Walmart throws a bone

[Jenny A]

And to clarify, she was GSA, she is getting a US government pension. By displacing a younger poor person she is causing a problem, except when I contemplate the business model Wallyworld has regards letting the government subsidize the shoppers, the products, and customers, and then I think she is saving somebody.

Why should it matter where she gets the pension? If she earned it, it's hers. It isn't a welfare handout, it's part of her compensation for having worked. And I don't see why elderly people would have any less right to work than anyone else. If a young person held two jobs, would you call that double dipping? If that isn't double dipping why would this be double dipping?

Not too terribly long ago the argument was made that a woman with a working husband should be employed because she would displace other workers.

Economics is not a zero sum game. If people are productive at work, the more people working, the larger the pie.

---

And even if someone refuses to work, it is still cheaper to house them and feed them than criminalize poverty.

Explain to me how not paying someone who refuses to work is "criminalizing" poverty.

[Brian37]

And to clarify, she was GSA, she is getting a US government pension. By displacing a younger poor person she is causing a problem, except when I contemplate the business model Wallyworld has regards letting the government subsidize the shoppers, the products, and customers, and then I think she is saving somebody.

Why should it matter where she gets the pension? If she earned it, it's hers. It isn't a welfare handout, it's part of her compensation for having worked. And I don't see why elderly people would have any less right to work than anyone else. If a young person held two jobs, would you call that double dipping? If that isn't double dipping why would this be double dipping?

Not too terribly long ago the argument was made that a woman with a working husband should be employed because she would displace other workers.

Economics is not a zero sum game. If people are productive at work, the more people working, the larger the pie.

---

And even if someone refuses to work, it is still cheaper to house them and feed them than criminalize poverty.

Explain to me how not paying someone who refuses to work is "criminalizing" poverty.

Oh boy, not talking about advocating free rides. I am saying between putting people in desperate situations to the point where they commit crimes it more cost effective to give them housing and food than to put them in prison after they get desperate. I defy you to show me where I am advocating no one work. Utah is doing that FYI.

Poverty and homelessness in this country is treated like a crime rather than a condition. We house the most prisoners in the world and the majority of them are in there for non violent crimes.

[Jenny A]

Explain to me how not paying someone who refuses to work is "criminalizing" poverty.

Oh boy, not talking about advocating free rides. I am saying between putting people in desperate situations to the point where they commit crimes it more cost effective to give them housing and food than to put them in prison after they get desperate.I defy you to show me where I am advocating no one work. Utah is doing that FYI.

Poverty and homelessness in this country is treated like a crime rather than a condition. We house the most prisoners in the world and theymajority of them are in there for non violent crimes.

See bolded parts above. It may be cheaper to house people how will not work. But it's not criminalizing it to not house such people. And not payingpeople who refuse to work is not putting them in desperate situations. If the really refuse to work, they put themselves in a desperate situation.

If they really can't work, or there really are no jobs, then I agree with you that it's better to house and feed them. But if they just flat out refuse to work, they can starve. I'm not against welfare. But I am against paying those who refuse to work (at least with tax dollars, private charity is fine).

[Dystopia]

How many people genuinely refuse to work and want to live on government pensions? And how many of those people refuse just because the job is a total misery? If I'm on welfare and the only job I can find is 100km of distance away with a deadline to end in a few months and a shitty pay I'm not going to accept

[Brian37]

Oh boy, not talking about advocating free rides. I am saying between putting people in desperate situations to the point where they commit crimes it more cost effective to give them housing and food than to put them in prison after they get desperate.I defy you to show me where I am advocating no one work. Utah is doing that FYI.

Poverty and homelessness in this country is treated like a crime rather than a condition. We house the most prisoners in the world and theymajority of them are in there for non violent crimes.

See bolded parts above. It may be cheaper to house people how will not work. But it's not criminalizing it to not house such people. And not payingpeople who refuse to work is not putting them in desperate situations. If the really refuse to work, they put themselves in a desperate situation.

If they really can't work, or there really are no jobs, then I agree with you that it's better to house and feed them. But if they just flat out refuse to work, they can starve. I'm not against welfare. But I am against paying those who refuse to work (at least with tax dollars, private charity is fine).

See that is heartless, material things that people need are not the same as things people want. Again I don't care what someone has done, as long as they are non violent they don't deserve to starve to death or freeze to death.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Working in Walmart sounds horrible. I wonder how desperate do you have to be to apply there?
It's a huge chain, so it must have a lot of employees. It's sad to think that they are being treated so unfairly.

My ex- only worked there because of her particular circumstances, which were indeed desperate.

---

See that is heartless, material things that people need are not the same as things people want. Again I don't care what someone has done, as long as they are non violent they don't deserve to stave to death or freeze to death.

If they don't earn their pay, why should they be paid? Why should someone else have to surrender some of their own hard-earned money to support the loafer?

Mind you, I'm not against welfare or unemployment benefits; but I don't think welfare should be unconditional. I don't think people who refuse to look for work should get unemployment benefits, either -- and the federal government agrees.

I have no problem helping the unfortunate who need it, but I'll be goddamned if I go along with paying some yutz to sit on his ass and do nothing simply because he doesn't want to do anything to earn the money.

[KUSA]

Everyone hates Walmart (including myself) but everyone shops there.

If everyone would refuse to spend their money there it would go away. There are alternative stores than Walmart.

[Aisha]

I would totally go to Walmart for the experience, if I ever visit the US

Meh. If you've seen one overweight ass crack, you've seen them all.

It depends a bit on the outfit the butt crack goes along with :p

I would totally go to Walmart for the experience, if I ever visit the US

I work in a shop, I have minimum wage, and if I calculate it from euros to dollars it would be 11.27 dollars. I live in a big city where live is not always cheap, but we manage quite fine because boyfriend makes a good wage, basically my job pays for the luxuries like holidays.

Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone with a family or even a single person could make it trough the month on 9 dollars, it is very little.

Yes but because of two incomes. Could you make it on one job by yourself with no help? Don't get me wrong, if it works for both of you that's ok, but not ideal for everyone.

Livable wages should not force people to combine incomes it should be based on if you were single because relationships don't always last.

I know, and that is pretty much my point. I am fine because minimum wages here are a bit higher, plus I pay nothing for health insurance because it gets payed for via taxes I pay and the social system here. I work 30 hours a week, and I could live of that on my own. The higher minimum wage would give me time to educate myself better and find a better payed job if I wanted to.

I understand that many people in the US work 60 hours a week, in really crappy payed jobs. They have no time left to spend with their families or get better educated. Apparently people say that poor people should just work harder, to me it seems that people who say this do not understand the situation these people are in.

*edit* Maybe "manage quite fine", like I said in my earlier post, was an understatement :p

[Brian37]

Working in Walmart sounds horrible. I wonder how desperate do you have to be to apply there?
It's a huge chain, so it must have a lot of employees. It's sad to think that they are being treated so unfairly.

My ex- only worked there because of her particular circumstances, which were indeed desperate.

---

See that is heartless, material things that people need are not the same as things people want. Again I don't care what someone has done, as long as they are non violent they don't deserve to stave to death or freeze to death.

I

If they don't earn their pay, why should they be paid? Why should someone else have to surrender some of their own hard-earned money to support the loafer?

Mind you, I'm not against welfare or unemployment benefits; but I don't think welfare should be unconditional. I don't think people who refuse to look for work should get unemployment benefits, either -- and the federal government agrees.

I have no problem helping the unfortunate who need it, but I'll be goddamned if I go along with paying some yutz to sit on his ass and do nothing simply because he doesn't want to do anything to earn the money.

I do, again, you are stupidly thinking the ratio would explode to where everyone would stop working. I don't think because you are in need you should be subject to Orwellian microscopes. If anything the rich write far more damaging laws for themselves that allow them to get away with all sorts of shit.

There is a minimum everyone deserves not because they are perfect human beings but because they are humans.

How many house wives get free room and board and have no jobs?

[Dystopia]

Everyone hates Walmart (including myself) but everyone shops there.

If everyone would refuse to spend their money there it would go away. There are alternative stores than Walmart.

Apply the same logic to every major corporation out there.

If they don't earn their pay, why should they be paid? Why should someone else have to surrender some of their own hard-earned money to support the loafer?

This is relative - Everyone who doesn't work is not earning their pay. There are people who cost more than what they produce, not only lazy people but disabled, depressed, ill and older people. In this case you are against specifically people who don't work out of their own will but I have a questions:
- How do you determine scientifically who does not want to work?

Mind you, I'm not against welfare or unemployment benefits; but I don't think welfare should be unconditional. I don't think people who refuse to look for work should get unemployment benefits, either -- and the federal government agrees.

In my country you are legally required to look for work and you have to show up every week in the unemployment center. It's part of the deal. But honestly there's a lot of conflicting variables - What if someone refuses the job because it's poorly paid? What if the lazy fuck has a family to feed?

I have no problem helping the unfortunate who need it, but I'll be goddamned if I go along with paying some yutz to sit on his ass and do nothing simply because he doesn't want to do anything to earn the money.

This has been said already but I'll repeat it - Most people on welfare don't:
1 - Refuse to work
2 - Earn that much (in most first world countries money for welfare is not enough to even afford basic needs - There's people on minimum age AND welfare)
3 - The money spent unnecessarily on welfare is not very significant compared to other illegitimate government spending

Ultimately all of us will pay for something we don't want and it's impossible to determine where our tax money goes - I can't do it, you can't do it, inevitably my money will eventually pay for someone who could have chosen a better lifestyle and made better choices, but I prefer paying for those people and not allow anyone to die on hunger. This is also dependent on personal opinion, some people don't like paying for certain categories of people while others are fine with it; some people want to pay for everyone and others for no one