guy they want to keep.

Now that doesn't mean that our lady engineer is bad. Not at all. She does excellent work. But there is more to being an employee, and more to being valuable to the company, than merely "I can do my little job, and NO MORE".

People who spout off "not my job", end up not advancing as much. Welcome to reality.

A woman who completely sacrifices family for the sake of career, will earn as much as any man. All the evidence I've seen, suggests as much. Granted women who do that, tend to be miserable.

But that's the choice we all make. You can't do both, and excel at both. If you spend your time at work, you won't have a good family life. If you spend your time with family, you won't advance as much at work.