- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
And the employer has signed a contract with the union to only hire union members
Isn't it funny how libertarians and conservatives are normally so keen on the sanctity and protection of contracts?
It's not much of a contract when the State doesn't allow for a choice when doing business...
You know what a contract is, right? An agreement freely entered into. Who is forcing employers to enter into a contract with a union? The state has no part in it.
Uhm, if the State is non Right-to-Work, it most certainly plays a role...
Yes, the state is interfering with private contracts between private parties... gotta love that right wing big government interferenceUhm, if the State is non Right-to-Work, it most certainly plays a role...
Not market rates? So the rates that people agree to work for all over the country are not market rates? Even though they are the definition of market rates?Nonsense. The rates they are paying are not market rates at all. They are skewed by the willingness of the government to subsidise them with welfare. You're not seriously going to argue that modern capitalism operates through free trade, are you?
I don't know who Elizabeth Warren is but, while I am 100% anti-neoliberalism, at least I can spell capitalist.
Isn't it funny how libertarians and conservatives are normally so keen on the sanctity and protection of contracts?
It would, had I made one.Wow, HUGE point there. Pointing out a typo! You really have a strong argument there. I am always glad to see the people who need to point out spelling errors, because it's good to know who the perfect people are that have never made one.
Oh, and if you are going to point out spelling errors, it's a good idea not to make spelling errors in the post in which you are pointing out spelling errors. It really makes you look like a fool.
Do you think that this rate is due to people not looking for opportunities?
Yes, the state is interfering with private contracts between private parties... gotta love that right wing big government interference
Government interference aside, scab workers are takers. No two ways about it... just because a right wing state government supports takers/leeches sucking off the teats of others does not make it any less a form of direct welfare.
It would, had I made one.
The point of pointing it out is two-fold: firstly, if you can't be bothered to re-read your posts and write in correct English it causes me to believe you haven't really spent much time thinking about your contribution; that it's not a thought through argument, just a string of consciousness. Secondly, it's a cheap score and a bit of a laugh.
As someone who administered welfare benefits for a decade I can say yes, that is a big contributor. Another big contributor is unreasonable expectations. Many able bodied people sit on welfare because they are waiting for the opportunities to come to them.
The recipients who understood that welfare is something you work your way off of were invariably the ones for whom "welfare recipient" was a transient state.
Then that must be the overwhelming majority of recipients because the overwhelming majority of recipients receive benefits for less than 5 years.
See, this is the problem with how many people look at welfare. You make it sound like 5 years isn't a lot of time toi be sitting on your ass and not working. 5 years is a long time to be on Welfare when the only thing you need in order to get off welfare is a willingness to accept a minimum wage job. If that same person took a part time minimum wage job instead of welfare they could be in a management position in that restaurant in that same 5 year period.
Since most people on welfare do work (or are incapable of working) your claim that a willingness to accept a min wage job is clearly false.
SNAP data from 2011 shows 42% of able bodied people in the program are actually working. So "most" isn't correct. And I guarantee you that "most" of the transient recipients come from that 42% minority.
The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year.
2011?
More recent #'s say the opposite
The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The 58% is the census number, the 42% is from SNAP's own data.
As a career social worker I would guess that the 16% discrepancy is due to fraud. I'll stick with the 42%.
The #'s I linked come from the same source (SIPP) as the OP does. Your #'s come with no link and are outdated
No, your numbers are taken from a 4 year old US Census, my numbers are taken from SNAP data referenced all over the web.
But let's look at your source for a minute. Here is an image taken from their June 2014 report on SNAP:
View attachment 67172400
So... 66% are not expected to work. Of the able bodied we get ... 14% working and 21% not working.
Now, granted, their pie chart adds up to 101%, so let's say that 14% are working and 20% aren't and do the math:
14/(14+20)*100= 41.2% employment rate among the able bodied SNAP recipients.
If the Census number is accurate at 58% it is likely because the anonymity of the Census meant more SNAP recipients were honest in their census paperwork than they are with their social worker.
That would be the most likely explanation.[...] If the Census number is accurate at 58% it is likely because the anonymity of the Census meant more SNAP recipients were honest in their census paperwork than they are with their social worker.
You just from the % of the able bodied to the % of all recipients
That's very dishonest
Every generation makes that same claim. Back in the 1970's, when I was a child, I heard that crap over and over again, and my parents heard that in the 40's and 50's, and their parents before them. I'm sure when the national debt first hit $10,000 people were saying that, and then again when it was $1 million, then ten million and one hundred million and a billion...
You do realize that we have had a national debt for all but one year of the existence of this country don't you? And that we create money by debt. If 100% of all debt was repaid, there would be no more US Dollars.
Our national standard of living isn't really effected by the national debt. Our standard of living is based upon how much we produce. Unless you expect that we will start producing less, which is highly unlikely considering how fast we are becoming more productive due to technology, then our average standard of living should continue to increase, regardless of the national debt. The national debt is nothing more than an accounting issue, and it's not really that big of an issue because it never has to be paid off (unless we desire another depression).
Oh, and that one year that we had no national debt - we had a depression.
Um, the issue is, you are looking at INDIVIDUALS, while Sangha is looking at HOUSEHOLDS.I never said it was all recipients.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?