The biggest recipient of welfare will not be found amongst the urban (as in black) populations where supposed welfare queens pop out uncontrollable child after uncontrollable child so that they can get a fatter welfare check. Yes Ol’ Dirty Bastard did roll up to a welfare office in a limousine; results are not typical!
The biggest welfare recipient in the United States and indeed in the rest of the goddamn world is the Military-Industrial Complex. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent every year so that 'Murica can have the biggest swinging dick that ever swung. These assholes are already rich hundreds of times over and they are getting richer by keeping people like the OP in a constant state of fear that a brown-skinned other is coming to steal their Smart TV and/or have sex with their wife.
You do realize that outside of Tropical Africa and certain portions of south Asia, everywhere else in the world is either at replacement, below replacement, or heading rapidly towards below-replacement, right?
Also, there’s a time-limit in the US today of how long you can get welfare for.
Around my hood (Overland Park Kansas) people just LIKE having children. The area is very child friendly with good schools, parks, churches, and other programs plus the cost of living isn’t so bad so many families get by just fine on one paycheck. So 2,3,even 4 kid families isn’t unusual here.
Now compare that to say New York City, people there might also like children but living in tiny apartments where kids play in the streets and sidewalks and where the schools can be pretty scary - they just don’t have as many kids.
Yeah, and they all play stickball in the street and unplug the fire hydrants in the summer.:rolleyes:
What you described is actually nothing like raising kids in New York City.
First of all, New York has tons of parks. That’s mostly where kids play.
Secondly, from what I understand, the New York Public School system is actually fairly competitive.
Also, a significant number of people actually move out of the city once they decide to have children simply because of the space issue.
But I think one of the main reasons people in New York have fewer kids than say, Kansas, is that they tend not to want to. Or at least not want to until they are older. From my experience, people in more rural areas tend to get married and have kids relatively young. Usually a few years out of high school or college. New Yorkers tend to spend their 20s and 30s focusing on their career, doing the whole “single New Yorker” thing, then eventually have kids when they are older and can afford it (often after moving out to the suburbs). Many simply enjoy being single too much and never have them. I didn’t have kids until I turned 40 and a fair number of my friends were the same. Simply of by virtue of waiting, you tend to have fewer children, and in some cases, may not have them at all if you waited too long.
Yes, they are. When employers do not pay their employees enough to eat, and the government issues ‘food stamps’, then the government is subsidising the employer because the employer reaps the profits of not paying their employees enough.
[N]o business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level. I mean the wages of decent living.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
If a business depends upon under-paying its employees, and the employees are forced to accept government aid, then the government is subsidising the business. When a business does not have to rely upon under-paying employees in order to survive, but instead sees underpayment as a way to increase profits, then it is stealing from American taxpayers.
Do you mean ‘life choices’ as in ‘working for Wal-Mart’? In any case, please point out where I mentioned life choices.
If Wal-Mart does not pay its employees enough to eat, and those employees must receive ‘food stamps’, and if Wal-Mart’s profits are greater than or equal to the amount of the cost of foods stamps, then Wal-Mart is receiving a federal subsidy for the sole purpose of increased profits.
It was described your quote. (Perhaps you didn’t read it.) We may disagree what the definition of a ‘decent living’ is, but at the very least it means that a person or family does not have to receive government aid in order to survive.
So someone born with below average skills made a life choice? They deserve to starve?
Did you ever consider that there are jobs that someone has to do that are , for some strange reason, considered worthless and yet are worth something when there’s no one to do them.
How would you feel about that janitor when you have to clean the office bathroom?
How about when you go shopping and there’s nothing on the shelves?
When you go out to eat, do expect a clean table and dishes?
In the first scenario, two people have two kids. In the second, it took six people to make five kids. Sounds like progress, if your goal is Zero Population Growth.
Well yes I forgot the single person lifestyle. However I still think it would be more difficult to have children in NYC. I cant imagine trying to take children onto a bus or subway.
What your describing is pretty close around here also where most people don’t seem to start having children until their late 20’s.
Your bills are not Wal-Mart’s problem. They are your problem. If you can’t afford your lifestyle the only one to blame is yourself. Do something to increase the value of your labor.
If a person is getting food stamps then that person is the one being subsidized. The attempt to link personal subsidies to the employer is intellectually dishonest and transparent. Let me ask you this, fire that person and replace him with a robot, is Wal-Mart still being subsidized? Obviously not.
Did I ever say that?
A business will pay someone to do those jobs and if noone shows up to do them at the offered wage the offered wage will go up or the job will get undone.
Now with regards to cleaning bathrooms or stocking shelves. As long as I’m getting my agreed upon rate I’ll clean bathrooms or stock shelves. I’m not too proud to do what needs doing.
Good for Costco.
That one woman had 5 kids. We don’t know how many other kids those 5 men have.
Your assertion that a person receiving federal aid is the result of their ‘lifestyle’ is intellectually dishonest.
Let’s try this: You own a business. You pay your employees the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, or about $1,257/month. Call it $1,000/month after taxes and deductions. The employee and is family live in a small apartment that costs $600/month. Electricity is $100/month. Your employee needs to have transportation, so he pays $100/month for car insurance. (There are no viable public transportation options because people don’t want to pay for other people’s transportation.) Cars need fuel, and that costs $100/month. Fortunately, Obamacare helps with the family’s medical insurance, so they only have to pay $100/month. And they have to eat. Food costs… Oh, wait. We’ve hit our $1,000/month take-home pay. The family obviously made irresponsible lifestyle choices, otherwise they could eat, right? So what ‘lifestyle’ choices do you suggest they change? Move to a homeless camp? Maybe they could find a homeless camp hear your business so that they wouldn’t need a car?
Meanwhile, your profits are $975,000 per year. Let’s say you have ten employees. If you paid them enough to live on, your profit would only be $825,000 per year. But your employees get federal aid, so you don’t have to pay them as much. You’re saving $150,000 per year by having someone else (We the Taxpayers) help your employees to live.
You keep going on about ‘lifestyle’. What is this ‘lifestyle’ you’re talking about? The way you put it, those poor minimum wage employees have to get ‘food stamps’ because they have to pay too much for their Porsches and mansions.
I’ve lost count of how many times this myth has been debunked. An extra dollar from my taxpayer wallet into a benefit recipient’s wallet does not increase Walmart’s bottom line. A single adult working full time at federal MW does not qualify for SNAP, let alone one working at Walmart wage, which is higher. Decide to have a kid or three? Then maybe. We the taxpayer’s have decided to make that our problem, but it’s not Walmart’s problem. A household making over $50k/year can even qualify for SNAP given the right (or wrong) combination of disaster and family planning choices.
Reproducing when you can’t afford to is a lifestyle choice.
False. The amount I “have” to pay them is not determined by federal aid. I’ve certainly lived in the red before. My employers didn’t know and wouldn’t have cared.
The trouble with this narrowly focused “personal initiative” individual approach to poverty is that it ignores the way widespread worker poverty is built into our economic system.
The business model of Wal-Mart and many other major employers is based on the assumption of available labor that is so “low-value” that many full-time workers can’t support even a very frugal “lifestyle” on what they earn. The employers’ massive economic power and political influence are enlisted in maintaining the poverty-wage status quo. This is a problem that is not going to be solved by a few individual workers here and there scraping up the pennies to go to night school or move away and obtain a better-paying job. This is systemic.
Or cheaper labor will just be imported illegally or semilegally, as in the case of agricultural workers. I think you are way overestimating the amount of market power that poor American workers have when it comes to exerting upward pressure on their wages.
You’re overlooking the fact that childrearing is one of the chief factors that makes workers less mobile and more reliant on their existing support system, including poverty-wage jobs. Yes, paying poverty-wage workers benefits such as SNAP, TANF and Medicaid does constitute a subsidy for Walmart and other poverty-wage employers, by keeping their captive workforce at least marginally functional even on such low earnings.
This narrowly focused “individual-choice” perspective, like the similar one that I criticized on the part of octopus, disguises a systemic issue. One in a hundred of all US workers is employed by Walmart: that’s about 2.1 million people total. Fast-food establishments employ about another million. That is a sizeable percentage of America’s reproductive-age population that you’re proclaiming ought to forego having children just because they can’t support a family on their poverty-wage jobs.
As I noted in my response to octopus, this isn’t just a matter of a few individual workers making bad lifestyle choices. This is systemic, and the system is set up for the employers’ advantage.