The rich get richer

What time does Hannity's 3 hour radio program come on tonight ?

Make sure you catch all 3 riveting hours.....so you can use his talking propaganda points on tomorrow's FFA !

And don't forget to say a little prayer for all the CEO's in the world. May they not fall below 20 mil a year each !!

"What time does Hannity's 3 hour radio program come on tonight ?

Make sure you catch all 3 riveting hours.....so you can use his talking propaganda points on tomorrow's FFA !

And don't forget to say a little prayer for all the CEO's in the world. May they not fall below 20 mil a year each !!" -- Thanks,marcisdave, I enjoyed the laugh!

Wait a minute !

pjstroh has just pulled a fast one, . . . why he just changed the subject.

Ah-hah! See! See! Right there, . . . "20k/year is enough annual income to 'eat' "! ! !
Well, technically DonDiego asserted that $11k/year provides enough to eat.
pjstroh was wrong! pjstroh was wrong!
[Actually the observation that few American citizens are dropping dead in the streets from starvation should have been sufficient evidence for pjstroh not to make his initial claim.]

But, . . . but, . . . there's even better evidence, . . .and pjstroh provided it. Right there in the McDonald's Budget which pjstroh provided it states:
"The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that a 'moderate cost' grocery bill is $235 per month for a man and $204 per month for a woman."
Holy Moly! That'd be only $2820-per-year for a man to feed himself.

QED

Oh, . . . and regarding that McDonalds Budget, . . . here's the Washington Post's conclusion:
"And the reality is that these low-income Americans have to make the kind of hard choices that critics [of the budget] are deriding as ridiculous. They have to make do with a used car, live in a modest apartment with a roommate, get by with basic cable and a low-end cellular plan, and travel and go out to eat infrequently.
Gawker [a critic] calls the budget 'just-shy-of-condescending,' but budgeting is an important skill that isn’t obvious to every young adult in America. Offering practical advice on how to live on a modest income is more constructive than ridiculing the choices required to do so."
[For the record DonDiego has had more used cars than new cars, has lived in modest apartments with a roommate, has gotten by with a TV with a rabbit-ears antenna on top, and right now has the lowest low-end cellphone plan he can find. He does travel and dine out more frequently, nowadays.]

DonDiego realizes that low-wages impose hard choices. What DonDiego does not agree with is that the Government imposing higher wages and, hence, higher costs on everyone is a good solution.

The solution now as it was when the "War on Poverty" began in the 1960s is EDUCATION. Parents have to want a good education for their kids; kids have to want a good education and be willing to apply themselves; schools have to provide good teachers and facilities. In some locations all three of these pre-conditions are lacking.

Too many young folks then and even more now end up with an education inadequate for a decent paying job. They graduate High School unable to read a newspaper or add and subtract so they can even make a budget. Heckfire, nowadays some folks graduate college unable to read at an eighth-grade level. So they sue the college!
The budget for education is huge, . . . and unfortunately there is often not a significant correlation between cost and results. The National Average spent per pupil in the US in the 2009-2010 school year was $10,600; the District of Columbia spent around $28,000-per-student with abysmal results.

When little DonDiego was growing up poor teachers in his town's school simply did not last long; parents took an interest and they were soon gone. And pretty much everyone, except for the special-education kids, could read and at the least make proper change at a cash register, . . . without having to have food labels on the cash register.

Ahh, . . .the good old days.

Don Diego- I agree with your post. Education is the key to success. Of course, those who object to pointing to the personal choices and lack of responsibility that defines today's society would rather blame those who work for a living as the cause for their problems. The LVA sages, chilcoot, forkush, number 51and melonhead, would have you believe their idiotic rhetoric while Obama and his henchmen and women strip us of our Constitutional rights as Socialism marches on.

It is sad when you give the cashier a $1.01 on. 76 purchase and they look like a deer caught in the headlights.

Yes! Hooray for Don Diego! I thought my metaphorical reference to eating was obvious...but it seems to have taken Don Deigo for quite a roller coaster ride. He correctly points out my metaphor is in of itself literally incorrect ! Well played, sir. Have yourself a cold one and strike up the victory band!

But back to the point....I see Don Diego offers the same (solution?) the good doctor offers up...suggesting the problem is solved by workers with crappy jobs getting better jobs. Great. But won't their replacements then be in the same predicament?

I wont use a metaphor so as not to confuse Don Diego. Very simply....how does the net number of people applying for food stamps/medcaid go down when the net number of employment opportunities inducing those progams does not?

And work 75 hours per week at minimum wage.

Rent(w/ roommate): 400
Car: 100
Car Ins: 50
Cable/phone: 100
Electric: 50
Food: 100
Misc: 100
TOTAL: 900

What's the problem? In NV, at minimum wage and 30 hours/week a young single person would bring home about $1100. If he's motivated he can earn a degree while he works or move up to management eventually. If he can live at home with his parents he could save $5-10K per year, enough pay his way through college and be debt free when he graduates.

Why, yes, . . . yes, indeed, . . . their replacements will be in the same predicament.

[An aside: What is a predicament for one is not necessarily a predicament for another. DonDiego's first job was a part-time after-school position restocking shelves and collecting trash and doing whatever else the boss wanted him to do in a single proprietorship pharmacy & sundries store. It was, however, not a predicament. It was an opportunity to make some money for college-a-few-years-away and his meagre immediate entertainment expenses. His parents fed and clothed and housed him. All in all a good deal for young DonDiego.
In fact, all the employees, except for the pharmacists who were the owner's sons, were part-timers, . . . wives whose husbands had full-time jobs.]

So, . . . the replacements will be in the same predicament. So, . . . they should do the same thing: get better jobs.

Wouldn't it be awesome if the crappy jobs were all left for people who recognize they do not provide a living wage, . . . but they can be great for a first job, or supplementing another job, or even just a part-time job for someone who doesn't need or want a full-time job.
Just like in the good old days.

Does pjstroh really believe that McDonald's cashiers or Dairy Queen ice-cream dispensers earn $30k/year?


Here's the other point DonDiego made in his earlier post, . . . that Government transfer payments really distort the labor markets. He provided a CBO chart showing that a person who didn't work at all could receive transfer payments/subsidies providing a disposable income of $20k/year.

Depending where one lives, it can be better, . . . or worse depending upon one's viewpoint, . . . than that!
Take, f'rinstance, Pennsylvania.



Because of the income-limits placed upon recipients of various benefits, the single mom is better off, f'rinstance, not earning just over $29,000, because she'll lose all the housing subsidies and most of the food benefits.
Mr. Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. explains "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income of $57,045."

In other words, if this single mom were to better herself and get a raise or a higher paying job, her disposable income would drop. She would be punished for improving herself, . . . unless she can jump from $29,000 to $69,000 to just stay even.
So, . . . why should she even try?

DonDiego recognizes some people need temporary help and some people will be wards of the State forever. But this system is crazy!

Whatever happened to the idea that welfare was supposed to be temporary, . . . a stepping-stone to bridge the way to something better? It is now an industry employing tens-of-thousands and ensnaring recipients for life.

The truth is we as taxpayers subsidize the operations of these low wage employers. There are recent studies out that show each Wal-Mart costs state and local taxpayers $400,000 per year. Multiply that times the number of Wal-Marts in your state and you get a pretty hefty sum. That is paid out year in and year out. I think we need to look at the wisdom of continuing to giving Wal-Mart and other big box retailers tax abatements and other tax credits to build new supercenters.
The low wage model was created largely by Ronald Reagan through the expansion of the earned income credit. He came up with the idea we were going to send people to work, but the employers didn’t have to pay a living wage anymore because the Federal Government would make up the difference with the EIC, Food Stamps and Medicaid. The theory was this would eventually create higher paying jobs. It has been a great boon to these low wage employers. The problem is of course it wasn’t the job creation engine conservatives thought it would be and indeed many employers that could afford to pay living wages simply jumped on the low wage model.

Now conservatives want to punish the low wage worker. I’d suggest if anybody ought to be punished for the problem they created it ought to be the large corporations. Start increasing that minimum wage to where it should be and in a few years you will find a lot less people that need a government program. But it’s never going to happen because large corporations don’t want it to happen they want the government to continue to subsidize their employee’s wages and provide them medical care.
Despite the thinking of most conservatives the problem isn’t free loading people the problem is large free loading corporations.