CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[GaryDog]

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

I see, you think they spend it all by choice?

Christ, there are a lot of silver-spoon-up-the-ass people here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't want to discuss your brother specifically. I want only to say, that I suspect, but don't know, that a lot of folks who earn enough not to have to do so, yet prioritize getting that new car, or that vacation, or that nicer home, or "whatever" over saving up a year's salary. I see it all the time. Countless are newly hired consultants starting their professional lives with $80K/year jobs who shortly after starting hustle out and buy a pricey car and move into a trendy/swanky part of town.

Yeah, he is my brother-in-law, my only actual brother has passed away.

But yeah, it seems that budgets are a gas, and people allow their budget to expand to fill the container of their income.

My BIL thought he had enough saved up, which is more than most folks do, and he was pulling down around $250k annual before the bottom fell out. He would never have believed what finally happened to him in 2009, IIRC. He is employed today, though and struggling to save and provide for his child. He is a good person at heart and did not deserve the misfortune that befell him.

But what are the goals of economic policy in our democratic Republic if it is not to provide a healthy economy so people can get jobs and provide for their needs?

It is the COMMON GOOD that our Constitution was written for, not the Wilshire 5000.

 

[Andylusion]

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Yeah, and they will adapt. I haven't seen one yet adapt by cutting profit. They usually cut people.

I was working McDonald's in the 1990s, when they increased the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.25.

First thing they did was lay off 3 part time employees, and hire one full time employee. Why? Full time employees are automatically paid more than part time. When the minimum wage went up, both were paid the same, so they fired the part time people and replaced them with one full time person.

Now you might ask how one person can do the work of three. The answer is they didn't. We, the rest of the crew, had to work harder and take up more duties, to make up for fewer workers.

The second thing McDonald's did, was cut portion sizes. Customer tend to freak out if you jack up prices really fast. So instead, they cut down portion sizes. The large coke, wasn't as large. The large fry, wasn't as large. The beef patties got thinner. Not smaller around, but not as thick.

So did McDonald's make do with smaller profit? Of course not. No company does.

Instead they made the employees do with more work, and the customers do with smaller portion sizes (which is a price increase).

This is how it works Tommy. You can't magically force companies to "make do" with lower profits. All you can do, is force employees to work more, or customers to pay more.

A supine work force will put up with anything. Portion sizes are too big anyway. Obesity will reduce so that is good. Essentially profits will come under pressure. They always do when something like this happens. I have managed several businesses through this type of thin and at the end of the day the owners accept a lower profit. They still aint starving.

Tommy, it hasn't happened. It never has. Take Hostess for example. Did the non-supine work for put pressure on profits? Nope. They were laid off the employees, and the company closed, and when they reopened the company, all the former employees were prevented from applying. No Union anymore.

Remarkably, the employees got paid whatever the company would pay again.

That's how it always works. Same as it has around the world, and throughout history. It will never work any other way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

No, actually, they are poor and that prevents them from saving much. What little they do manage to accumulate is gone with the first bad event that comes; the car breaks down, the AC goes out, the basement floods, etc.

But you probably think that they are the cause of all these problems of theirs?

 

[Wyatt earp]

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

I see, you think they spend it all by choice?

Christ, there are a lot of silver-spoon-up-the-ass people here.

Seriously dude? If you give a poor person a dollar more an hour instead of him drinking natural lights he will drink bud lights...

Instead of him buying a 19inch t.v. he will buy a 50 inch...you see the pattern here?


How anyone can save 20% more money


1. Track your spending.
When I meet with clients the first thing I ask is "How much do you think you spend each month on average?" I've noticed that over 95% of the people I meet with underestimate their spending by 25% or more. This is dangerous for a couple of reasons.

First, if you don't know what you spend on average, it will be very difficult to build a plan that mandates how much you really can save and how much you'll spend when you retire.

What I ask people to do is simply track their spending without necessarily cutting back. Once people actually keep tabs on where the money goes, they spend more mindfully. That's right. Just by watching what you spend the magic will happen and you'll actually spend less. Don't believe me? Why not give it a try yourself?


2. Eliminate high cost debt.

Just because you aren't able to pay off all your old debts doesn't mean you are stuck with enormously expensive interest costs. Consider refinancing your debt with lower cost options and use the savings to get out of debt that much sooner. Every dollar you save in interest cost is better than a dollar earned. That's because you don't really have to do anything in order to achieve these savings.
.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Take Hostess for example. Did the non-supine work for put pressure on profits? Nope. They were laid off the employees, and the company closed, and when they reopened the company, all the former employees were prevented from applying. No Union anymore.

Remarkably, the employees got paid whatever the company would pay again.

That's how it always works. Same as it has around the world, and throughout history. It will never work any other way.

It has worked other ways, but it is true it will never work another way as long as multinational corporations own our political system as they do now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seriously dude? If you give a poor person a dollar more an hour instead of him drinking natural lights he will drink bud lights...

Instead of him buying a 19inch t.v. he will buy a 50 inch...you see the pattern here?

Those are not the poor Tony is referring to, and why do you expect the poor to not ever get 50 inch TVs anyway?

Good grief, they are poor, not dead.

How anyone can save 20% more money

1. Track your spending.
When I meet with clients the first thing I ask is "How much do you think you spend each month on average?" I've noticed that over 95% of the people I meet with underestimate their spending by 25% or more. This is dangerous for a couple of reasons.

First, if you don't know what you spend on average, it will be very difficult to build a plan that mandates how much you really can save and how much you'll spend when you retire.

What I ask people to do is simply track their spending without necessarily cutting back. Once people actually keep tabs on where the money goes, they spend more mindfully. That's right. Just by watching what you spend the magic will happen and you'll actually spend less. Don't believe me? Why not give it a try yourself?


2. Eliminate high cost debt.

Just because you aren't able to pay off all your old debts doesn't mean you are stuck with enormously expensive interest costs. Consider refinancing your debt with lower cost options and use the savings to get out of debt that much sooner. Every dollar you save in interest cost is better than a dollar earned. That's because you don't really have to do anything in order to achieve these savings.
.....

Great advice. My wife an I have saved around 13% of our income since graduating college and getting her first job, but prior to that, money was tight. We had a very difficult time saving anything, and we had to pretend the money was not there.

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance. You have to take that money that you do know is there and spend it to get the kid healthy.

There are over-riding factors.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

No, actually, they are poor and that prevents them from saving much. What little they do manage to accumulate is gone with the first bad event that comes; the car breaks down, the AC goes out, the basement floods, etc.

But you probably think that they are the cause of all these problems of theirs?

Why do they need a/c?

Why do they need a car?


Why do they need a cable bill?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

People spend up to their limit. Its human nature. And its easier to do when you are poor.Its not a judgement its just a fact.
What do you find difficult about that ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do they need a/c?

The heat in Texas requires AC. Most of the Souths population would not be living there were it not for readily available AC.

Why do they need a car?

Because modern urban and suburban environments/planning assumes you have a car in the USA. And since we refuse to adequately fund mass transportation, people MUST have cars to get most jobs.

Why do they need a cable bill?

So they dont go insane and devour the fat rich people that they think are robbing them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

People spend up to their limit. Its human nature. And its easier to do when you are poor.Its not a judgement its just a fact.
What do you find difficult about that ?

Wow, you wouldnt be a liberal or anything, would you?

 

[Spare_change]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

If the goal is to become someone's caretaker, then welfare is the answer.

If the goal is to assist people to become self-sufficient contributors to society, then charity is the answer.

However, our government's nanny programs, coupled with secular attacks on Christian ideals, has created two generations of selfish inward focused twits.

Charity is a dying concept ....

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm always confused and skeptical of this idea:

They weren't unmotivated, they were just poor and had nobody to show them what to do and how to do it in order to transform their situations from that of needing to be given food and shelter to that of having the opportunity to provide plenty of those things for not only themselves, but others, as well as pursuing their own "higher level" goals.​

Well, if one has no experience observing it, I suppose I can understand that being so. What can I say? The Bible tells us the story of Doubting Thomas. There's a secular lesson to be learned from that story....I'm not asking you to accept remarks such as mine on blind faith, but I am asking you to explore around a bit for evidence that supports ideas that contradict your own anecdotally obtained/supported views and the extent to which your experiences and observations may be exceptional rather than normative.

I don't take exception with your being skeptical. I take exception with your perceiving that your experiences are emblematic of the predominating extancy lived by most folks, in this case, most welfare recipients/dependents.

What exactly does that mean? Because I don't know anyone that was "shown". My parents never "showed" me nothing. They told me I had to work for what I want, and it was up to me...... to work for what I want.

It means all sorts of things, and I'm not going to sit here and list out (or even try to) every darn thing it can mean. I will offer one example from my mentoring experiences, one that has applied to every single kid I've mentored.

Every one of the kids that I came to mentor was upon first meeting me a poor student in middle school. For everyone of them, the first thing I did was teach them how to study. They'd come home with their homework assignments and I'd ask them to show me how they do their homework. Everyone of them went straight to the homework problem/questions and tried to answer them based on what they could remember from class.

I have had to show each of them that they must read the chapter, the whole doggone thing, and then try to answer the homework questions. That's what I "showed" them that their mothers did not show them and their teachers didn't tell them to do. That one thing boosted every kid's homework grades from mediocre or worse to 98% -100%. That's not the only technique I showed them how to apply; I built upon that foundation as the homework assignments grew fewer in number and more important to just do, eventually getting them to the point where they came to see homework not as the thing the teacher tells them to do but as the thing they must do on their own, no matter what the teacher instructs and assigns, to master the material being taught in the course. I showed them that the main difference between homework and classwork is where you do it and who's participating in the doing of it.

Why did I have to show them that? Because nobody else did and they didn't discern to do it on their own. It's nothing more than what my parents showed me to do, but apparently not all parents tell their kids to approach studying that way, presumably because that's now how they approached it, so they don't know to tell their kids to do.

That's just a guess....I'm not too concerned about why "my kids'" mothers or fathers, or neighbors even -- it doesn't really matter who -- didn't tell their kids that and didn't make sure they do it so they can see the benefits of having done it. What I'm concerned with is obtaining results, namely turning them into top performers in school, once they become my mentorees.

Another thing I make a point of showing "my kids" is what sorts of opportunities there are in the world, what sorts of things they can do with their lives if they do what it takes to achieve them, and showing them what it'll take for them to actually achieve them. You'd be amazed perhaps, but again, without exception, "my kids" (unlike my kids who are my blood kin) have no idea how to set goals, how to identify for themselves what goals are worth setting and which are not, and so on. Also, surprise, their parents don't know how to do that either. They know how to "wish on stars," but have no idea of what it takes to get to one or what they need to do to commence getting there. So that's something else I show them how to do.

As a last example, not one of "my kids" understood how to be neither respectfully assertive nor effective communicators. They thought assertive communication meant yelling and swearing and that's what convinces people of one's sincerity; moreover, the words they'd utter didn't often enough reflect the actual thoughts in their heads. There again, that's how their parents dealt with things/people/situations, so that's what their kids learned too. They needed to be shown there are other ways of approaching matters. They needed to learn that resorting to physical action isn't necessarily the best, the first call recourse to pursue, or only way to punish or dissuade misbehavior or to inspire desired behavior by others. But those are the methods they observed their parents/mothers and neighbors using, so it's how they perceived is how it is with everyone.

And therein lies one of the key things about people: one can understand how a child will infer that its own reality is the same as that experienced by "everyone" else. It takes maturity to realize that may or may not be so. Accordingly, it's critical to get kids, ASAP, into a thinking modality whereby they ask, "Is there a different way, and if so, how is it better and worse than the ways I'm very familiar with? Lemme go find out." One must show people how to do that; telling them will never get them them because of the way gleaned omniscience, presumed omnipresence, and believed infallibility work.

All you have to do, to succeed in life, is work. Honestly. That's it. I know people who started off working for McDonalds, that now have their own store. How do you do that? Well, you apply to work at McDonalds. You work. Consistently. You get up in the morning, go to your job, and do your job.

Is there anyone who doesn't grasp that? Anyone that needs to be shown how to "wake up", and shown how to "go to work", and shown how to "do your job"?

Well, for jobs that require little but a warm body, yes, that's generally enough. For other jobs, that's just the "tip of the iceberg." Indeed, if that's all the client service personnel in my firm do, they'll more often than not be "out counseled" within three years or less.

I never was shown any of that. It was pretty obvious from the start. In fact, I haven't done an interview with a company yet that didn't start off with "This is the job you are expected to do, and this is the shift you are expected to do it. This is the pay you will get if you do the job".

It's been quite a while since I went on a job interview, but I've been the interviewer literally hundreds of times. The question I start with is what would you like to do as a consultant? Truly, I have no desire to hire someone who wants to do things my firm doesn't do or who wants to do something my firm doesn't do and that they can't present a solid case for our doing it and letting them lead the effort of our commencing to offer services in that discipline. I only want to hire folks who have an innate entrepreneurial drive to some useful extent and that the firm can nurture to their satisfaction and the firm's.

As go the specific statement and question you mentioned above:

• The job itself: For certain project-specific hirings, we describe the role in very clear terms. For general hiring, we don't have such precise descriptions because part of the job is "find gaps and fill them with innovative and implementable solutions" and the other part is "do what you're asked to do with regard to your project assignment and with regard to internal firm initiatives." For consultants who are technical, like programmers, sure the description is pretty easy to lay out -- "you'll be programming in C++, Pro-C, PL/SQL, ABAP, etc." For business analysts, not so much.
  
• The shift: There is no shift. The work is task oriented. One does what one must to get the job done very well on time.
• The pay and benefits: This is nearly always negotiable within a reasonable range. Sure, we make an initial offer. Some folks counteroffer, others don't.

You and I both know the types of jobs you described and the professional jobs I described are very different. But how is that relevant for the welfare receiving folks who were the context of our conversation? The relevance is that we were talking about the zeal of folks, specifically welfare recipients, who have their basic needs met ceasing to exist once those needs are met. That's hardly what I have observed in my one-time welfare receiving "kids," those of whom have finished college or grad school and gone on to lead highly productive and remunerative lives. And let's be real; they had food, clothing and shelter when I first met them.

And that is literally all that is required. You show up, work, and do a good job. Eventually you'll get promoted. You move up the ladder, and when you get to managment, they'll ask you if you want to join the McDonald management classes. You become a store manager, and work hard, and eventually they give you your own store.

I'm certain in some businesses one will get promoted eventually. In my firm, get promoted is not assured, but not getting promoted is often an indicator that one won't be in the firm much longer, be it by one's own choice or by the firm's.

How do you explain how an uneducated Egyptian can come to the US, start working as a janitor at a hospital, and end up Director of Build Services making six-figures?

How do you explain a poor Jamacian coming here, opens up a food store, and ends a multi-millionaire CEO?

How do you explain Farrah Gray, at 6 years old, with is single mother who had a heart attack, living in object poverty, starts selling things door to door, and eventually ends up multi-millionaire CEO to Farrah Gray Publishing?

How do these people all magically make it with no one to "show" them how?

Explain? How do these poor, uneducated people, come here and become filthy rich... while born and bred Americans somehow are incompetent with a public education and subsidized college, and need to be "shown" how to work and succeed? Is there some super secret government "show immigrants how to succeed" program that we are denying natural citizens?

I suspect you may find some insights here:

• The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America
  
• Think We're the Most Entrepreneurial Country In the World? Not So Fast
  
• Vox Popoli: The decline of entrepreneurship in America
  
• The Economic Case for Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs | Kauffman.org
  
• The Shocking Stats About Who's Really Starting Companies In America

I'm no sociologist or cultural anthropologist. I don't know why Americans would sooner go to work for someone than go into business for themselves. I can only offer that all the Asian foreign students whom I knew in college and high school spoke of either running their fathers' companies or starting their own company in a complementary field. The Brits and Americans spoke of taking jobs working in large corporations. Some of us, like myself, had a sense of what we wanted to do, but weren't sure whether we'd do it for ourselves or join a company that was already doing it.

I don't know what else to say other than that foreigners seem to know innately that "the thing to do" in America is work for oneself, not for someone else, that is unless perhaps one is on a path to the executive offices of a large company. I can say that teaching "my kids" to have and take an entrepreneurial approach to determining what to do with their lives is yet another thing I found myself needing to show them how to do.

A damned good post there 320.

Hats off to you for posting that and for all the fine work you have done tutoring!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Charity is a dying concept ....

Umm, only in popular culture. As long as people keep growing old, having accidents and getting crippling diseases, we will have charity.

The word 'charity' BTW originally meant 'love'.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

People spend up to their limit. Its human nature. And its easier to do when you are poor.Its not a judgement its just a fact.
What do you find difficult about that ?

Wow, you wouldnt be a liberal or anything, would you?

I dont think so.
The bit you have quoted expresses it better than I have.
Its hard to save when you have a crap car,a house falling to bits and you want your kids to enjoy the things that better off kids do.

The sad thing is that the poor and unemployed have become the whipping boys of society. If we didnt have them everything would be fine. And to underline this the detractors can point to a case where someone is doing ok on benefits as if this is a reason to denigrate a whole class of people.

In reality the welfare bill is dwarfed by the amounts that the big corps salt away in tax avoidance.

Most people want a better life, but some find getting there harder than others do.

I will go further than that. Its actually better for society to treat people well. It creates a kinder,gentler world which benefits all of us.

 

[Spare_change]

People spend up to their limit. Its human nature. And its easier to do when you are poor.Its not a judgement its just a fact.
What do you find difficult about that ?

Wow, you wouldnt be a liberal or anything, would you?

I dont think so.
The bit you have quoted expresses it better than I have.
Its hard to save when you have a crap car,a house falling to bits and you want your kids to enjoy the things that better off kids do.

The sad thing is that the poor and unemployed have become the whipping boys of society. If we didnt have them everything would be fine. And to underline this the detractors can point to a case where someone is doing ok on benefits as if this is a reason to denigrate a whole class of people.

In reality the welfare bill is dwarfed by the amounts that the big corps salt away in tax avoidance.

Most people want a better life, but some find getting there harder than others do.

I will go further than that. Its actually better for society to treat people well. It creates a kinder,gentler world which benefits all of us.

First thought that comes to mind ... quit whining.

Growth of wealth is a multi-generational proposition. Not everybody is going to get rich in their lifetime. Their goal should be to make it BETTER for their children - a goal the current generation of parents have seriously failed to reach. Of course, they find all kinds of people, organizations, etc to blame - but the cold reality is that they are so concerned with their own comfort and their own "stuff", they really don't care about their children.

It amazes me that you have no compunction about stealing from others in order to get what you want ....what happened to earning it?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

People spend up to their limit. Its human nature. And its easier to do when you are poor.Its not a judgement its just a fact.
What do you find difficult about that ?

Wow, you wouldnt be a liberal or anything, would you?

I dont think so.
The bit you have quoted expresses it better than I have.
Its hard to save when you have a crap car,a house falling to bits and you want your kids to enjoy the things that better off kids do.

The sad thing is that the poor and unemployed have become the whipping boys of society. If we didnt have them everything would be fine. And to underline this the detractors can point to a case where someone is doing ok on benefits as if this is a reason to denigrate a whole class of people.

In reality the welfare bill is dwarfed by the amounts that the big corps salt away in tax avoidance.

Most people want a better life, but some find getting there harder than others do.

I will go further than that. Its actually better for society to treat people well. It creates a kinder,gentler world which benefits all of us.

First thought that comes to mind ... quit whining.

Growth of wealth is a multi-generational proposition. Not everybody is going to get rich in their lifetime. Their goal should be to make it BETTER for their children - a goal the current generation of parents have seriously failed to reach. Of course, they find all kinds of people, organizations, etc to blame - but the cold reality is that they are so concerned with their own comfort and their own "stuff", they really don't care about their children.

It amazes me that you have no compunction about stealing from others in order to get what you want ....what happened to earning it?

Some sweeping statements there. I dont really agree with any of it. Poor people dont love their kids ?

Get a grip.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow, you wouldnt be a liberal or anything, would you?

I dont think so.
The bit you have quoted expresses it better than I have.
Its hard to save when you have a crap car,a house falling to bits and you want your kids to enjoy the things that better off kids do.

Very true. I went to high school in 1973 being the only kid who still wore white platform shoes that my parents bought at a second hand clothing store, and I was glad to have them.

Perhaps it was my Aspergers that made me unaware of the style crimes I was committing on a daily basis, but it did affect my brother and sisters.

The sad thing is that the poor and unemployed have become the whipping boys of society. If we didnt have them everything would be fine. And to underline this the detractors can point to a case where someone is doing ok on benefits as if this is a reason to denigrate a whole class of people.

In reality the welfare bill is dwarfed by the amounts that the big corps salt away in tax avoidance.

Oh, gawd yes, the corporations in 1950 paid $2 for every $3 in taxes individuals paid, but now they pay in $1 for every $4 and still whine and squeal like they were the ones getting gored. We need to hike corporate taxes and allow them to deduct ONLY 25% costs of employing American citizens as an added deduction to their profits.

Most people want a better life, but some find getting there harder than others do.

I will go further than that. Its actually better for society to treat people well. It creates a kinder,gentler world which benefits all of us.

Agreed, and not only is it a politer society, but it is more of the kind of society we would want to live in, and there is a stronger consumer market when people are allowed to live tot heir full potential.

So you are a liberal then, but the good kind at least in part as I have seen a few of your head scratchers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Growth of wealth is a multi-generational proposition. Not everybody is going to get rich in their lifetime. Their goal should be to make it BETTER for their children - a goal the current generation of parents have seriously failed to reach. Of course, they find all kinds of people, organizations, etc to blame - but the cold reality is that they are so concerned with their own comfort and their own "stuff", they really don't care about their children.

True, but the economic change and growth in functionality of modern life makes it necessary to keep the poor within reach of the middle class in functional terms so they dont become a permanent under class.

It amazes me that you have no compunction about stealing from others in order to get what you want ....what happened to earning it?

Taxation to pay for welfare is for the good of society and is not theft.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

Why are you having a child if you can't afford one?