NYC Welfare Food Shipped to the Dominican Republic Then Sold on Black Market

[Firethorn]

Unless you are physically or mentally incapable of working, *expletive deleted* yourself IMO.

That's lovely.  How do you make sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there that we'd need to actually employ everyone?

My idea is that the .Gov comes up with a list of 'nice but not critical' things and has people who can't find private employment work on them.  Gives them experience, work history, training, and support until they CAN find work.

My brother got hit by quite a few whammies when he left the service - used his GI bill to get training as an electrician just a year before the housing meltdown.  Oops, he's out of work, no GI bill left, applied for and was declined for every job involving TWO skillsets.  Even minimum wage jobs had insane demands due to the downturn.

[Scout26]

That's lovely.  How do you make sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there that we'd need to actually employ everyone?

Eliminate Minimum wage.

[HankB]

That's lovely.  How do you make sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there that we'd need to actually employ everyone?

You could pick up around a third of that number by deporting all illegal aliens.

[Perd Hapley]

Eliminate Minimum wage.

Bingo.

[Hawkmoon]

Ever consider that maybe the reason they're doing what they're doing is less because they're abusing the system than because the system isn't flexible enough to meet their REAL needs?

Nope. Never considered it.

Now that you suggest the possibility -- I don't buy it for a nanosecond.

Using the subject story as an example -- Please explain how using food stamps to obtain free food in the U.S. and then sending it to the Dominican Republic where it gets sold on the black market in any way points to a system that isn't sufficiently flexible to meet the "real" needs of the participants in the U.S.

[Hawkmoon]

That's lovely.  How do you make sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there that we'd need to actually employ everyone?

Ummm ... deport 11 or 12 million illegal aliens who are currently "doing the work Americans don't want to do"?

[Firethorn]

Using the subject story as an example -- Please explain how using food stamps to obtain free food in the U.S. and then sending it to the Dominican Republic where it gets sold on the black market in any way points to a system that isn't sufficiently flexible to meet the "real" needs of the participants in the U.S.

Well, I was using 'needs' in the context of my economics class, which is actually closer to 'wants', but my point would be that in trying to restrict and control how they use the aid we give them, we're actually wasting our effort; it's cheaper for everybody to simply give them money(if we're going to do that). 

Ummm ... deport 11 or 12 million illegal aliens who are currently "doing the work Americans don't want to do"?

As stated, only gets us about a third of the way there, and even then there's a number of articles about how the illegal aliens are already going home for a number of reasons.

Eliminate Minimum wage.

Of limited utility - due to the costs of working such as transportation, packing a lunch, special clothing and such it's easily possible for a sub-minimum wage job to not benefit a person at all.  I support eliminating MW, but only in context of replacing it with something else such that employers have to pay realistically for their staff. 

Or to put it another way, ideally anybody WANTING to pay what minimum wage is right now should expect an incredibly poor worker without a vehicle.  I have zero sympathy for a 'job creator' who wants to pay minimum wage for a fully qualified welder(it was on the news).

[Hawkmoon]

Well, I was using 'needs' in the context of my economics class, which is actually closer to 'wants', but my point would be that in trying to restrict and control how they use the aid we give them, we're actually wasting our effort; it's cheaper for everybody to simply give them money(if we're going to do that).

Sorry, but welfare wasn't intended to provide "wants."

It would also be much cheaper for everyone to simply shut off the subsidy machine. Never mind "give them money" -- what have they done to deserve a single penny of MY money, that I work to earn?

I last worked for a public housing authority just over thirty years ago. Back then, we had families in which the third AND fourth generations were still living in the same apartment. Public housing was not supposed to become a generational hand-me-down. It was supposed to be a place where people could live until they could afford to move on to something better. Like my fifth grade teacher, who lived in one of the same projects I later was in charge of renovating. He was a Korean War veteran, and his family lived in the project for a couple of years while he worked and got caught up financially, then they moved on.

Of course, when he lived there civilized folks could go through that neighborhood. When I started work at the authority, the Executive Director personally took me to each project and introduced me to the key people. He explained that once folks had seen him introducing me around, I'd be safe ... during the day. But he was VERY clear that under no circumstances was I ever to go to any of the projects after dark.

This was from a black man ... who was a realist.

[Firethorn]

Sorry, but welfare wasn't intended to provide "wants."

Agreed.  With that I was simply using my economics definition - Paraphrasing but "A need is something the consumer desires".  How MUCH of a need it is varies depending on the specifics of the item in question, whether there are substitutes, price, etc...

It would also be much cheaper for everyone to simply shut off the subsidy machine. Never mind "give them money" -- what have they done to deserve a single penny of MY money, that I work to earn?

There's a reason that I prefer 'workfare' over 'welfare' for the most part.
Still, designed properly the idea is that it costs the taxypayer LESS money than the damage and subsequent imprisonment costs when they start stealing to support themselves.  Some steal anyways, but eh.

Basically, as long as our society is unwilling to let people starve to death in the streets and deal with the associated unpleasantness from starving people, we have to provide assistance.  After that, the question becomes 'how do we maximize effect while minimizing cost?'

I last worked for a public housing authority just over thirty years ago. Back then, we had families in which the third AND fourth generations were still living in the same apartment.

It's my understanding that reforms from the '90s and '00s mostly put an end to this.

My 'workfare' simplified:
1.  Mandatory Employment - they act as the 'employer of last resort'.
2.  Provides technical training - The military used to be the biggest source of trained craftsmen, today it's both far smaller and more vertically integrated; I'd go so far as to say that 'most' military retirees keep working with the government after their retirement/seperation.  Not saying that these people should join the military.
3.  Works mostly on 'infrastructure' - picking trash off highways should be last resort.  In this case it's defined as 'Something that helps the American public be happier or more productive and can reasonably be expected to last at least 20 years with only routine maintenance
4.  Pay will be scaled to skill level/difficulty of work, but will 'generally' be a skosh less than private sector work.  60-80% I think.  With some modifications that employers who expect highly skilled(as opposed to just highly educated) workers for peanuts are going to have to pay more.  As I said earlier though, you're not getting anybody that's not pathetic for less than what it takes for a single person to 'live' on.  And I consider it possible to 'live' on a wage that doesn't provide enough for a car, your own room to sleep in, etc...
5.  Absorbs and releases workers as the economy goes through it's regular swings.

[dogmush]

My 'workfare' simplified:
1.  Mandatory Employment - they act as the 'employer of last resort'.
2.  Provides technical training - The military used to be the biggest source of trained craftsmen, today it's both far smaller and more vertically integrated; I'd go so far as to say that 'most' military retirees keep working with the government after their retirement/seperation.  Not saying that these people should join the military.
3.  Works mostly on 'infrastructure' - picking trash off highways should be last resort.  In this case it's defined as 'Something that helps the American public be happier or more productive and can reasonably be expected to last at least 20 years with only routine maintenance
4.  Pay will be scaled to skill level/difficulty of work, but will 'generally' be a skosh less than private sector work.  60-80% I think.  With some modifications that employers who expect highly skilled(as opposed to just highly educated) workers for peanuts are going to have to pay more.  As I said earlier though, you're not getting anybody that's not pathetic for less than what it takes for a single person to 'live' on.  And I consider it possible to 'live' on a wage that doesn't provide enough for a car, your own room to sleep in, etc...
5.  Absorbs and releases workers as the economy goes through it's regular swings.

Perhaps I misunderstand your plan, but I would not support Mandatory Employment.  Folks have the right to choose not to work.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Lets not forget mandatory retirement.  To open up jobs for the young

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[Fitz]

Perhaps I misunderstand your plan, but I would not support Mandatory Employment.  Folks have the right to choose not to work.

Sure, and if they do, they get nothing

[cordex]

Of limited utility - due to the costs of working such as transportation, packing a lunch, special clothing and such it's easily possible for a sub-minimum wage job to not benefit a person at all.

Then no one will take the job and the employer will either have to find a way to go without that position filled or raise the pay.
Or someone will take the job knowing it isn't going to pay enough as a foot in the door.
Or the people who take the job have other means of support (i.e., live with their parents) and still come out ahead working at a job that wouldn't make sense to a father of four who has to drive a long way to get to work.

  I support eliminating MW, but only in context of replacing it with something else such that employers have to pay realistically for their staff. 

Like the invisible hand?

Or to put it another way, ideally anybody WANTING to pay what minimum wage is right now should expect an incredibly poor worker without a vehicle.  I have zero sympathy for a 'job creator' who wants to pay minimum wage for a fully qualified welder(it was on the news).

First of all, not everyone is a good worker.  In the context of minimum wage laws, poor workers must be unemployed rather than employed at a rate commensurate with their abilities and willingness (or not) to work.  Secondly, if a company has so many qualified welders available that they can fill that job at minimum wage, or their need to fill that position is so low that they can try to fill it at such a low cost, why shouldn't they?  Someone hungry enough to take that job may be glad to have it and if they need more money they can always leave it when a better job becomes available.

Basically, as long as our society is unwilling to let people starve to death in the streets and deal with the associated unpleasantness from starving people, we have to provide assistance.  After that, the question becomes 'how do we maximize effect while minimizing cost?'

As well as "who should provide that assistance, and with what funds?"

4.  Pay will be scaled to skill level/difficulty of work, but will 'generally' be a skosh less than private sector work.  60-80% I think.  With some modifications that employers who expect highly skilled(as opposed to just highly educated) workers for peanuts are going to have to pay more.  As I said earlier though, you're not getting anybody that's not pathetic for less than what it takes for a single person to 'live' on.  And I consider it possible to 'live' on a wage that doesn't provide enough for a car, your own room to sleep in, etc...

Wait ... what would be the minimum you think your ideal "workfare" jobs would pay?  Would your program pay ever pay minimum wage or less?  Also, if a given area has a glut of a particular skill - say, welders - and the going rate for that skill is much lower than the rest of the country or state, would you be taking 60-80% of the national average or the local depressed average?

One of the problems of these kinds of programs are they prevent the market from self-correcting.

[makattak]

3.  Works mostly on 'infrastructure' - picking trash off highways should be last resort.  In this case it's defined as 'Something that helps the American public be happier or more productive and can reasonably be expected to last at least 20 years with only routine maintenance

One problem with that:

Do you want to drive on a bridge someone in the position of having to work for the government to get their "free stuff" repaired? When employment is "gauranteed"?

[Ned Hamford]

Just weighing in to say I've seen people in the grocery line use food stamps (now I guess it's a SNAP card) to pay for a shopping cart filled with prime steaks and then get into a new Lincoln or Caddy. 

Given how rampant the black market is for those SNAP cards, maybe it wasn't theirs. 

[roo_ster]

Hunger and ones hungry kids are great motivators.  And the example provided to others of such folk working is salutary.  I think the suffering caused by letting folk sink or swim is less than the suffering perpetuated by govt welfare largesse. 

Also many of those lowball salary and hourly jobs are just for show.  They are part of gaming the work visa system.  Advertise some job at below market rate as a form of bogus proof that there is no american willing to work the job.  Then go to uncle sam and whine for some foreigner on a work visa to work at the below market rate.

There is a whole indusfry that has sprung up to game the work visa system.  Ftr there are in excess of 76 discrete work visa programs.

[Devonai]

Well, I was using 'needs' in the context of my economics class, which is actually closer to 'wants', but my point would be that in trying to restrict and control how they use the aid we give them, we're actually wasting our effort; it's cheaper for everybody to simply give them money(if we're going to do that). 

Again, I don't know what kind of aid the US gives to the DR, if any, but considering the results of our efforts in sub-Saharan Africa, the people who are actually buying those smuggled boxes of Frosted Flakes very likely have no other way of getting them - at any price.  That doesn't justify the system, it only illustrates how useless aid programs are.  Our options are limited:

1. Send money.  Funds line bureaucrats/warlords pockets, no food is purchased.

2. Send food.  Food rots on the docks, is never distributed.

3. Do nothing.  Sarah Maclaughlan shows us video of starving children and implies that wealthy Americans are horrible monsters.

[RevDisk]

There is a whole indusfry that has sprung up to game the work visa system.  Ftr there are in excess of 76 discrete work visa programs.

I doubt this is the complete cause of wage stagnation, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't help. The Usual Suspects love to scream that Americans won't do X. What they really mean is, Americans won't do X for Y wages.

[Hawkmoon]

It's my understanding that reforms from the '90s and '00s mostly put an end to this.

Your understanding is flawed.

[Scout26]

Or to put it another way, ideally anybody WANTING to pay what minimum wage is right now should expect an incredibly poor worker without a vehicle.  I have zero sympathy for a 'job creator' who wants to pay minimum wage for a fully qualified welder(it was on the news).

And chances are that a) There are almost zero qualified welders that would take that job, leaving it unfilled until he agreed to a higher wage or b) Whomever takes it would would there long enough to get enough experience to quickly move to a higher paying job.  Mr. Employer seeing that his job is a revolving door will either pay more or offer whomever he deems "good" more money to stay.  Or if he doesn't care, then the job will remain a revolving door and give Mr. Last-in-his-class-at-welding-school a chance to gain experience.

Any way you look at the letting the market work, will work for everyone.

[Firethorn]

Perhaps I misunderstand your plan, but I would not support Mandatory Employment.  Folks have the right to choose not to work.

I was thinking mandatory from the employer side - perhaps I should have said mandatory hiring.  That's what you get writing off the cuff without a proof-reader.

Sure, and if they do, they get nothing

Bingo.

I doubt this is the complete cause of wage stagnation, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't help. The Usual Suspects love to scream that Americans won't do X. What they really mean is, Americans won't do X for Y wages.

It's not just visitors, or are you forgetting that nearly all consumer devices are now made in China?  The various immigration initiatives are actually very minor compared to that.

Or if he doesn't care, then the job will remain a revolving door and give Mr. Last-in-his-class-at-welding-school a chance to gain experience.

This was pretty much the situation he was facing; constantly short of qualified workers.  Just too dumb to see the writing on the wall that his compensation was insufficient to get a worker of appropriate skillset.

The 'Fedjobs' program is more to avoid having downward spirals of wages and to help people get a hand up - unfortunately the labor force skillset never exactly matches the demand, plus demand does truly go through cycles.  So my idea is that you sit there and train the workers, give them a few years experience doing it before unleashing them on the commercial side.  They DO have t work a bit for the education, so they're likely to value it more.

[Fitz]

Mandatory hiring?

You're joking, right?

[Nick1911]

That's lovely.  How do you make sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there that we'd need to actually employ everyone?

You are not entitled to a job.  Jobs are created by people through voluntary contract.  Any action that "makes sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there" can only be achieved by forcing people to spend money creating those positions - to "buy" those employees in a situation where they otherwise aren't.  It's inherently coercive, and I believe morally wrong.

[makattak]

You are not entitled to a job.  Jobs are created by people through voluntary contract.  Any action that "makes sure there's the extra 30M or so jobs out there" can only be achieved by forcing people to spend money creating those positions - to "buy" those employees in a situation where they otherwise aren't.  It's inherently cohesive, and I believe morally wrong.

Ah, autocorrect. Bringing a smile to my face, once again...

[Nick1911]

Fixed.

And actually, embarrassingly, I typed it like that.