Bernie's new anti welfare build

[ElKarlo]

Ever stop to think that the unions already fought the fight so you didn't have to? Your work conditions were already improved, but you didn't realize it.

Id say yes and no. For the older folks it was better but for everyone else we were just subsidizing the older people's ability to fight.
In fact I made less an hour due to union dues, than if I worked at a non union place.
Was sad to see the union fight for the fools, yet it sat on its hands when a guy doing computer graphic design was mislabeled job title wise.

 

[cooks1]

I’m not exactly sure what he wants - higher minimum wages? Those Amazon workers are free to leave, free to unionize, free to organize, free to negotiate.

Bernie is a true nanny.

How do YOU feel about PERSONALLY paying for a chunk of the housing, healthcare, and food for half of all Amazon and Walmart employees? Because you are if you are paying income tax.

Oh- and once you answer that question, How do you feel about a chunk of the money that you are paying Walmart and Amazon employees for food and medicine going back to Walmart and Amazon???

 

[cooks1]

Single payer would count as "corporate welfare" by the definition you're using.

Not if they are taxed specifically for it.

 

[cooks1]

Of course, I've just become a better informed one.

I can be against welfare while recognizing that the larger economic issues that drive it aren't the result of people being too lazy to work.

Corporate welfare is still someone suckling at the teat of big government. If I'm going to start punishing people for abusing the government's largesse - I should start with the people who least need it. And multinational corporations fit that bill.

I don't allow myself to be distracted by politicians railing about Mexicans and blacks. I follow the money. And if someone is collecting welfare while working a full time job then I want to know why/if the corporation is collecting government money somewhere else. Amazon has government contracts. Walmart takes SNAP. Yet they both have billions in revenue and potential profits. These are examples, to me, of double dipping. I've complained about corporate welfare for years at this point.

I can't be one of those Republicans who's only concerned about sticking it to poor people, lol.

Outfuckingstanding.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How do YOU feel about PERSONALLY paying for a chunk of the housing, healthcare, and food for half of all Amazon and Walmart employees? Because you are if you are paying income tax.

Or their dependents. I feel the same way about that as about any other welfare recipients. Which is to say fine. Necessarily in any market-based economy, there is going to be a large chunk of the population that will need transfer payments to live. The system doesn't work or have any moral legitimacy without providing them.

 

[cooks1]

Or their dependents. I feel the same way about that as about any other welfare recipients. Which is to say fine. Necessarily in any market-based economy, there is going to be a large chunk of the population that will need transfer payments to live. The system doesn't work or have any moral legitimacy without providing them.

I have no problems contributing to a social safety net. But it does bristle me when the people benefiting have full time jobs. And that their employer, while not paying them adequately, is simultaneously receiving a lot of the welfare money I contributed to them.

 

[cooks1]

I was strongly in favor of this bill when I first heard about it, but now I am not so sure.

There is a plausible argument that this bill would just discourage corporations from hiring the disabled, the elderly, the single mom... basically anyone who couldn't bring value to a corporation in a full time 40 hour a week capacity.

There's also the absurdity of trying to pass this bill at the same time that many states are passing work requirements for people to receive welfare.

Ultimately, raising minimum wage probably accomplishes more with fewer potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would love to see a progressively higher minimum wage for corporations as they meet certain profit thresholds. That way mom-and-pop businesses wouldn't be caught in the crossfire-- and in fact it would make them more competitive in many markets.

(The problem with this approach is that those threshold numbers would have to be responsibly managed over time, or else they would just end up stagnating to the point of uselessness, like the current federal minimum wage has.)

I agree. It would be way easier and way more cost effective to implement. I would prefer raising the minimum wage to the bill. But in the absence of that, I would prefer the bill to nothing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have no problems contributing to a social safety net. But it does bristle me when the people benefiting have full time jobs. And that their employer, while not paying them adequately, is simultaneously receiving the welfare money I contributed to them.

So let's say they have an entry-level employee who is supporting a disabled relative, stay-at-home spouse, and two kids. They have to pay $60K (roughly the Medicaid cutoff for that family)? And if they don't, somehow the corporation is getting welfare money? I don't see how that makes any sense, and if you pass a law to enforce that, you're just ensuring that that person will never get a job. And, OK, that's a fairly extreme example, but it's not unheard of. And the same issues apply to many more real-world households.

 

[cooks1]

So let's say they have an entry-level employee who is supporting a disabled relative, stay-at-home spouse, and two kids. They have to pay $60K (roughly the Medicaid cutoff for that family)? And if they don't, somehow the corporation is getting welfare money? I don't see how that makes any sense, and if you pass a law to enforce that, you're just ensuring that that person will never get a job. And, OK, that's a fairly extreme example, but it's not unheard of. And the same issues apply to many more real-world households.

Those are good points. Which is precisely why I have said it would be better just to raise the minimum wage.

But lets be realistic here. The wages and benefits being paid in a very large percentage of these cases are so low that a single person with no dependents would qualify. In fact, a single person with no dependents making 75 cents an hour above minimum wage would qualify.

https://www.in.gov/fssa/dfr/3097.htm

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Those are good points. Which is precisely why I have said it would be better just to raise the minimum wage.

But lets be realistic here. The wages and benefits being paid in a very large percentage of these cases are so low that a single person with no dependents would qualify. In fact, a single person with no dependents making 75 cents an hour above minimum wage would qualify.

https://www.in.gov/fssa/dfr/3097.htm

The problem is this and a high minimum wage can act as barriers to employment for unskilled labor.

To give a real world example my best bud growing up ended up dropping out of HS and had a couple of kids.

He worked 2 shitty jobs earning under $10 an hour while his kids were on CHIP and they received the EIC every year.

He eventually was able to get his CDL 3 or 4 yeast ago (he was 29 or 30).

Now he's a home owner and doesn't receive any assistance (pays into the system)

If there was a $15 minimum wage or this bill it would have been harder for him to build up his work resume.

I just don't think this bill really solves any problems.

If we're going to do anything we should beef up EIC and other forms of assistance

 

[HomerThompson]

If there was a $15 minimum wage or this bill it would have been harder for him to build up his work resume.

Why?

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Here's my question @panamaican @japman40

Person A has a low paying job with no kids, they are not on any welfare.
Person B has same low-pay job with 3 kids and is now on welfare.

Same job, same skillset.

Why is it the corporation's job to pay person B more than Person A based on how many children they have?

Serious question.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Why?

Out drinking but I'll try and tackle this tomorrow

 

[cleetus]

Id say yes and no. For the older folks it was better but for everyone else we were just subsidizing the older people's ability to fight.
In fact I made less an hour due to union dues, than if I worked at a non union place.
Was sad to see the union fight for the fools, yet it sat on its hands when a guy doing computer graphic design was mislabeled job title wise.

Your union leadership either sucked or your job description fit the work you did. And that's how they kill unions, by giving those non-union workers "perks" or minimal salary increases in an attempt to have the union voted out. Most people aren't smart enough to see through management's bullshit, and eventually the unions are ousted, current employees are laid off, and they replace them with cheaper labor that will not unionize. The big companies play the long game, and they win in the end because people are shallow, greedy fucking idiots.

How do YOU feel about PERSONALLY paying for a chunk of the housing, healthcare, and food for half of all Amazon and Walmart employees? Because you are if you are paying income tax.

Oh- and once you answer that question, How do you feel about a chunk of the money that you are paying Walmart and Amazon employees for food and medicine going back to Walmart and Amazon???

I personally feel much better helping out someone that is actively working and trying to make ends meet than sitting at home and pumping out (anchor) babies and sucking the gov't teat while buying up the newest pair of kicks or iPhone.

I completely disagree with subsidizing anything unless it involves the food supply.

 

[ElKarlo]

@cleetus yes the union did suck. It's sad because they did little to justify their existence.
When I started with the union at w grocery store in HS. The union dues actually made it so that I made less than min wage.
It's sad because unions did do a lot for workers. But it seems many unions got lazy and started to focus on stupid crap.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Who told you they were in favor of any form of welfare?

They're in favor of corporate welfare as evidenced by their lack of outrage/commentary on the subject.

 

[xcvbn]

Here's my question @panamaican @japman40

Person A has a low paying job with no kids, they are not on any welfare.
Person B has same low-pay job with 3 kids and is now on welfare.

Same job, same skillset.

Why is it the corporation's job to pay person B more than Person A based on how many children they have?

Serious question.

Hmmm

This example made me consider that employers probably shouldn't know exactly which employees receive assistance. It's really none of their business. But this bill would entitle them to know.

I really wonder if Bernie is even serious here. The way it's written, the way they presented it, and the "GET BILLIONAIRES OFF OF WELFARE" slogan make me think he just wants to loudly point out the hypocrisy in conservatives vocal against social welfare but remain silent on corporate welfare.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I see nothing wrong with raising the feudal wage to 10, 11 or 12 an hour but even that will affect all the the above some what.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Here's my question

Person A has a low paying job with no kids, they are not on any welfare.
Person B has same low-pay job with 3 kids and is now on welfare.

Same job, same skillset.

Why is it the corporation's job to pay person B more than Person A based on how many children they have?

Serious question.

See.
y'all live in imaginary world and never consider real life.

There's no protected class for people with 3 kids. remember that

 

[oldshadow]