Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!nsc!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Poor People Message-ID: <1085@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 13:15:19 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.1085 Posted: Fri Sep 26 13:15:19 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 06:00:44 EDT References: <910@gilbbs.UUCP> <975@hou2g.UUCP> <1033@gilbbs.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 83 > In article <975@hou2g.UUCP>, scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) writes: > > If most of the "new jobs" are minimum wage jobs, simply pay out > > in welfare only the difference between what is being paid now, > > and what could be earned at minimum wage. That way, it forces > > people who simply do not WANT to work to get a job to feed their > > family. > > Great idea, Scott. Only two problems: > > 1) there *USED* to be such a program. The Reagan Adminstration dismantled > it within months of taking office, on the grounds that it would save > money. In point of fact, sufficiently large numbers of recipients, > realizing they couldn't live on their part-time minimum wage jobs > quit or got themselves fired, and went back to receiving full welfare > benefits, thus costing the government much *MORE* money. > Yes. About 10% of the recipients ended up on welfare. A bad decision by the Reagan Administration -- anyone that shows enough drive to work when they can sit around and collect welfare should be the LAST person cut off. > 2) the fact is that in many places (California is one) one can actually > survive (however meagerly) on welfare. One often cannot survive on > a minimum wage salary. One reason for this is that while the actual > cash income is approximately the same, under welfare (at least in Ca) > one receives *SOME* medical benefits. In a minimum wage job, one does > not. > Most of the bigger chains make medical insurance available to full-time employees (not free, however.) The bigger issue, though, is "Do you get better at a minimum wage job?" Yes. For most people, minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone to something a little better paying, or a temporary jobs while in school. Let me point out also that in areas like Santa Clara Valley, fast food restaurants usually start above minimum wage simply because there's a shortage of people interested in jobs. > > On a slightly different topic, I keep seeing 'libertarians' talking about > those "irresponsible" welfare recipients who have large families. What these > people fail to realize (deliberately, I suspect) is that today, there are many > largish families on welfare that were large when the parents were earning, > but due to massive layoffs in many industries, these families no longer have > an independent income. > There are areas of the country where whole industries have evaporated, at least partly because unions drove wage rates up to uneconomic levels. But there are a lot of people collecting welfare who have NEVER worked. > Now, your typical 'libertarian' will argue that these folks should accept > *ANY* job that comes along, regardless of pay scale. The fact that these > families simply *CANNOT* survive at the pay scales of *MOST* available jobs > doesn't even occur to 'libertarians'. And of course, these highly knowledgable > 'libertarians' also fail to realize that fast food outfits seldom hire full > time employees. Yet, the 'libertarians' are extremely fond of suggesting that > these folks should take fast food jobs rather than accept welfare. > If a person has any job skills at all, they aren't starting at minimum wage. My brother-in-law, when not stoned and collecting welfare, has held a variety of jobs, most of which paid between $900 and $1100 a month. This is a guy who graduated high school and has never worked more than two months at any one job in his life. He has no marketable skills of any sort except brute labor. I don't think Tom knows enough people in the welfare class. > Face it. "Libertarian" is a synonym for "cynical, self-righteous, self- > satisfied, self-centered greedy bastard". > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" Tom is still upset because I suggested that the reason he can't find a job he's willing to take is because he won't live Sonoma County. Of course, he's collecting disability, but trying to get a job. If he's disabled, he can't work. And if he can work, he shouldn't be collecting disability. Everyone now understand why Tom is so concerned that everyone be sympathetic to those who can work and don't want to? Clayton E. Cramer (libertarian, and very unsympathetic to people like Tom Keller)