SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

[danielpalos]

I would include fruits and vegetables in there as well.

Lots of those foods are expensive. Bananas and potatoes and onions would be ok.

Seems more like an education problem. What if nutrition and home economics, home schooling qualifies for continuing education and benefits purposes?

 

[strollingbones]

this would help to end so called food deserts...where the only food readily available is from fast food stores ....i would prefer mail order giving people a chance to order healthier foods, again i would prefer a give away program for staples...the money used to oversee these programs is wasted funding and give aways would prevent the high admins. costs

 

[danielpalos]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

 

[Dragonlady]

"The actual work"? So basically, you're some unskilled dipwad who's never been allowed anywhere near the administrative offices of any of your employers, and thinks people who wear suits to work get paid to sit around with their feet up on the desk, smoking cigars.

Thanks for sharing. Now sit down and shut up while the educated adults have a serious conversation.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

this would help to end so called food deserts...where the only food readily available is from fast food stores ...

Food deserts is more fake news from the liberal press. All these inner city blacks and illegals are within a few miles of a supermarket.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

HAHAHA. Is that a joke? Blacks and illegals (indian hispanics) can't read or count or even tell time. And they can't plan ahead. They're not gonna stick with a budget, you fool.

 

[BlueGin]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

People on snap aren't required to budget. The government just hands them more money.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

It really is insane. It would be hard to justify paying execs even 5 times what the workers get let alone 200-300 times. But i don't know what can be done about it.

 

[danielpalos]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

HAHAHA. Is that a joke? Blacks and illegals (indian hispanics) can't read or count or even tell time. And they can't plan ahead. They're not gonna stick with a budget, you fool.

funny. have a real argument or, are you going to "joke your way" to the "intellectual bank".

 

[danielpalos]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

People on snap aren't required to budget. The government just hands them more money.

continuing education makes more sense than requiring a work ethic, even in Right to Work States.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"The actual work"? So basically, you're some unskilled dipwad who's never been allowed anywhere near the administrative offices of any of your employers, and thinks people who wear suits to work get paid to sit around with their feet up on the desk, smoking cigars.

Thanks for sharing. Now sit down and shut up while the educated adults have a serious conversation.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this would help to end so called food deserts...where the only food readily available is from fast food stores ....i would prefer mail order giving people a chance to order healthier foods, again i would prefer a give away program for staples...the money used to oversee these programs is wasted funding and give aways would prevent the high admins. costs

While I agree that administration and oversight is a problem - and one of the problems the EBT cards was meant to address, btw - I have to point out that "giveaways" require basically the same administration and oversight that money programs do. More, in fact, since you can't give people food electronically on a debit-type card.

It would actually be nice if EBT worked for mail order, at least from some sites, I think. I know Tucson has a thing called Market On The Move, where they have a farmers' market at a different location every Saturday in rotation, and they sell something like 30 lbs of produce for $10, and they arranged to be able to accept EBT cards. I understand that it's been wildly popular and helpful in that community. I'm all in favor of outside-the-box thinking and solutions that actually work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

this would help to end so called food deserts...where the only food readily available is from fast food stores ....i would prefer mail order giving people a chance to order healthier foods, again i would prefer a give away program for staples...the money used to oversee these programs is wasted funding and give aways would prevent the high admins. costs

While I agree that administration and oversight is a problem - and one of the problems the EBT cards was meant to address, btw - I have to point out that "giveaways" require basically the same administration and oversight that money programs do. More, in fact, since you can't give people food electronically on a debit-type card.

It would actually be nice if EBT worked for mail order, at least from some sites, I think. I know Tucson has a thing called Market On The Move, where they have a farmers' market at a different location every Saturday in rotation, and they sell something like 30 lbs of produce for $10, and they arranged to be able to accept EBT cards. I understand that it's been wildly popular and helpful in that community. I'm all in favor of outside-the-box thinking and solutions that actually work.

There would be a problem with that. You can't even get these people to come out and vote in one day, I don't know how you would get them to a vendor in one day.

 

[danielpalos]

"The actual work"? So basically, you're some unskilled dipwad who's never been allowed anywhere near the administrative offices of any of your employers, and thinks people who wear suits to work get paid to sit around with their feet up on the desk, smoking cigars.

Thanks for sharing. Now sit down and shut up while the educated adults have a serious conversation.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

it has everything to do with public policy and micromanaging our tax codes.

 

[Dragonlady]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

And for a maximum of 3 months a year....

 

[Dragonlady]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Well.......that may be, but most people would look at the market for their investment. The point I'm making is that when it comes to a company (and what they pay their employees) it all boils down to attracting investors. Even if they have a ton of money and could pay their employees more, that brings down the returns for those investors and it's a less attractive investment.

We created this monster that we now have no control over. We want cheap products, we want good paying jobs, and we want our retirement account in the market to grow as aggressively as possible. You can't have it all. And we collectively chose cheap products and high market growth.

 

[BlueGin]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

People on snap aren't required to budget. The government just hands them more money.

continuing education makes more sense than requiring a work ethic, even in Right to Work States.

That makes no sense. BTW do they pay you for every left wing buzz word you type?