The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense

[ChrisL]

From link above . . . .

Detroit declared Chapter 9 bankruptcy July 17, making it the largest city in American history to enter the municipal bankruptcy process.

A local judge ruled that filing unconstitutional July 19, but, as the city sorts out its next move, here are 10 key facts about the causes of Detroit's financial mess.

1. The population has collapsed in the past six decades.

Detroit was America's fourth-largest city in 1950, when it had 1.8 million people. In the 2010 census, the city had fewer than 702,000 residents -- an astonishing decline of 60 percent in 60 years.

Yes, fewer people means a smaller tax base, but the real problem is the city's government did not shrink along with the population -- more on that in a bit.

2. Detroit has the highest unemployment rate of any major city in the nation.


This is both a cause and an effect of the population situation. Detroit is caught in a vicious cycle. There are few jobs, so people leave to find work elsewhere. Meanwhile, the high cost of the city's government (more on that in a second) drives employers away and makes other less willing to relocate there. That means fewer jobs, which further erodes the tax base and causes more people to leave the city.

3. Detroit has $18 billion - yes, billion -- in general-obligation debt.

That's a lot more than some of the other high-profile municipal bankruptcy cases in recent years. When Central Falls, R.I., declared bankruptcy in 2011, it had only about $80 million in debt. Jefferson County, Ala., had about $4 billion in debt when it declared Chapter 9 bankruptcy that same year.

"Detroit has been working its way to a level of insolvency for decades. We cannot continue to carry this level of debt," Kevyn Orr, the city's state-appointed emergency manager, tweeted on July 17.

4. A lot of that debt is the result of public employee pensions.

According to Moody's, Detroit has about $3 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. But Orr says those numbers are understated. And it didn't take long for the pension funds to sue the city in an attempt to stop the bankruptcy proceedings.

5. Why is the city buried in pension costs? Because it has too many public workers.

Though Detroit's population has caved in the past several decades, the public sector just keeps on growing. In 2011, the city had more than 12,000 employees -- more than any other comparably sized city in the country, according to an analysis from The Detroit News.

That works out to one public employee for every 55 residents of the city. By comparison, nearby (and financially much better-off) Indianapolis has one city worker for every 115 residents.

6. And the guys running the pension funds aren't exactly helping.

In April, Reuters reported that four of the men charged with running the city's broke pension funds were on an all-expenses-paid trip to Hawaii for a conference. The final tab was $22,000.

The heads of the pension funds said the trip was for work, not play. But Orr's spokesman said they shouldn't have gone, anyway.

"It especially doesn't look good when you have city employees, police, firefighters having taken pay cuts," said Bill Nowling, spokesman for Orr. "Middle-class, blue-collar workers, their dream vacation when they retire may be a two-week trip to Hawaii -- they don't associate Hawaii with a place you go to work."

7. But they are hardly the only corrupt public employees in town.

Former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a Democrat, was convicted in March on 24 federal felony offenses, including mail fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, racketeering and extortion. Prosecutors said he doled out jobs to friends and family, wasted city tax dollars on fraudulent contracts and pocketed more than $1 million in illegal kickbacks.

He previously had pleaded guilty to charges of obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation in 2008.

8. Basic city services are nonexistent.

In his letter authorizing the city to enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, pointed to some amazing statistics.

"Only a third of the city's ambulances were in service in the first quarter of 2013. Similarly, approximately 40 percent of the city's street lights were not functioning in that quarter, and the backlog of complaints is more than 3,300 long," he wrote.

9. Crime is up and the police have no way to respond.

While much of the city's financial trouble is due to the public pension it must pay to retired teachers, city employees, cops and firefighters, that leaves little money on the table to pay actual cops to keep actual people safe in Detroit.

The average response time for an emergency call was 58 minutes, according to Snyder's letter, compared to a national average of 11 minutes.And only 8.7 percent of crimes in the city are solved, compared to a statewide average of 30.5 percent in Michigan.

10. There are 78,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit.

This is a result of all of the above. Fewer people, fewer jobs, less economic activity and tons of crime have created a city-sized collection of abandoned buildings. We only had room for a few photographs here, but Snyder says there are 78,000 such structures in Detroit.

Snyder described the bankruptcy filing as a low point in the city's long history of decline.

"I think it will also be a foundation of the city's future," he said. "With this decision, we begin to provide a foundation to rebuild and grow Detroit."


They've got a long way to go.

Eric Boehm is a reporter for Watchdog.org, which is affiliated with the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

 

[danielpalos]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

That may be true depending on what you consider poverty. For instance, our poor live in larger homes with more amenities than your average working European. Our poor have big screen televisions, free healthcare that many working can't get, homes in the suburbs, free food, and even a free cell phone with 250 anytime/ anywhere minutes.

First of all, why do you assume poor people in Western Europe don’t have big screen TVs? Second of all, a TV is a one time expense. God forbid poor people entertain themselves!

And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.

Also, not everyone in poverty qualifies for food stamps. If you have a household with a single person living in it, those people rarely qualify. Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

I didn't say anything about poor people in Europe. What I said is that working Europeans live less of comfortable life than our poor.

People in poverty here (on average) have several television sets, AC, microwave ovens and a car. That's what we consider poverty in the US.

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn | Breitbart

https://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

Means testing is the most expensive option.

In 2011, means-tested federal welfare spending was government’s largest budget item. Federal spending on the 83 programs reached $745.84 billion, a number greater than spending on Social Security, Medicare, non-war defense, among others. When combined with state spending on federal assistance programs, the total spend reached approximately $1.03 trillion.

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, would reduce that cost to the extent means testing is not a requirement.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican solution to poverty is the old proverb.......Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what happens when there are no more fish in the pond?

Republicans just say......not my problem

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

And when we do, they will never gain an interest to fish.

Hence the dilemma.
We can look at communities like Detroit and Cleveland
Those ponds used to be full of fish. People would come from around the country to fish in those ponds and they lived quite well

But sadly, those ponds dried up and the fish were gone
People were left with the ability to fish but there were few fish to be caught

I don't know about Detroit, but I've lived here my entire life. As a local truck driver, I see help wanted signs everywhere. There are still plenty of fish, just perhaps not the same quality.

My employer has a hell of a time trying to find a replacement for a retiring worker or one that switched jobs. Sometimes it takes him several weeks to find replacements, and we are a very small family owned operation.

Many times our customers will ask us if we know anybody looking for a job, or looking to switch jobs. The fish are jumping out of the water trying to get into the boat.

Truck driving is a skilled position
Many of the people left behind were low skilled workers. Loading trucks, moving stock, simple menial tasks

Skilled workers did OK when the jobs left, unskilled workers were not able to sell their skills elsewhere

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

And when we do, they will never gain an interest to fish.

Hence the dilemma.
We can look at communities like Detroit and Cleveland
Those ponds used to be full of fish. People would come from around the country to fish in those ponds and they lived quite well

But sadly, those ponds dried up and the fish were gone
People were left with the ability to fish but there were few fish to be caught

I don't know about Detroit, but I've lived here my entire life. As a local truck driver, I see help wanted signs everywhere. There are still plenty of fish, just perhaps not the same quality.

My employer has a hell of a time trying to find a replacement for a retiring worker or one that switched jobs. Sometimes it takes him several weeks to find replacements, and we are a very small family owned operation.

Many times our customers will ask us if we know anybody looking for a job, or looking to switch jobs. The fish are jumping out of the water trying to get into the boat.

Truck driving is a skilled position
Many of the people left behind were low skilled workers. Loading trucks, moving stock, simple menial tasks

Skilled workers did OK when the jobs left, unskilled workers were not able to sell their skills elsewhere

And it's a perfect example too. We have tens of thousands of jobs that our industry can't find drivers for. Some are so desperate they are even willing to train you, get you licensed, and pay you while you learn. Your only repayment to them is to sign a contract for one or two years work. After that, the world is yours and you ever have to worry about being unemployed again unless you want to or become ill. You can work anywhere you want, live anywhere in the country you want, and make a pretty good living at the same time.

 

[ChrisL]

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

And when we do, they will never gain an interest to fish.

Hence the dilemma.
We can look at communities like Detroit and Cleveland
Those ponds used to be full of fish. People would come from around the country to fish in those ponds and they lived quite well

But sadly, those ponds dried up and the fish were gone
People were left with the ability to fish but there were few fish to be caught

I don't know about Detroit, but I've lived here my entire life. As a local truck driver, I see help wanted signs everywhere. There are still plenty of fish, just perhaps not the same quality.

My employer has a hell of a time trying to find a replacement for a retiring worker or one that switched jobs. Sometimes it takes him several weeks to find replacements, and we are a very small family owned operation.

Many times our customers will ask us if we know anybody looking for a job, or looking to switch jobs. The fish are jumping out of the water trying to get into the boat.

Truck driving is a skilled position
Many of the people left behind were low skilled workers. Loading trucks, moving stock, simple menial tasks

Skilled workers did OK when the jobs left, unskilled workers were not able to sell their skills elsewhere

And it's a perfect example too. We have tens of thousands of jobs that our industry can't find drivers for. Some are so desperate they are even willing to train you, get you licensed, and pay you while you learn. Your only repayment to them is to sign a contract for one or two years work. After that, the world is yours and you ever have to worry about being unemployed again unless you want to or become ill. You can work anywhere you want, live anywhere in the country you want, and make a pretty good living at the same time.

Yeah but too many people probably have bad driving records!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

Well Marxism has yet to work because of greed and sloth, so what else will you try?

Fair wage?

What you believe is a fair wage might be too much in other parts of the country because of the difference in cost of living.

What a Nurse make in California is going to be higher than in Southern Illinois because of the difference of cost of living and taxes.

Now I know you prefer to bring America to the California way of living with high wages, high taxes and high cost of living but not everyone want to be like you and pretend you are making more while living with less.

Also entry level jobs are starter jobs and you should never view them as your life goal to stay there and live off the low wage.

Also you should work those jobs while also building your own business but you are the type that prefer to punch the clock, do very little work and demand the pay of a King.

Finally, there will be poor no matter what including in Marxism and to believe there will not be, well I have read many threads of yours and you are a the typical type that believe your form of Socialism will end all the ills of the world!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The Republican ‘solution’ to most everything doesn’t make any sense.

And Republicans have no desire to end poverty; conservative economic dogma maintains that one is poor as a consequence of his own failings, poor decisions, and an inability to compete and be successful in a capitalist system – in essence Social Darwinism.

For conservatives the poor have only themselves to blame and deserve neither assistance nor a ‘solution.’

And yet every single time it's tried across the entire world, it works. China is proof that Capitalism works. India is proof Capitalism works.

And the left-wing government socialist approach has failed every single time. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course the USSR. All hell-holes of misery and suffering, brought on by the same ideology that Democrats routinely support.

Capitalism works because of government passing laws in it's favor and bailing it out when it frequently gets in trouble. Thousands of capitalist lobbyists in D.C. at any given time lining up for government favors. Let's get rid of medicaid and food stamps for kids too so they don't become dependent on government like....the capitalists.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

And when we do, they will never gain an interest to fish.

Hence the dilemma.
We can look at communities like Detroit and Cleveland
Those ponds used to be full of fish. People would come from around the country to fish in those ponds and they lived quite well

But sadly, those ponds dried up and the fish were gone
People were left with the ability to fish but there were few fish to be caught

I don't know about Detroit, but I've lived here my entire life. As a local truck driver, I see help wanted signs everywhere. There are still plenty of fish, just perhaps not the same quality.

My employer has a hell of a time trying to find a replacement for a retiring worker or one that switched jobs. Sometimes it takes him several weeks to find replacements, and we are a very small family owned operation.

Many times our customers will ask us if we know anybody looking for a job, or looking to switch jobs. The fish are jumping out of the water trying to get into the boat.

Truck driving is a skilled position
Many of the people left behind were low skilled workers. Loading trucks, moving stock, simple menial tasks

Skilled workers did OK when the jobs left, unskilled workers were not able to sell their skills elsewhere

And it's a perfect example too. We have tens of thousands of jobs that our industry can't find drivers for. Some are so desperate they are even willing to train you, get you licensed, and pay you while you learn. Your only repayment to them is to sign a contract for one or two years work. After that, the world is yours and you ever have to worry about being unemployed again unless you want to or become ill. You can work anywhere you want, live anywhere in the country you want, and make a pretty good living at the same time.

Why not automate industries that have a hard time finding labor?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The Republican ‘solution’ to most everything doesn’t make any sense.

And Republicans have no desire to end poverty; conservative economic dogma maintains that one is poor as a consequence of his own failings, poor decisions, and an inability to compete and be successful in a capitalist system – in essence Social Darwinism.

For conservatives the poor have only themselves to blame and deserve neither assistance nor a ‘solution.’

And yet every single time it's tried across the entire world, it works. China is proof that Capitalism works. India is proof Capitalism works.

And the left-wing government socialist approach has failed every single time. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course the USSR. All hell-holes of misery and suffering, brought on by the same ideology that Democrats routinely support.

Capitalism works because of government passing laws in it's favor and bailing it out when it frequently gets in trouble. Thousands of capitalist lobbyists in D.C. at any given time lining up for government favors. Let's get rid of medicaid and food stamps for kids too so they don't become dependent on government like....the capitalists.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Damn that leftist Reagan..

What's confusing you is the fact that Republicans are also statists.

 

[danielpalos]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

Well Marxism has yet to work because of greed and sloth, so what else will you try?

Fair wage?

What you believe is a fair wage might be too much in other parts of the country because of the difference in cost of living.

What a Nurse make in California is going to be higher than in Southern Illinois because of the difference of cost of living and taxes.

Now I know you prefer to bring America to the California way of living with high wages, high taxes and high cost of living but not everyone want to be like you and pretend you are making more while living with less.

Also entry level jobs are starter jobs and you should never view them as your life goal to stay there and live off the low wage.

Also you should work those jobs while also building your own business but you are the type that prefer to punch the clock, do very little work and demand the pay of a King.

Finally, there will be poor no matter what including in Marxism and to believe there will not be, well I have read many threads of yours and you are a the typical type that believe your form of Socialism will end all the ills of the world!

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed.

we could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying our social services.

Means testing is expensive. Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in our at-will employment States, is much less expensive and generates a greater return on that investment in the general welfare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

What entry level jobs are the backbone of our economy?

I don't advocate the idea in B.F. Skinner's Novel, Walden Two, a Utopian Novel. What I have believe, I've discussed many times, and that is a rather simple solution.

Adding grades 13 and 14 to the traditional high school curriculum for those who want jobs and are not willing or able to attend another four years, and getting a costly degree.

I'm going to start a thread with my ideas on this extension of education, preparing those who choose to earn a minimum wage while learning how to follow the rules an employer will expect, and to learn about the various entry level jobs, and experience those as part of work-study during the final latter part of the curriculum.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican ‘solution’ to most everything doesn’t make any sense.

And Republicans have no desire to end poverty; conservative economic dogma maintains that one is poor as a consequence of his own failings, poor decisions, and an inability to compete and be successful in a capitalist system – in essence Social Darwinism.

For conservatives the poor have only themselves to blame and deserve neither assistance nor a ‘solution.’

And yet every single time it's tried across the entire world, it works. China is proof that Capitalism works. India is proof Capitalism works.

And the left-wing government socialist approach has failed every single time. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course the USSR. All hell-holes of misery and suffering, brought on by the same ideology that Democrats routinely support.

Capitalism works because of government passing laws in it's favor and bailing it out when it frequently gets in trouble. Thousands of capitalist lobbyists in D.C. at any given time lining up for government favors. Let's get rid of medicaid and food stamps for kids too so they don't become dependent on government like....the capitalists.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

 

[danielpalos]

And yet every single time it's tried across the entire world, it works. China is proof that Capitalism works. India is proof Capitalism works.

And the left-wing government socialist approach has failed every single time. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course the USSR. All hell-holes of misery and suffering, brought on by the same ideology that Democrats routinely support.

Capitalism works because of government passing laws in it's favor and bailing it out when it frequently gets in trouble. Thousands of capitalist lobbyists in D.C. at any given time lining up for government favors. Let's get rid of medicaid and food stamps for kids too so they don't become dependent on government like....the capitalists.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Most of the third world, has truer forms of capitalism.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

1:Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? 2:Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

3:So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

1. For starters, they wont. If they did, it would reduce the value of education, and the least skilled of the educated labor would end up working the aforementioned entry level jobs, due to oversupply reducing demand.
2. That's not dense, as it's a legitimate answer. Most entry level jobs can be filled by Teenagers, whether they're just coming out of college and looking for a career, or going through college, or not intending to go to college in the first place, in which case they'd be above the poverty line if they simply lived within their means.
3. It would be solved entirely if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Federal Aid is not only increasing the number of unemployed, but also increasing the prices of college, as they see it as an opportunity to earn more money, due to pretty much anyone being capable of applying for it. Likewise, businesses are able to pay their employees less, due to the government getting involved. As an example, Walmart encourages employees to seek food stamps. Even further beyond that, the government's regulations prevent the economy from operating optimally, as not a single regulations doesn't make it harder for a business to operate, and other regulations make it impossible for competition to enter the market, said competition otherwise would have created not only a more competitive job market, but also a more competitive product market.

While I'm not a Republican, I hope my clear and concise response helped you through your confusion.

1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.

2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.

3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.

Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.

1. Even if they did, the point can't be reached that everyone will be in upper level jobs. Teenagers and College Students will always exist. That said, your statement that hard work doesn't mean anything is also false, as the hardest working are the ones selected for the upper level jobs, barring affirmative action of course. That said, barring the government's red tape preventing the creation of new businesses, the said skilled labor can also create their own business, or find an expanding job market.
2. If it's unskilled labor and there's no age restriction, then anyone old enough for a job is old enough for THAT job. Even if that wasn't the case, the turnover rate at unskilled jobs is massive, people are only willing to drive a limited range, giving them limited employment pools, and the army is always an option.
3. Because, by default, regulations restrict business' actions, thereby preventing them from functioning optimally. That is literally the point of regulations in the first place. Not a single regulations helps businesses function better, and you can not cite a single example otherwise. Regulations are not insignificant, even the smallest regulation damages business functions and forces them to change the way they operate. At BEST a regulation FORCES the creation of a new business that there was never a demand for, and it gets propped up by the government, creating non-self-sustaining jobs. At WORST, said regulations force the creation of a monopoly, which tends to be the case, as no monopoly has EVER been created without government assistance, and are otherwise impossible, due to the fact that a monopoly can only otherwise exist by controlling ALL resources associated with that business.

As a matter of fact ALL businesses attempt to maximize profit, and that's not the ugly side, it's the beautiful side. Without government involvement, businesses will naturally pay their employees what is needed, as they would otherwise find another business to work for, and their previous boss would be forced to either shut down, or start paying a wage people are willing to work for. Government involvement is what makes it possible for a business to pay less, either by regulating their competition into oblivion or by creating Federal Aid, which allows a person to make a living wage off of less. Either option, again, requires government involvement.

Furthermore, I do not watch Fox News, they're owned by the same people as the DNC Controlled news sources, preventing any of them from being reliable. That said, YOU need to stop looking to the economically illiterate for YOUR information. There's a reason Socialism has never succeeded, and continuing to push it is the literal definition of insanity.

1) Um no teens and college kids aren’t nearly enough to carry the entire market of low wage jobs. Again, many of them could only work seasonally anyway. And no, government red tape has an insignificant effect on business growth. The BLS data proves this.
2) The turnover rate is high because these jobs are shit: low pay and shitty benefits for a job that isn’t worth the effort. Oh and these millions of poor people joining the army doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.
3) Successful businesses launch already prepared for regulation. While some may be misguided, the point of them is to protect the consumers or the population at large.
4) See here’s what you’re not getting: there is a feduciary responsibility to benefit shareholders as much as possible. How, in part, is this done? By attempting to spend as little as legally possible on the labor force. This means a company can pay their employees minimum wage and many of them do. This minimum wage puts people in the red as far as the cost of living. All of this has NOTHING to do with government red tape except for the fact these workers are saved from getting paid less than the national minimum wage of $7.25 or the state minimum wage which at most is $9.00 per hour.

And again, you fail to accept the actual definition of socialism. See while you might want to point to Venezuela as proof it doesn’t work, you would have to ignore the socialist Nordic countries who have better quality of life for their citizens and a higher median wage after taxes than we do. Oh and a lower poverty rate.

1. Actually, yes they are, and some retired people go back to providing unskilled labor for extra pocket change. A citation is needed for the claim that they can only work seasonally, as last I checked, college kids need money for more than just a season, especially if they're living on their own, and seasonal jobs are only for extra money when not taking classes. Furthermore, Low-income entrepreneurs suffer most when government makes it harder to start a business no, they are not, and this is ignoring the massive cost a business has to pay to insure all of their employees. Government red tape is FAR from insignificant, and in fact, is becoming the first and last reason as to why businesses are starting more slowly. It bothers me that the left never stops to wonder why the big cooporations are the ones asking for regulations and taxes.
2. Actually, poor people joining the army makes perfect sense, as the army will pay for their education after they've done their time, and the only requirement is that they're physically able. Actually, the turnover rate is high because other people around my age don't want to work, they simply don't follow the rules and are incredibly lazy. Most of them don't even show up for orientation.
3. Only those who have already made enough money, and as noted in my link above, it's very difficult to get a list of rules that have to be met before launching. People in the middle ad lower class find it nearly impossible due to all the costs and regulations, and again, that's ignoring the massive cost to insuring employees. All of this is also assuming that you haven't chosen a business that the government has already split into area monopolies with regulations.
4. That must be why only 3% of employees across America are paid minimum wage. Maybe it's something you're not getting, not me. If businesses only paid their employees the bare minimum, they'd lose their skilled labor to other businesses, and their service and products would be poorly reviewed, losing them customers that they didn't need to lose otherwise. Businesses can't cut corners unless mommy government bails them out, otherwise they're at the mercy of their competition and consumers. Employees aren't saved by the government, the government only makes life harder. Wage laws, in fact, only increase the cost of living, California being a shining example of this, with the highest cost of living in the entire US. Furthermore, Puerto Rico, which is even more Left than California, managed to double their cost of living.

Socialism's name came from Social Control, which is what defines the model. The one not getting it is the self-professed Socialist.

Actually, I can point to an entire list of Socialist failures.:
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

Denmark is not Socialist, their businesses are required to report to the government, and while their economy is sub-optimal, it still isn't Socialist. Although, their taxes are Socialist level, at 59%. Something to be expected of a Nation that punishes success and rewards failure. Their tax rate also increases every year.

Finland is is more Socialist than the other Nordic Countries, but still not really their, however like Denmark, their massive Tax Rate does scream Socialist, at about 51%. Again, typical of a place that punishes success and rewards failure.

Tax rate in Norway is also massive, at 41%, I'm seeing a trend here, it's like Socialist Countries have a massive tax rate, so that the people who still work can carry those who don't. These places aren't even fully Socialist, I can certainly see why fully Socialist countries collapsed.

44% in Greenland, still extremely high. 56% in Sweden. I wonder how the 'quality of life' can be supposedly better in a place where half of their income is stolen. Besides that, Quality of Life hardly measures a place's economy, our poor already has it REALLY good. As far as I can see, I don't really think that your life should be any better if you're choosing not to work, otherwise there's no incentive to get a job, especially since the trade-off is losing half of your income when you ARE working. It looks to me like there's more incentive to never get a job. On the same train of thought, lower poverty rate? I suppose it would make sense if your jobless are stealing so much money from those who do have jobs. Not much of a measuring tool.

You can likely only point to one or two 'successes' which are either sub-optimal capitalist, or either not Socialist, or not Successful.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And yet every single time it's tried across the entire world, it works. China is proof that Capitalism works. India is proof Capitalism works.

And the left-wing government socialist approach has failed every single time. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course the USSR. All hell-holes of misery and suffering, brought on by the same ideology that Democrats routinely support.

Capitalism works because of government passing laws in it's favor and bailing it out when it frequently gets in trouble. Thousands of capitalist lobbyists in D.C. at any given time lining up for government favors. Let's get rid of medicaid and food stamps for kids too so they don't become dependent on government like....the capitalists.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

 

[rightwinger]

Capitalism works because of government passing laws in it's favor and bailing it out when it frequently gets in trouble. Thousands of capitalist lobbyists in D.C. at any given time lining up for government favors. Let's get rid of medicaid and food stamps for kids too so they don't become dependent on government like....the capitalists.

Lobbying’s top 50: Who’s spending big

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

 

[Harry Dresden]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

LBJ's real war wasn't on poverty, it was on the black male head of household. He made good on his pledge to "have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" by replacing the black father with a government check. He was one of the most evil Progressive scumbags right up there with Stalin, Mao, Hitler and FDR

Leave it to you, a racist, to make it about race. But it did give you a chance to mention your heroes:
Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Don't know why you threw FDR in there. FDR saved America from your heroes. But don't worry, Trump is doing everything he can to make Putin America's real leader. For you, that should be comforting.

the poster who mentions skin color even more than tank does,calling someone a racist.....now that is hilarious....

You're right. He does bring up skin color a lot.

But Republicans are 90% white. They spend most of their time in the White GOP bubble so skin color isn't something they usually notice. Unless a black kid is shot. Then they send the shooter money. Like with Zimmerman.

well at least you admit you are a racist yourself....but after what you called frank,dont you feel like a hypocrite?....

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers, "blaming the Poor for their poor lifestyle choices, while actually poor", isn't working.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Entry level jobs means you get food stamps.

No,entry level jobs mean you get room mates.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

""""" So trumpeters, where is the infrastructure that our country was promised going to come from? Trumpet is busy stealing all the funds for a worthless wall, a war he is desperately trying to start in order to save his own ass, and in the process, nothing is being returned to the country. How does it feel to be conned?"""""

Nothings being returned?
How about record employment,lower taxes,an erupting stock market.
If you dont benefit from those things you must be living under an overpass.