Minimum Wages: Oh, When Will They Ever Learn?

[bonnie]

 

Minimum Wages: Oh, When Will They Ever Learn?

By Brian Joondeph

Pete Seeger, folk singer and liberal mouthpiece of the ’50s and ’60s, wrote “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” in 1955.  Progressive folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary sang their version in 1962.  The chorus line of “Oh, when will they ever learn?” was directed at “The Man” back in the ’60s, the military industrial complex sending young Americans off to war.

In a bit of irony, it’s the modern-day progressives who never seem to learn.  Not about war, but instead about basic economic

 

 

One of the first concepts taught in basic economics is the demand curve.  As the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down.  And vice versa.  One doesn’t even need an economics class to understand that a $50-million house will not have a bunch of buyers in a bidding war, compared to a much less expensive house.  Or that a sale, lowering the price of something, is a good way to sell more and clear the inventory.

So why is there such confusion about the minimum wage?  A wage is simply the price of labor.  Raise the price, and demand goes down.  And vice versa.  Watch it play out in San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles as small businesses, unable to afford their new cities’ minimum wages, close their doors or lay off employees.

Basic economics.

Borderlands Books, a science fiction specialty bookstore in San Francisco, closed earlier this year, citing the recent minimum wage increase to $11.05 an hour.  “Continuing to pay the higher wage without any corresponding increase in income will expend the store’s cash assets,” claimed the store blog.

Seattle also raised its minimum wage to $11 an hour on April 1.  The owner of Z Pizza in Seattle is “being forced to close her doors, because she can’t afford the higher labor costs.”  Ivar’s Salmon House, also in Seattle, responded to the minimum wage increase with a 21-percent increase in menu prices.  “So that meal that last year cost you $100, today costs you $121,” noted the president of Ivar’s.

Los Angeles has plans to raise the minimum wage by 67 percent over the next five years.  A hospitality consultant, who obviously studied economics, warned, “The only [other] way you can control it is to cut people or hours.”  Meaning those fortunate enough to keep their jobs will end up with the same, or even less, take-home pay than before the wage increase.

Basic economics.

Why the mystery?  The demand curve predicts this.  A higher cost of labor leads to less demand for labor – fewer employees or shorter hours.  Some might argue that the businesses that close would close anyway.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  The low-hanging fruit gets picked first.  The minimum wage increase will most affect marginally profitable businesses.  Mom-and-pop shops.  Small businesses providing a paycheck for local employees.  Not Fortune 500 companies.  With a small profit margin, it doesn’t take much of an increase in costs to turn the balance sheet upside-down, forcing the business to close its doors.

Apple, with about 93,000 employees, could pay a minimum wage of $100 an hour, or $200,000 a year to each employee, and still eke out a profit.  The local pizzeria or sandwich shop cannot.

How about taxes, another cost?  Remember the luxury tax in 1990 levied on new pleasure boats?  The 10-percent additional tax on expensive boats drove demand down to the point that boat-building companies laid off most of their employees.  In this case it was consumers, facing a higher cost, driving demand down by not purchasing a new boat.  The luxury tax actually decreased tax revenue.  Instead of working and paying income tax, then spending their earnings on goods, paying sales tax, the laid off boat builders collected unemployment insurance.

Basic economics.

The demand curve works in the opposite way as well.  Lower the cost, and watch demand go up.  Witness Black Friday sales with long lines before stores even open due to the stores practically giving their merchandise away.  At a government policy level, apply this to welfare.  When the government makes entitlements readily available, essentially free, demand skyrockets.  Hence a record number of Americans on welfare.

Basic economics.

We all understand economics in our personal lives.  No one wants to pay full price; people will stock up when something is on sale.  Why not apply this to labor?

It seems the progressives will never learn.  Feel-good policies, which are great during political campaigns, leave no one feeling good, but instead leave a path of destruction.

Time for Peter, Paul, and Mary to update their ballad with some new lyrics. “Where have all the jobs gone?  The minimum wage has picked them every one.  Oh, when will they ever learn?”

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, is a Denver-based physician and writer. Twitter @retinaldoctor.

Pete Seeger, folk singer and liberal mouthpiece of the ’50s and ’60s, wrote “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” in 1955.  Progressive folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary sang their version in 1962.  The chorus line of “Oh, when will they ever learn?” was directed at “The Man” back in the ’60s, the military industrial complex sending young Americans off to war.

In a bit of irony, it’s the modern-day progressives who never seem to learn.  Not about war, but instead about basic economics.

 

One of the first concepts taught in basic economics is the demand curve.  As the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down.  And vice versa.  One doesn’t even need an economics class to understand that a $50-million house will not have a bunch of buyers in a bidding war, compared to a much less expensive house.  Or that a sale, lowering the price of something, is a good way to sell more and clear the inventory.

 

So why is there such confusion about the minimum wage?  A wage is simply the price of labor.  Raise the price, and demand goes down.  And vice versa.  Watch it play out in San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles as small businesses, unable to afford their new cities’ minimum wages, close their doors or lay off employees.

Basic economics.

Borderlands Books, a science fiction specialty bookstore in San Francisco, closed earlier this year, citing the recent minimum wage increase to $11.05 an hour.  “Continuing to pay the higher wage without any corresponding increase in income will expend the store’s cash assets,” claimed the store blog.

Seattle also raised its minimum wage to $11 an hour on April 1.  The owner of Z Pizza in Seattle is “being forced to close her doors, because she can’t afford the higher labor costs.”  Ivar’s Salmon House, also in Seattle, responded to the minimum wage increase with a 21-percent increase in menu prices.  “So that meal that last year cost you $100, today costs you $121,” noted the president of Ivar’s.

Los Angeles has plans to raise the minimum wage by 67 percent over the next five years.  A hospitality consultant, who obviously studied economics, warned, “The only [other] way you can control it is to cut people or hours.”  Meaning those fortunate enough to keep their jobs will end up with the same, or even less, take-home pay than before the wage increase.

Basic economics.

Why the mystery?  The demand curve predicts this.  A higher cost of labor leads to less demand for labor – fewer employees or shorter hours.  Some might argue that the businesses that close would close anyway.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  The low-hanging fruit gets picked first.  The minimum wage increase will most affect marginally profitable businesses.  Mom-and-pop shops.  Small businesses providing a paycheck for local employees.  Not Fortune 500 companies.  With a small profit margin, it doesn’t take much of an increase in costs to turn the balance sheet upside-down, forcing the business to close its doors.

Apple, with about 93,000 employees, could pay a minimum wage of $100 an hour, or $200,000 a year to each employee, and still eke out a profit.  The local pizzeria or sandwich shop cannot.

How about taxes, another cost?  Remember the luxury tax in 1990 levied on new pleasure boats?  The 10-percent additional tax on expensive boats drove demand down to the point that boat-building companies laid off most of their employees.  In this case it was consumers, facing a higher cost, driving demand down by not purchasing a new boat.  The luxury tax actually decreased tax revenue.  Instead of working and paying income tax, then spending their earnings on goods, paying sales tax, the laid off boat builders collected unemployment insurance.

Basic economics.

The demand curve works in the opposite way as well.  Lower the cost, and watch demand go up.  Witness Black Friday sales with long lines before stores even open due to the stores practically giving their merchandise away.  At a government policy level, apply this to welfare.  When the government makes entitlements readily available, essentially free, demand skyrockets.  Hence a record number of Americans on welfare.

Basic economics.

We all understand economics in our personal lives.  No one wants to pay full price; people will stock up when something is on sale.  Why not apply this to labor?

 

It seems the progressives will never learn.  Feel-good policies, which are great during political campaigns, leave no one feeling good, but instead leave a path of destruction.

 

Time for Peter, Paul, and Mary to update their ballad with some new lyrics. “Where have all the jobs gone?  The minimum wage has picked them every one.  Oh, when will they ever learn?”

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, is a Denver-based physician and writer. Twitter @retinaldoctor.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/minimum_wages_oh_when_will_they_ever_learn.html#ixzz3boqFewj3 
 

[Bravus]

One other piece of that puzzle that is completely ignored, though: there have to be buyers for the market to function. If wages are so low people can't consume, who's buying the goods and services produced?

It's a race to feudalism.

[Bravus]

(also, medicos apparently think they are the experts on everything. Would be interested to hear the views of an actual economist on economics. Or would we prefer the views of an economist about what to do about that nasty growing lump on our person...?)

[bonnie]

One other piece of that puzzle that is completely ignored, though: there have to be buyers for the market to function. If wages are so low people can't consume, who's buying the goods and services produced?

It's a race to feudalism.

​Minimum wage is for unskilled entry level employee's. Entry level jobs were not intended to support a family.

[bonnie]

A friend of ours has a Perkins  restuarant. What would you suggest he pay the waiters and waitresses? Employee's are not required to put anything into the job other than showing up on time and doing an adequate job. Tips are fairly generous. Most of this type of employee is not the sole support of a family, being employed in this type of job part time and to supplement the faily income.

Our friend takes home roughly 150,000 a year. It is a seven day a week,24 hour a day responsibility. To even begin this he had enormous expense,added to that expense he has to provide wages,which is paid before he is,high liability insurance supplies and breakdowns .

Dividing his take home pay by the number of hours he actually works his pay is not a great deal higher than minimum wage. Once he raises to the called for 15.00 an hour for wait staff,how much does he raise the dishwashers,cooks,managers etc. Raise their pay by the same dollar amount,all for unskilled labor? What do you think it will add to the price of a dinner at Perkins?

Same is true for MacDonald's? Or anyplace that uses unskilled labor.

 

 

 

[bonnie]

This is part of the finacial responsibility for a Perkins franchise

 

How much is the initial investment?
This can vary significantly by region. Most of the initial investment in real estate, building, site improvement and FF&E costs is typically financed. However, a minimum of $500,000 in cash as part of the total investment is required to adequately fund the opening of a new Perkins Restaurant.

Is there a royalty fee paid to Perkins?
Franchisees pay a royalty of 4% of revenue in the vast majority of the United States. This fee helps to fund ongoing support to the franchise community including food purchasing and operations support as well as the continuing development of new products, procedures, marketing tools, training programs and other system upgrades.

What about advertising fees?
Franchisees pay a 3% of revenue marketing fee. 2.25% of this money is spent on media buy and .75% is spent on the cost of developing marketing material such as radio, TV and print advertising as well as agency fees. Perkins also requires franchisees to spend 1% of revenue on local store marketing to support their community.

Small Business Resources > How Much Does a McDonald's Franchise Cost? How Much Does a McDonald's Franchise Cost? "How Much Does a McDonald's Franchise Cost?"The McDonald's Corporation requires a minimum of $250,000 of non-borrowed personal resources to consider you for a franchise. In other words you need $250,000 cash on hand to just start the discussion process with McDonald's. If you have $250,000 available read on...

•  

Edited June 1, 2015 by bonnie

[bonnie]

If you don't want to work for minimum wage in a unskilled job then you need to do something about it. Start your own business,work 14-16 hours a day and take full responsibility. Or learn a skill or trade and move yourself off.

It is far to easy to say I can't,someone else has to provide me with skilled wages for my unskilled level.

[Naomi]

That sounds good Bonnie.  So how does one start their own business when they are working 14-16 hours a day at a couple of jobs just to pay the household bills? Where does the investment money come from?

I know of more than one people with Master's Degrees who have to work at Sams, Walmart or some other similar job for min wage because there are no positions available.  There are often factors which are not visible to someone on the outside looking in.  No, I don't have answers, but I do know that the "pull yourself up by your boot-straps mentality" does not always work.  

[bonnie]

​

That sounds good Bonnie.  So how does one start their own business when they are working 14-16 hours a day at a couple of jobs just to pay the household bills? Where does the investment money come from?

I know of more than one people with Master's Degrees who have to work at Sams, Walmart or some other similar job for min wage because there are no positions available.  There are often factors which are not visible to someone on the outside looking in.  No, I don't have answers, but I do know that the "pull yourself up by your boot-straps mentality" does not always work.  

​It isn't easy,that I know first hand. Because some with a Masters degree cannot find a job in their field we raise the unskilled minimum wage job to 15.00 an hour?

Yes at times there are factors that are not obvious. I definitely don't have  a Masters and was working for a cleaning service for 8.00 an hour.Didn't care a lot for that so went out on my own. From there I went from working alone to hiring several employee's. Did I pay them 15.00 an hour,Nope. Some wanted more and decided it was easy to start their own and earn more. Didn't work out real well for most of them. Care to guess why?

My husband was working long hours for a wage he didn't like. He did the same There wasn't a great deal of investment money required but long hard grueling hours.There are always going to be those that find themselves in financial straights thru no fault of their own. Raising the minimum wage to the much talked about 15.00 an hour is not enough to raise a family on,so do we raise it to 20.00 for those at the bottom,then what do we raise it to for those a step above them and those that have sacrificed and scrimped and saved to obtain a trade?It is enough to really hurt small business and in turn harm those that rely on those small businesses.

Would you suggest those that have Perkins or MacDonald's etc go to the expense,sacrifice and risk for less per hour than those demanding 15.00 an hour?

I know to some it sounds cold hearted but this constant refrain that "I can't" someone has to give me more is a little tiresome.Yes,those that can't should be helped as much as possible,some only need a temporary hand up and then there are those that refuse to move unless someone moves them.  Learning a trade,trade school,college takes a lot of effort and sacrifice,to many are not willing to go that extra mile.

At times my husband was laid off,he had to really dig for work.He ended up doing yard work just to make ends meet at times.It didn't come to him,he had to go after it. He knows what it is like to work two jobs and get by with 4 hours sleep. So should we have demanded and increase in pay for all unskilled labor? 

An education is mighty tough but not impossible for those determined to do better. All our sons obtained their education on their own. My husband began having strokes at 58 so we were unable to help them. I am using my boys because I know personally the circumstances,thousands have done the same. They left high school without any money and without any special skills. Two own their own business and two have very lucrative positions in their field.. My sons and the many like them did not get there by demanding 15.00 an hour for unskilled work skills. Blood, sweat, and tears.I saw them so tired at times they were ready to drop, They married,had children while obtaining their education,no food stamps or food shelf or welfare. 

 

[joeb]

One other piece of that puzzle that is completely ignored, though: there have to be buyers for the market to function. If wages are so low people can't consume, who's buying the goods and services produced?

It's a race to feudalism.

​That's why F. A. Hayek's book on how socialism works is titled "The Road to Serfdom".  In it he proves that a centralized government, socialism or fascism, is always doomed to failure for it ignores basic economic laws.  And by laws I mean laws in the same sense as laws of physics.  I would highly recommend that you read it.  It's not an easy read for he goes deep into the weeds of why socialism will not, cannot, work and the only outcome possible is serfdom, feudalism.

[joeb]

That sounds good Bonnie.  So how does one start their own business when they are working 14-16 hours a day at a couple of jobs just to pay the household bills? Where does the investment money come from?

I know of more than one people with Master's Degrees who have to work at Sams, Walmart or some other similar job for min wage because there are no positions available.  There are often factors which are not visible to someone on the outside looking in.  No, I don't have answers, but I do know that the "pull yourself up by your boot-straps mentality" does not always work.  

​What does the cost of starting a franchise have to do with the laws of economics that say if your costs go up you must find a way deal with that increased cost?  If that increased cost is the per hour cost of labor the businessman has few choices.  He can cut hours and keep the prices of what he sells the same or he can keep everyone working the same number of hours and raise the price of what he sells by enough to offset his increase in labor costs.  If he does neither he goes out of business for businesses must operate by the laws of economics.  So, how much more are you willing to pay for a fast food meal or a restaurant meal?   Would a 20% increase mean you eat out less often?  It would for most people.  That means the businessman in question has less income with which to pay his expenses.  So then what happens?  He either starts cutting hours or he goes out of business.  That's just the way things work.  It's not personal.  It's just the laws of economics at work. 

Do you come down after you jump up in the air?  That's the law of gravity.  The laws of economics are just as sure as the law of gravity.

[bonnie]

​What does the cost of starting a franchise have to do with the laws of economics that say if your costs go up you must find a way deal with that increased cost?  If that increased cost is the per hour cost of labor the businessman has few choices.  He can cut hours and keep the prices of what he sells the same or he can keep everyone working the same number of hours and raise the price of what he sells by enough to offset his increase in labor costs.  If he does neither he goes out of business for businesses must operate by the laws of economics.  So, how much more are you willing to pay for a fast food meal or a restaurant meal?   Would a 20% increase mean you eat out less often?  It would for most people.  That means the businessman in question has less income with which to pay his expenses.  So then what happens?  He either starts cutting hours or he goes out of business.  That's just the way things work.  It's not personal.  It's just the laws of economics at work. 

Do you come down after you jump up in the air?  That's the law of gravity.  The laws of economics are just as sure as the law of gravity.

Many seem to think it is a simple matter of raising pay to meet demands of the unskilled. Every step of the way from the unskilled to the highly skilled will have to go up in proportion. But of course prices for goods should not go up which will take care of the raise in unskilled labor

[Aliensanctuary]

To counter the minimum wage increase either the business must raise prices for their goods or services, or, absorb the increase by reducing costs, which might mean lower staffing, if possible. Now, if a CEO is making a modest $1,000,000 per year, which is only $83,333 per month, how can he/she possibly make ends meet? So, having CEO's voluntarily reducing their salaries and boosting their lower-end employees wages to a living, single-parent wage would be out of the question.

That's why Jesus taught that it will be quite difficult for rich people to enter his Kingdom, because they are too greedy to care about the very people, their employees with no degrees, who are making them rich.

Sadly, franchisees are victims of blood-thirsty corporations making it difficult for them to turn a profit even with minimum wage employees.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Aliensanctuary

[bonnie]

To counter the minimum wage increase either the business must raise prices for their goods or services, or, absorb the increase by reducing costs, which might mean lower staffing, if possible. Now, if a CEO is making a modest $1,000,000 per year, which is only $83,333 per month, how can he/she possibly make ends meet? So, having CEO's voluntarily reducing their salaries and boosting their lower-end employees wages to a living, single-parent wage would be out of the question.

You are right,it is out of the question. Salary is not paid based on the individual needs of the employee. Compare the responsibilities to that of a single parent employee. They usually have at most 40 hours a week. Responsible only for their individual duties. My son ,while not a CEO receives a very generous salary and compensation package. He is paid that for being responsible for the performance of thousands of employee's and seeing to millions of dollars spent wisely,making sure hundreds of regulations are followed for  safety,on call 24/7. He can be replaced in a heartbeat for failure to perform according to the dictates of the company.

He worked six days a week,many times 12-14 hours a day on a physically demanding job.Within a few short years following high school he started his own business,married,started a family and finished college going nights,graduated without student loans.Nor did he borrow  the money to invest in his business.

His first position paid 32,000 a year after all of that.His motivation and education to detail and a job well done has paid off very well.Now to you he should accept far less so as to raise the salary of single parent homes. After he does that what does he raise the salary to  those a step higher earn,and then those above that? 

 

That's why Jesus taught that it will be quite difficult for rich people to enter his Kingdom, because they are too greedy to care about the very people, their employees with no degrees, who are making them rich.

Sadly, franchisees are victims of blood-thirsty corporations making it difficult for them to turn a profit even with minimum wage employees.

​Without those dedicated CEO's and those like my son there would not be many employee's to worry about. The salaries paid are based on the skills and talents they bring to a company. How many CEO's suddenly find themselves out in the cold when they don't perform. A employee can get by and usually does with just adequate job performance for 40 hours. Those like my son and above need to perform at peak efficiency 24/7.

You don't need to be counted as rich to lose your salvation. 

Edited June 2, 2015 by bonnie

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, a raise in wages may mean an increase in cost.

 

But, it also puts more spendable income into the economy and it may mean a reduction in welfare benefits.

 

[Bravus]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich

[LifeHiscost]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich

​

Well we could change that to passing laws to enforce the higher income resting in the bank be released to those from the lowest incomes willing to put in some productive activity, even if it was only requiring lesser educational requirements. However anytime one's heart is removed from freewill to enforcement, corruption would steal it all back. Jesus is the only answer.

God is Love!   Jesus saves! 

[bonnie]

​

Well we could change that to passing laws to enforce the higher income resting in the bank be released to those from the lowest incomes willing to put in some productive activity, even if it was only requiring lesser educational requirements. However anytime one's heart is removed from freewill to enforcement, corruption would steal it all back. Jesus is the only answer.

God is Love!   Jesus saves! 

​While this was published some years ago nothing has really changed.http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html

 

 

 

 

 Indeed, surveys of recipients consistently show that they express a desire to work.(2) The choice of welfare over work is often a rational decision based on the economic incentives presented.(3)

Most welfare recipients, particularly long-term recipients, lack the skills necessary to obtain the types of jobs that pay top or even average wages.(4) The individuals who do leave welfare for work most often start employment in service or retail trade industries, generally as clerks, secretaries, cleaning persons, sales help, and waitresses.(5) Although it would be nice to increase the wages of entry- level workers to the point where work paid better than welfare, government has no ability to do so. (Attempts to mandate wage increases, such as minimum wage legislation, result chiefly in increased unemployment.)(6)

Major Findings

Welfare advocacy groups and the media often portray welfare as a series of frugal programs that barely provide subsistence help to the needy. But that conclusion is based on the faulty assumption that welfare recipients receive primarily only one form of public assistance, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. But today at the federal, state, and local levels of government, there are dozens of welfare assistance programs in addition to AFDC.

This study calculates the total value of a full range of federal welfare assistance programs. The value of that benefit package is then compared with the amount of pretax income a person would have to earn in a job to equal the value of welfare assistance in each state.(7) The attractiveness of welfare relative to work is heightened by the fact that welfare benefits are a nontaxable form of income.

Table 1 shows the total value of welfare relative to work by state.(8) (The appendix contains a detailed summary of the compilations and results for each state.) The full package of welfare benefits actually provides recipients with incomes above the poverty level in every state. There is a wide disparity among the states regarding the attractiveness of welfare. The value of the total package of benefits relative to a job providing the same after-tax income ranges from a high of $36,400 in Hawaii to a low of $11,500 in Mississippi. In eight jurisdictions--Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--welfare pays at least the equivalent of a $25,000 a year job.(9)

The pretax value of welfare benefits substantially exceeds the amount a recipient could earn in an entry-level job in virtually every state. The numbers suggest that recipients of aid are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing their long-term dependence.

Although the evidence shows that, in the long term, an individual is better off in the labor force than on welfare, moving from welfare to work is likely to lead to at least a short-term decline in income and, for some, perhaps a permanent reduction of income.(10) That may be why 68.6 percent of welfare recipients report that they are not actively seeking work.(11) Other studies show that, as welfare benefits increase, women are more likely to leave the labor force and enroll in welfare programs instead.(12)

Any welfare reform proposal must recognize that individuals are unlikely to move from welfare to work as long as welfare pays as well as or better than working. That suggests that the most promising welfare reforms are those that substantially cut back on the level of benefits.

Edited June 4, 2015 by bonnie

[Bravus]

Right. Work should pay more than welfare. That can happen by welfare going down or by wages for work going up. 

It's an argument *for* lifting the minimum wage, not against. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by Bravus

[bonnie]

Right. Work should pay more than welfare. That can happen by welfare going down or by wages for work going up. 

It's an argument *for* lifting the minimum wage, not against. 

​Actually I think it is an argument for putting restrictions on welfare.Before I get the "you hate those in need" answer again ,explain a few things to me if you can

As an example my young neighbor woman is on welfare. Now explain to me why she should not have requirements for living off the tax payer? Two children,two fathers. First father in prison for physically abusing his baby daughter. Second father does not work unless it is something for cash. She sends the children to Head Star on taxpayer dime,many times sun bathing when they are in school. Not to physically demanding. Winter time many times it is snowmobiling,not exactly a cheap past time. Cable ,internet and the latest in expensive phones.Full food stamps and a monthly trip to the food shelf for anywhere between 350-400 worth of groceries for a family of four.

I am laughingly retired. Generally work six days a week,starting very early morning so I can help keep her in this lifestyle as the rest of the working class does. Explain to me fairness again.

When you are physically and mentally capable you should be required to do something to contribute to your own existence and and that of the children you carelessly bring into the world.I don't care if it is part time at MacDonald's. Reducing a welfare check by a 100.00 a week times the numbers that could do that would  make a difference.Regular users of the food shelf that are not employed full time should be required to give back in terms of volunteer hours. Those that do devote their time to this can almost be considered full time employee's without pay. Some of those serving young,healthy unemployed recipients are using walkers to get around at our food shelf.

If you can't find even a part time minimum wage job,learn a trade or go to school. Please,save the "I can't" excuse. Most can. We have high schools for pregnant teens,free day care provided,along with transportation for most. These schools should have a waiting list a mile long for the "poor uneducated single mother" song. Not true. Do you wonder why? Special  Low interest loans as well as grants without pay back are available. Day care is subsidized or go to school online like thousands do.

There isn't anything biblical that tells us that one person has a right to the labor of others. What christians should be willing to do is not the same as forced redistribution of someone else's money. You undoubtedly are in a higher income than my husband and myself. Tell me by what right to I demand you distribute  a healthy portion of that to me?

As some are so fond of repeating the US is not a christian nation. Tell me then by what right someone wants to mandate government christian charity?

 

[bonnie]

Just a question,more curious than anything else. One on one how far would you be willing to go to support my husband and myself?On a large scale that is what the taxpayer does for those on welfare. I do think you would be one to help someone in need,but how far. 

Due to my husband's health issues he was forced into retirement before we were ready. Happens to a lot of people. Knowing I am perfectly capable of earning a income and thankfully I can do it from home would you expect me to continue to help ourselves? It is not always easy. It can get pretty tedious. So if I use "I can't '" as excuse how long would you be willing to carry my husband and myself. What if I continue to demand from you while I sunbathe or snowmobile,after all I am poor.

Take your hard earned money and purchase junk for my children to eat,it takes an effort to learn to cook tastefully and economically. But as long as you keep giving me I don't have to. Those that would expect me to are labeled haters of the poor.

Those that are elderly and handicapped manning our food shelf owe me their time,after all I am young and poor. Probably can throw a child or two in there that I shouldn't have had to begin with.

If welfare weren't as lucrative without effort as it is people wouldn't be so adverse to work. Welfare should be temporary help with the recipient doing everything possible to help themselves. But that has been labeled as hate. 

[B/W Photodude]

 

So if I use "I can't '" as excuse how long would you be willing to carry my husband and myself.

Take your hard earned money and purchase junk for my children to eat,it takes an effort to learn to cook tastefully and economically.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thess 3:10

[bonnie]

Just a question,more curious than anything else. One on one how far would you be willing to go to support my husband and myself?On a large scale that is what the taxpayer does for those on welfare. I do think you would be one to help someone in need,but how far. 

Due to my husband's health issues he was forced into retirement before we were ready. Happens to a lot of people. Knowing I am perfectly capable of earning n income and thankfully I can do it from home. But it is not always easy. It can get pretty tedious. So if I use "I can't '" as excuse how long would you be willing to carry my husband and myself. What if I continue to demand from you while I sunbathe or snowmobile,after all I am poor. Provide me with day care so I can work at least part time and I refuse to budge to try to help myself.

Take your hard earned money and purchase junk for my children to eat,it takes an effort to learn to cook tastefully and economically. But as long as you keep giving me I don't have to. Those that would expect me to are labeled haters of the poor.

Those that are elderly and handicapped manning our food shelf owe me their time,after all I am young and poor. Probably can throw a child or two in there that I shouldn't have had to begin with.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thess 3:10

Doesn't apply. Hateful unchristian attitude

[B/W Photodude]

Doesn't apply. Hateful unchristian attitude

The popular mantra of today, "Christians of today are all about hating"

[CoAspen]

hateful
adjective
his hateful letters were presented as evidence: detestable, horrible, horrid, unpleasant, awful, nasty, disagreeable, despicable, objectionable, insufferable, revolting, loathsome, abhorrent, abominable, execrable, odious, disgusting, distasteful, obnoxious, offensive, vile, heinous, ghastly, beastly; informal godawful.

 

Sounds accurate to me.....we ain't perfect!!!