Restaurants are adding labor surcharges to help offset minimum wage increases

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

A company (any company) only pays labor what it is worth. This is dictated by the supply and demand market of employees.

You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job and same quality of work as you do. That's how it's decided.

As for corporate profits, let's say you scratched off a lottery ticket today and won a small fortune--say 500K. Your house is paid for, your car is paid for, you have no outstanding bills. After taxes, you get about 300K of that money. What would you do with it?

Of course you would invests it. So you meet with a professional and discuss the situation. You tell him or her you want a nice safe and secure place for your money. Your professional boils it down to two companies. Company A has a growth of 5.5%. Company B has a growth of 3.2%. Which company will you choose to invest your money with?

Now before you answer, I have to tell you that company A has a gross of 3 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross of 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. You don't care how much the company is worth, you only care about how much your own money will grow.

You do what most investors do every day. Companies heavily rely on investors to keep their operation running. Investors are much more important than what a company brings in every year.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would I lie about something like that? I'm telling you it's the truth, and if I wanted to keep my current providers I've been going to all of my life, that was the only insurance plan they had available. Even the operator that took my application said she couldn't afford anything like that.

They did have another plan for about $400.00, but I would have to go to crappy doctors and hospitals, and that too had the same coverage as the $725.00 plan. So I'd have to have all my records transferred over to the new (whatever) get all new doctors, and I would still have no real coverage unless I walked out in front of a moving bus.

What you have to understand is that this entire plot was vote buying; being able to insure low income people on the backs of middle-class and wealthy people. But low income people generally vote Democrat and that was the goal.

That's why I say take it away. Those poor people aren't even smart enough to show up to assure they keep health insurance.

At least kick kids off their parents plan once they are 18 unless they're going to college or trade school.

So you admitted there is a cheaper option. Thanks. That's the one I was on. Who gives a shit about keeping your doctor. I've had hundreds of doctors. Do you like his small hands when he cups your balls and says cough?

Yes, I do like my doctors, and I do like the facility I've been going to ALL OF MY LIFE! It's a shame when people have to scramble around getting services from places they don't want to deal with all because Democrats are trying to create as many new government dependents as possible.

Commie Care has crap plans for outrageous money--plans you'll never get a dime off of. HTF do you call something like this "affordable" when plans cost more than a house payment? That's not affordable and it certainly isn't coverage.

Sorry, but all I hear is the sound of high-pitched whining. "I don't care if everyone will be insured, I want my doctor that I had ALL OF MY LIFE!"

Cry me a river. Meanwhile, uninsured cancer patient is quietly dying in a corner.

This is true, and the Democrats created many of them.

Democrats created cancer?

You are officially off the deep end.

Nope, they created a lot of people who lost their insurance plan. And actually, they planned on 80% of American citizens to lose their insurance. This can be found in the Federal Registry. Their prediction didn't come true, but still, a lot of us lost our insurance thanks to them.

 

[Dragonlady]

[QU


Yes we know, you hate poor folks. Y'all are the reason i don't call myself a Republican anymore.

I don't hate poor folks.

I just want the little greedy dumbasses to stop electing Left Wing assholes who destroy the economy with their failed Left economics and then I have to pay for it.

The best way for somebody to stop being poor is to stop voting for Liberals that make them poor.

I live in a liberal country. With liberal policies. They don't make people poor. Right wing policies make people poor.

Right wing wars waste more taxpayer dollars than any social program you can name.

The money being spent on your useless wall, would put computers into every classroom in America.

Your priorities are screwed. People first. All people of all faiths and colours.

Bullshit.

Even though Obama did everything he could to screw it up it the post WWII growth of the more generally capitalistic US was greater than Canada or any Euro socialists shithole.

The reason is because you Left wing dumbasses take too much money out of the productive economy and transfer it to the filthy ass government and you get very little in return.

Left Economics always screws up a country. The more socialist the greater the chance of complete failure. The less socialist may only suffer stagnant growth.

You may love socialism because you don't know any better but is always a disaster some way or another.

Just look what that asshole Obama did to this country with his more Left approach. He increased poverty, decreased family income, really hurt health care, ran up the debt to astronomical amounts and had stagnant growth for eight years.

Wrong on every level. Americans squander 20% of the budget on the largest military in history - spending more money than the rest of the top 10 combined.

The amount spent on the Iraq war would feed and House every poor person in America. It would equip every school with state of the art equipment and resources.

America has a problem with priorities. The US puts its people last. You sort everyone into winners and losers , and then trample the losers underfoot.

Other countries see their people as their greatest resource. A healthy, outwardly focussed, well educated and culturally well rounded population is more open, more productive, and more free.

All of the things you claim can't be done in a socialist economy, have in fact been successfully done in numerous first world countries which top the various top 10 lists which pop up frequently. The United States isn't on any of those lists, and with good reason.

Your country is rapidly becoming unliveable, and to the rest of us, appears to be on the brink of civil war. So much anger, and you've elected a lunatic president.

Perhaps if Americans acting stopped navel gazing long enough to see that with all of your prosperity, you have lost your soul. Wealth has made you venal and greedy, and you let the wealthy bleed you white, and then complain about "social programs", most of which are subsidizing obscene levels of corporate profits and high level salaries.

No corporation whose employees are receiving public assistance, should be allowed to pay an 8-figure salary to any executive. Until all full time workers receive a wage which covers basic minimum subsistence, no bonuses, no big salaries.

 

[ricechickie]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

A company (any company) only pays labor what it is worth. This is dictated by the supply and demand market of employees.

You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job and same quality of work as you do. That's how it's decided.

As for corporate profits, let's say you scratched off a lottery ticket today and won a small fortune--say 500K. Your house is paid for, your car is paid for, you have no outstanding bills. After taxes, you get about 300K of that money. What would you do with it?

Of course you would invests it. So you meet with a professional and discuss the situation. You tell him or her you want a nice safe and secure place for your money. Your professional boils it down to two companies. Company A has a growth of 5.5%. Company B has a growth of 3.2%. Which company will you choose to invest your money with?

Now before you answer, I have to tell you that company A has a gross of 3 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross of 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. You don't care how much the company is worth, you only care about how much your own money will grow.

You do what most investors do every day. Companies heavily rely on investors to keep their operation running. Investors are much more important than what a company brings in every year.

Thank you for the lesson.

Can you answer which of those horribly restrictive regulations you'd eliminate, so as to free up the profit-making potential of a company (which would presumably trickle down to the workers)?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By the way, you mentioned temp services. Why would someone mess with benefits that they know they can count on to get a few OT hours of temporary work?

Why? Because these companies pick workers from their temp pool if they seem to be doing a good job, that's why. Several of our customers use temp services to try out workers first to see if they catch on to the job and willing to work hard even for the little money they make. If they do work out, the company hires them from the temp service.

But you support my point in your comment, and that is government deters people from advancing themselves with these handouts.

You also mentioned school as an option for daycare. Schools are not in session for 50-60 hours a week.

Even after school care (any decent ones) are expensive.

And the government also offers vouchers for daycare centers for those people who don't make a lot of money. When my neighborhood started to go downhill, daycare centers popped up all over the place. Like you said, they are expensive and some couldn't afford it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

A company (any company) only pays labor what it is worth. This is dictated by the supply and demand market of employees.

You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job and same quality of work as you do. That's how it's decided.

As for corporate profits, let's say you scratched off a lottery ticket today and won a small fortune--say 500K. Your house is paid for, your car is paid for, you have no outstanding bills. After taxes, you get about 300K of that money. What would you do with it?

Of course you would invests it. So you meet with a professional and discuss the situation. You tell him or her you want a nice safe and secure place for your money. Your professional boils it down to two companies. Company A has a growth of 5.5%. Company B has a growth of 3.2%. Which company will you choose to invest your money with?

Now before you answer, I have to tell you that company A has a gross of 3 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross of 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. You don't care how much the company is worth, you only care about how much your own money will grow.

You do what most investors do every day. Companies heavily rely on investors to keep their operation running. Investors are much more important than what a company brings in every year.

Thank you for the lesson.

Can you answer which of those horribly restrictive regulations you'd eliminate, so as to free up the profit-making potential of a company (which would presumably trickle down to the workers)?

No, because like you, I'm not familiar with those regulations and I wasn't talking about regulations in the first place. What I'm talking about is why companies pay workers only what they are worth. They are trying to increase their growth to attract more investors.

You can't have everything. We as Americans want to see: good paying jobs, good growth for our retirement or personal investments, cheap products at the store.

You can't have all three. It's impossible to deliver. So we collectively chose cheap products and good investment growth over good paying jobs.

 

[ricechickie]

By the way, you mentioned temp services. Why would someone mess with benefits that they know they can count on to get a few OT hours of temporary work?

Why? Because these companies pick workers from their temp pool if they seem to be doing a good job, that's why. Several of our customers use temp services to try out workers first to see if they catch on to the job and willing to work hard even for the little money they make. If they do work out, the company hires them from the temp service.

But you support my point in your comment, and that is government deters people from advancing themselves with these handouts.

You also mentioned school as an option for daycare. Schools are not in session for 50-60 hours a week.

Even after school care (any decent ones) are expensive.

And the government also offers vouchers for daycare centers for those people who don't make a lot of money. When my neighborhood started to go downhill, daycare centers popped up all over the place. Like you said, they are expensive and some couldn't afford it.

Like I said, it's not "goodies" it's survival. A temp job is fine, unless that reported income throws off the services you rely on to keep your housing, health insurance. Otherwise, in the end, that temporary overtime can end up costing you.

Daycare vouchers are another form of government assistance. So you are advocating that people go to work to make more money to get off gov't assistance, and use more gov't assistance to do so? So we have a vicious cycle of overworked parents who park their kids in daycare. That's some strong family-building, Ray. That's the kind of middle class we want. /sarc/

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

I would eliminate the thousands that small business cannot do or do with great difficulty. Big business has departments that can handle the various regulations and will pay low wages because the economy stinks. Lately it's getting better. If it gets cooking business will have to compete for workers.

 

[ricechickie]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

A company (any company) only pays labor what it is worth. This is dictated by the supply and demand market of employees.

You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job and same quality of work as you do. That's how it's decided.

As for corporate profits, let's say you scratched off a lottery ticket today and won a small fortune--say 500K. Your house is paid for, your car is paid for, you have no outstanding bills. After taxes, you get about 300K of that money. What would you do with it?

Of course you would invests it. So you meet with a professional and discuss the situation. You tell him or her you want a nice safe and secure place for your money. Your professional boils it down to two companies. Company A has a growth of 5.5%. Company B has a growth of 3.2%. Which company will you choose to invest your money with?

Now before you answer, I have to tell you that company A has a gross of 3 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross of 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. You don't care how much the company is worth, you only care about how much your own money will grow.

You do what most investors do every day. Companies heavily rely on investors to keep their operation running. Investors are much more important than what a company brings in every year.

Thank you for the lesson.

Can you answer which of those horribly restrictive regulations you'd eliminate, so as to free up the profit-making potential of a company (which would presumably trickle down to the workers)?

No, because like you, I'm not familiar with those regulations and I wasn't talking about regulations in the first place. What I'm talking about is why companies pay workers only what they are worth. They are trying to increase their growth to attract more investors.

You can't have everything. We as Americans want to see: good paying jobs, good growth for our retirement or personal investments, cheap products at the store.

You can't have all three. It's impossible to deliver. So we collectively chose cheap products and good investment growth over good paying jobs.

My apologies, it was iceweasel who brought that up. My bad.

 

[ricechickie]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

I would eliminate the thousands that small business cannot do or do with great difficulty. Big business has departments that can handle the various regulations and will pay low wages because the economy stinks. Lately it's getting better. If it gets cooking business will have to compete for workers.

That's awfully vague. A small business may say they can't properly dispose of waste, it would cause a burden. A small company may say that they can't properly protect workers from preventable accidents because the safety equipment is a burden. Can you name some regulations that a business could really do without, that are basically useless on the day-to-day operation of a business?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By the way, you mentioned temp services. Why would someone mess with benefits that they know they can count on to get a few OT hours of temporary work?

Why? Because these companies pick workers from their temp pool if they seem to be doing a good job, that's why. Several of our customers use temp services to try out workers first to see if they catch on to the job and willing to work hard even for the little money they make. If they do work out, the company hires them from the temp service.

But you support my point in your comment, and that is government deters people from advancing themselves with these handouts.

You also mentioned school as an option for daycare. Schools are not in session for 50-60 hours a week.

Even after school care (any decent ones) are expensive.

And the government also offers vouchers for daycare centers for those people who don't make a lot of money. When my neighborhood started to go downhill, daycare centers popped up all over the place. Like you said, they are expensive and some couldn't afford it.

Like I said, it's not "goodies" it's survival. A temp job is fine, unless that reported income throws off the services you rely on to keep your housing, health insurance. Otherwise, in the end, that temporary overtime can end up costing you.

Daycare vouchers are another form of government assistance. So you are advocating that people go to work to make more money to get off gov't assistance, and use more gov't assistance to do so? So we have a vicious cycle of overworked parents who park their kids in daycare. That's some strong family-building, Ray. That's the kind of middle class we want. /sarc/

No, I think the good families are those with two working parents. They can provide for their children, have a normal family household and life, and maybe be able too save up enough funds to send those children to colleges someday.

Poverty is directly related to single-parent households. Democrats promoted those single-parent households--especially in the 70's. N.O.W was the main orchestrator of all this, and they've made quite an accomplishment. In fact, black families (who mostly vote Democrat) have a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country, and I seriously doubt they were all doing well at one time and hit a pot hole forcing them onto government programs.

Yes, daycare vouchers are welfare as well, but it dispels your concept that these people can't work because nobody is there to take care of their kids. They don't want to work, they want you and I to support them and their kids.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated because a strong middle class makes for a strong economy. Do you want fewer people on gov't assistance? The vast majority getting that kind of help are the working poor. We are subsidizing low wages with our tax money going to SNAP and WIC and Rental assistance and heating assistance and Medicaid. WE are making up for the company's lack of paying a living wage.

The company lives in the same world though. They have bills to pay as well. So they will need to charge more, that means fewer goods or services being sold which means employees drop to part time or are let go.

Government regulations is why so many hire two part timers instead of one full timer. If the government is spending our money they are taking it from us to begin with. You believe in trickle up economics and I believe the market decides best. Less government=more business=higher wages.

I feel for small businesses, but I know that corporate profits are at an all-time high, while they work to keep wages low. They aren't suffering, but still want to blame government for low wages, because they are "too regulated."

I cannot speak to every regulation out there, but many are for employee and consumer protections. Which ones would you eliminate?

I would eliminate the thousands that small business cannot do or do with great difficulty. Big business has departments that can handle the various regulations and will pay low wages because the economy stinks. Lately it's getting better. If it gets cooking business will have to compete for workers.

That's awfully vague. A small business may say they can't properly dispose of waste, it would cause a burden. A small company may say that they can't properly protect workers from preventable accidents because the safety equipment is a burden. Can you name some regulations that a business could really do without, that are basically useless on the day-to-day operation of a business?

Start with supply health care costs. Many can't afford their own let alone employees.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate
The Employer Mandate / Employer Penalty Delayed Until 2015 / 2016
The ObamaCare Employer Mandate / Employer Penalty, originally set to begin in 2014, was delayed until 2015 / 2016. ObamaCare’s “employer mandate” is a requirement that all businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees (FTE) provide health insurance to at least 95% of their full-time employees and dependents up to age 26, or pay a fee. Below we clarify how each aspect of the mandate affects employees and employers.

 

[ricechickie]

By the way, you mentioned temp services. Why would someone mess with benefits that they know they can count on to get a few OT hours of temporary work?

Why? Because these companies pick workers from their temp pool if they seem to be doing a good job, that's why. Several of our customers use temp services to try out workers first to see if they catch on to the job and willing to work hard even for the little money they make. If they do work out, the company hires them from the temp service.

But you support my point in your comment, and that is government deters people from advancing themselves with these handouts.

You also mentioned school as an option for daycare. Schools are not in session for 50-60 hours a week.

Even after school care (any decent ones) are expensive.

And the government also offers vouchers for daycare centers for those people who don't make a lot of money. When my neighborhood started to go downhill, daycare centers popped up all over the place. Like you said, they are expensive and some couldn't afford it.

Like I said, it's not "goodies" it's survival. A temp job is fine, unless that reported income throws off the services you rely on to keep your housing, health insurance. Otherwise, in the end, that temporary overtime can end up costing you.

Daycare vouchers are another form of government assistance. So you are advocating that people go to work to make more money to get off gov't assistance, and use more gov't assistance to do so? So we have a vicious cycle of overworked parents who park their kids in daycare. That's some strong family-building, Ray. That's the kind of middle class we want. /sarc/

No, I think the good families are those with two working parents. They can provide for their children, have a normal family household and life, and maybe be able too save up enough funds to send those children to colleges someday.

Poverty is directly related to single-parent households. Democrats promoted those single-parent households--especially in the 70's. N.O.W was the main orchestrator of all this, and they've made quite an accomplishment. In fact, black families (who mostly vote Democrat) have a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country, and I seriously doubt they were all doing well at one time and hit a pot hole forcing them onto government programs.

Yes, daycare vouchers are welfare as well, but it dispels your concept that these people can't work because nobody is there to take care of their kids. They don't want to work, they want you and I to support them and their kids.

That's such nonsense. They are working, just not enough to suit you. So you offer them more government assistance to get them to prove that they want to work more and spend less time with their children?

By the way, those numbers on out-of-wedlock birth rates can be misleading. Often just because they aren't married, does not mean that a child is not being raised by two parents, sometimes even living together without the benefit of marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

Poverty is directly related to single-parent households. Democrats promoted those single-parent households--especially in the 70's. N.O.W was the main orchestrator of all this, and they've made quite an accomplishment. In fact, black families (who mostly vote Democrat) have a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country, and I seriously doubt they were all doing well at one time and hit a pot hole forcing them onto government programs.

Exactly. These days a gal can marry the government. Who needs a man around when you can get payed by the kid. I've seen lots of huge heffers with a kid or more in tow, no doubt living off of Uncle Sugar.

 

[Iceweasel]

By the way, those numbers on out-of-wedlock birth rates can be misleading. Often just because they aren't married, does not mean that a child is not being raised by two parents, sometimes even living together without the benefit of marriage.

If they were really committed they would be married. So not much of a family.

 

[ricechickie]

Poverty is directly related to single-parent households. Democrats promoted those single-parent households--especially in the 70's. N.O.W was the main orchestrator of all this, and they've made quite an accomplishment. In fact, black families (who mostly vote Democrat) have a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country, and I seriously doubt they were all doing well at one time and hit a pot hole forcing them onto government programs.

Exactly. These days a gal can marry the government. Who needs a man around when you can get payed by the kid. I've seen lots of huge heffers with a kid or more in tow, no doubt living off of Uncle Sugar.

"No doubt"?

I see a lot of sociology psychics out there. They can just look at someone and know their financial situation. It's fucking incredible!

I am not nearly so skilled. It takes me reading several of your posts full of dog-whistles and stereotypes to realize that you're a knuckle-dragging bigot!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your country is rapidly becoming unliveable, and to the rest of us, appears to be on the brink of civil war. So much anger, and you've elected a lunatic president.

And yet we have people trying desperately to get into this country. Go figure. In fact, we are spending billions to try and keep them out.

Perhaps if Americans acting stopped navel gazing long enough to see that with all of your prosperity, you have lost your soul. Wealth has made you venal and greedy, and you let the wealthy bleed you white, and then complain about "social programs", most of which are subsidizing obscene levels of corporate profits and high level salaries.

What can be more greedy than demanding somebody else give you their money?

No corporation whose employees are receiving public assistance, should be allowed to pay an 8-figure salary to any executive. Until all full time workers receive a wage which covers basic minimum subsistence, no bonuses, no big salaries.

Always with the corporations. Why is it you on the left have such a problem with job creators and not the entertainment industry? You have guys throwing baseballs around for millions of dollars a year. You have musicians who are multimillionaires. You have actresses and actors that get paid over 1 million dollars for a weekly episode of their show. Some over 10 million dollars for one movie. But you have no problem with that.

 

[ricechickie]

By the way, those numbers on out-of-wedlock birth rates can be misleading. Often just because they aren't married, does not mean that a child is not being raised by two parents, sometimes even living together without the benefit of marriage.

If they were really committed they would be married. So not much of a family.

Not true, bigot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By the way, you mentioned temp services. Why would someone mess with benefits that they know they can count on to get a few OT hours of temporary work?

Why? Because these companies pick workers from their temp pool if they seem to be doing a good job, that's why. Several of our customers use temp services to try out workers first to see if they catch on to the job and willing to work hard even for the little money they make. If they do work out, the company hires them from the temp service.

But you support my point in your comment, and that is government deters people from advancing themselves with these handouts.

You also mentioned school as an option for daycare. Schools are not in session for 50-60 hours a week.

Even after school care (any decent ones) are expensive.

And the government also offers vouchers for daycare centers for those people who don't make a lot of money. When my neighborhood started to go downhill, daycare centers popped up all over the place. Like you said, they are expensive and some couldn't afford it.

Like I said, it's not "goodies" it's survival. A temp job is fine, unless that reported income throws off the services you rely on to keep your housing, health insurance. Otherwise, in the end, that temporary overtime can end up costing you.

Daycare vouchers are another form of government assistance. So you are advocating that people go to work to make more money to get off gov't assistance, and use more gov't assistance to do so? So we have a vicious cycle of overworked parents who park their kids in daycare. That's some strong family-building, Ray. That's the kind of middle class we want. /sarc/

No, I think the good families are those with two working parents. They can provide for their children, have a normal family household and life, and maybe be able too save up enough funds to send those children to colleges someday.

Poverty is directly related to single-parent households. Democrats promoted those single-parent households--especially in the 70's. N.O.W was the main orchestrator of all this, and they've made quite an accomplishment. In fact, black families (who mostly vote Democrat) have a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country, and I seriously doubt they were all doing well at one time and hit a pot hole forcing them onto government programs.

Yes, daycare vouchers are welfare as well, but it dispels your concept that these people can't work because nobody is there to take care of their kids. They don't want to work, they want you and I to support them and their kids.

That's such nonsense. They are working, just not enough to suit you. So you offer them more government assistance to get them to prove that they want to work more and spend less time with their children?

By the way, those numbers on out-of-wedlock birth rates can be misleading. Often just because they aren't married, does not mean that a child is not being raised by two parents, sometimes even living together without the benefit of marriage.

Pretty unconvincing since many of those people live in lower income and higher crime areas.

We have our share of those over here. When I used to listen to my police scanner (before they went digital) I took note that most of our police calls were about kids; many times from the mother. In fact it got so bad that our city had to create a new law stating the home owner will get charged for more than three police calls to a residence per year.

These single mothers can't control their kids when they hit the teen years, so our police were acting as surrogate fathers, and they just didn't have the time.

Back when I grew up and most families were two-parent, the cops seldom came out for kids because the parents controlled the kids. The parents watched those kids, the parents made sure they were home early enough to do their homework, kids didn't get into trouble with the law nearly as much.

Are there parents who live together while not being married? I'm sure there are, especially those women who are getting government goodies.

 

[Markle]

I don't want workers paid more because it would "feel good." I want those who are willing and able to work to be fairly compensated

Yeah, you do want workers paid more so you feel better. You certainly can't make the case for the employee earning more than their value to the employer. Workers are paid what they are worth to the employer.

You're thinking of local governments and maybe that's who employs you. Local governments figure out their budget, then they divide that by the taxable value of the property on their tax rolls and PRESTO, that's the millage rate for their community.

To run a successful business, the owner has to make economic sense, NOT Progressive sense.