Drug test for welfare

[Gastanker]

Are you brain damaged? I have never been on a vacation like that. I already explained this.


You said you could live very nicely off a $40k salary. You have yet to prove anything to that effect. Even your own data contradicts that point. Luxury spending accounts for $3478 on that chart, the rest goes straight to necessities. Nowhere on there is money budgeted for vacations, college tuition, or retirement.

You can live comfortably on $40k/year. And yes, having two cars, a cell phone, a TV, eating everyday, going on vacation once every few years... that's a comfortable living.

You have never been on a vacation like that. Why did you factor it into your budget?

And get over that chart you dolt. If I said "Millionaires spend $100k on a gas every year" and if it was a true statement it still wouldn't have any bearing on anything. You can't just go, "oh well then every American needs to spend $100k on gas a year". Someone making 60k/year can afford to spend those amounts - if they couldn't then they would spend less (I would hope). When you get a better job you can afford to spend more... that doesn't mean that before you had the better job you were starving or running out of gas halfway to work...


Like I've pointed out, people don't spend $10k/year on vacations, that's crazy head in the clouds talk. But if you look at the entertainment section you'll see a picture of tickets. ...and the chart shows them saving money...

 

[purklize]

You can live comfortably on $40k/year. And yes, having two cars, a cell phone, a TV, eating everyday, going on vacation once every few years... that's a comfortable living.

You have never been on a vacation like that. Why did you factor it into your budget?

And get over that chart you dolt. If I said "Millionaires spend $100k on a gas every year" and if it was a true statement it still wouldn't have any bearing on anything. You can't just go, "oh well then every American needs to spend $100k on gas a year".

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. That was not MY budget, that was a budget for someone living a comfortable middle class lifestyle. What you are describing is surviving. In most cities families need two cars to get around due to the lack of good public transit, without cell phones you can't get anything done or get a job, and without some tiny modicum of entertainment people would go out in the streets and overthrow the government. No fun, no distractions, you get what you deserve for depriving them of the fruits of their labor.

 

[Gastanker]

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. That was not MY budget, that was a budget for someone living a comfortable middle class lifestyle. What you are describing is surviving. In most cities families need two cars to get around due to the lack of good public transit, without cell phones you can't get anything done or get a job, and without some tiny modicum of entertainment people would go out in the streets and overthrow the government. No fun, no distractions, you get what you deserve for depriving them of the fruits of their labor.
[/B]

Wait, so 20 years ago people were running around rioting? I've got to ask the UB question, how old are you? Where are you pulling these "comfortable middle class lifestyles" from? TV?

15% of families lived in poverty last year. These people are surviving. Poverty for two parents and a child is $17k, two children $20k, as a single individual $10k. You think having twice of what people survive off is still just surviving?

 

[dirtsurfr]

According to the both of you guys I lived in poverty all my life. I'm 60 years old BTW.
The secret to survving for us was in 1979 we tore up all our credit cards and went to straight cash.
We own 3 cars and a 2 bedroom home in a place that's called Gods country for a reason. We owe nothing.
In order to get a cell phone they wanted $400 for a deposit, we got a trakphone, it cost me $20 every 3 months.
I made 53K one year at my job of 20 years....... I was getting $12 an hour....
I'm sure gastanker is retired who else lives in Paradise, purkise I don't think you even live in the US and if you do you haven't
lived long enough and you talk out the side of your neck..

Pass me some more popcorn please..

 

[purklize]

purkise I don't think you even live in the US and if you do you haven't
lived long enough and you talk out the side of your neck..

Ugh... for the last time I am not saying it's impossible to live on 40k, I'm saying you can't live the lifestyle you (Gastanker) earlier suggested was possible to live on 40k. I don't know how my age or where I live could have any bearings on the numbers cited on the last page which proved conclusively that Gastanker was wrong (thanks for providing the data for me). Besides, my grandfather is well into his 80s and agrees with me, along with many other elderly folks, such as Noam Chomsky for one... I have met teenagers who saw through everything and pensioners who couldn't tell their ass from their face. It doesn't mean anything. Argue the merits of the argument, not the qualities of the person.

Not everyone wants to or can live in the country. We are a modern industrial society, the jobs are in the cities. Housing costs a lot of money there. You have managed to make it out in the hills, but for every one of you there are people who lost everything from chronic unemployment and had to head into town. If the jobs and money aren't there, no amount of motivation can make up for it. These aren't the days of the frontier anymore.

 

[cannabineer]

Fwiw the vibe I got from the start was that Gastanker is talking about adequate lifestyles, not necessarily comfy ones. If we accept a 1920s "typical household" lifestyle, it will keep bellies fed and homework done and the house and yard kept up ... but you might have to do laundry by hand, eschew Dish and cook a lot to use cheap staples in the making of good meals. And walk a lot ... or know how to keep a $200 VW running by the sweat of your brow. it really is surprising what luxuries we don't see as such any more, but consider a sort of lifestyle entitlement. So yeah, I see that part of his argument.
(Gastanker, please affirm or correct.)
(I still think he's being a bit strict about seasonal use of unemployment. My opinion.) cn

 

[purklize]

The 1920s lifestyle can't be applied to today. Cities are built around cars now. I've always lived in places where I could get by without a car, but most people don't. Walking for miles every time you go to work or have to pick up groceries just isn't realistic, especially with the long hours people who do have jobs are expected to work these days. I know a lot of people on 24k salaries with graduate educations working 80-100 hour weeks. No overtime.

Whether something is theoretically possible, and whether something is realistically attainable/doable for the average person are two entirely different things. Theoretically, I could turn out to be a genius who pulls a Good Will Hunting type deal, I could study my ass off and become brilliant with physics and publish the Theory of Everything, become famous, get rich, use the new halfnium weapons I develop to take over the world. Theoretically possible? Yeah. Realistic? No. Dramatic example, but my point has been made. Some people may be able to work 100 hours a week at minimum wage and be able to afford a basic lifestyle, get lucky and not have health problems so they don't end up bankrupt... but most people can't handle 100 hours a week, they have other things to do, have health issues that sap their energy, they get exhausted from working too much and sleeping too little and lose hope (what's the point in living if all you do is work?), and most people will have a major health problem sooner or later.

 

[cannabineer]

The 1920s lifestyle can't be applied to today. Cities are built around cars now. I've always lived in places where I could get by without a car, but most people don't. Walking for miles every time you go to work or have to pick up groceries just isn't realistic, especially with the long hours people who do have jobs are expected to work these days. I know a lot of people on 24k salaries with graduate educations working 80-100 hour weeks. No overtime.

Whether something is theoretically possible, and whether something is realistically attainable/doable for the average person are two entirely different things. Theoretically, I could turn out to be a genius who pulls a Good Will Hunting type deal, I could study my ass off and become brilliant with physics and publish the Theory of Everything, become famous, get rich, use the new halfnium weapons I develop to take over the world. Theoretically possible? Yeah. Realistic? No. Dramatic example, but my point has been made. Some people may be able to work 100 hours a week at minimum wage and be able to afford a basic lifestyle, get lucky and not have health problems so they don't end up bankrupt... but most people can't handle 100 hours a week, they have other things to do, have health issues that sap their energy, they get exhausted from working too much and sleeping too little and lose hope (what's the point in living if all you do is work?), and most people will have a major health problem sooner or later.

When I lived in Boston in '88, I got along great without a car. Many urbanites are selecting a bicycle-only lifestyle (plus public transport). It can be done, but not everywhere.

However the point is rather simpler: a lifestyle that we consider objectionably trimmed down would look sweet to one unaccustomed.

I am very sensitive to the health problem point. I'm currently on a fixed income without insurance, and I feel like I'm flying without a net. cn

 

[Gastanker]

Fwiw the vibe I got from the start was that Gastanker is talking about adequate lifestyles, not necessarily comfy ones. If we accept a 1920s "typical household" lifestyle, it will keep bellies fed and homework done and the house and yard kept up ... but you might have to do laundry by hand, eschew Dish and cook a lot to use cheap staples in the making of good meals. And walk a lot ... or know how to keep a $200 VW running by the sweat of your brow. it really is surprising what luxuries we don't see as such any more, but consider a sort of lifestyle entitlement. So yeah, I see that part of his argument.
(Gastanker, please affirm or correct.)
(I still think he's being a bit strict about seasonal use of unemployment. My opinion.) cn

That is correct. Although with 40k a year you can afford TV, internet, a computer, a car or two and a cell phone or two - the lifestyle is considerably more comfortable than in the 1920's. Doctor's families don't routinely take $5,000 vacations and yet there's some assumption that a barista's family should? Twice a year? I don't get it...

Regarding seasonal work: Its the same as any other career in my mind. If you choose a career that you know will only earn $24k/year then you should be prepared to live off $24k/year. If you have a bad year and need assistance that is one thing but if 24 is what you expected to earn and it's what you earned then it should be what you plan to live off - very simple. If you plan to spend more than $24k/year then you need to earn more than $24k/year.

 

[Gastanker]

The 1920s lifestyle can't be applied to today. Cities are built around cars now. I've always lived in places where I could get by without a car, but most people don't. Walking for miles every time you go to work or have to pick up groceries just isn't realistic, especially with the long hours people who do have jobs are expected to work these days. I know a lot of people on 24k salaries with graduate educations working 80-100 hour weeks. No overtime.

Whether something is theoretically possible, and whether something is realistically attainable/doable for the average person are two entirely different things. Theoretically, I could turn out to be a genius who pulls a Good Will Hunting type deal, I could study my ass off and become brilliant with physics and publish the Theory of Everything, become famous, get rich, use the new halfnium weapons I develop to take over the world. Theoretically possible? Yeah. Realistic? No. Dramatic example, but my point has been made. Some people may be able to work 100 hours a week at minimum wage and be able to afford a basic lifestyle, get lucky and not have health problems so they don't end up bankrupt... but most people can't handle 100 hours a week, they have other things to do, have health issues that sap their energy, they get exhausted from working too much and sleeping too little and lose hope (what's the point in living if all you do is work?), and most people will have a major health problem sooner or later.

Realistically the masses live off $50k/year or less. We're not talking theoretically. How are your friend's legally working for $4/hour? Why? You are being flat unrealistic.

If you work your ass off you can't get rich? Really? Really? Did you just say that? You can't change your socioeconomic level? That's not at all up to your own actions? Goodness...

 

[purklize]

Gastanker, ultimately it appears you just desire that most people be paid poorly. You are against having a middle class or general prosperity. Do you by chance admire the principles behind Atlas Shrugged?

 

[Gastanker]

Gastanker, ultimately it appears you just desire that most people be paid poorly. You are against having a middle class or general prosperity. Do you by chance admire the principles behind Atlas Shrugged?

Huh? Where did you get this assumption from? I'd be much happier if everyone had an education and made tons of money each year. You think that giving welfare to those earning $40k/year is going to make them get better jobs?

How am I possibly suggesting that I'm in favor of people being paid poorly? Lol, I want to hear this.

 

[purklize]

Realistically the masses live off $50k/year or less. We're not talking theoretically. How are your friend's legally working for $4/hour? Why? You are being flat unrealistic.

If you work your ass off you can't get rich? Really? Really? Did you just say that? You can't change your socioeconomic level? That's not at all up to your own actions? Goodness...

You're just showing how ignorant you are about the current labor market. If you don't think people are working for less than minimum wage due to unpaid overtime - people who've been to grad school - then you know nothing about these matters. It's par for the course. Regarding hard work paying off, do you know how much work grad school is? Or law school - there's countless lawyers working as baristas or hauling trash, buried under hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that cannot be discharged by a bankruptcy court.

In case you haven't been paying attention, things have gotten WORSE lately. It's the worst recession since the Great Depression. There's only enough jobs for about 150 million Americans - that's a maximum employment rate of 50%. Explain to me how someone's hard work can pay off if there's no jobs for them? These aren't the frontier days. You can't just go off into the forest, fell some trees, and establish your own life all on your own. Literally everything is this country is already owned by someone now. You can't even eat without help from others - if no one will give you work because they have no money to hire you, how can you get the money to buy land for crops? Homesteading used to be the norm, but those days are long since past.

Yeah, people may have TVs and cell phones and computers today, but their cost is insignificant compared to the increased cost of education and health care and steadily falling wages. They don't really improve our standard of living nearly as much as we would like to believe, either. What I consider important is the ability to afford housing, education (upward mobility), food, health care, kids, and retirement. Those are the essentials. We are falling behind by every measure. We can afford $100 for a new cell, but not $100,000 for chemo because your insurance craps out after contributing $5000 toward your treatment (if you even have coverage). The simple fact is that most Americans are sinking into poverty. If you, and the people like you continue to refuse to do something about it, you will have a revolution on your hands. As such, helping end poverty is in your own self interest.

 

[Gastanker]

You're just showing how ignorant you are about the current labor market. If you don't think people are working for less than minimum wage due to unpaid overtime - people who've been to grad school - then you know nothing about these matters. It's par for the course. Regarding hard work paying off, do you know how much work grad school is? Or law school - there's countless lawyers working as baristas or hauling trash, buried under hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that cannot be discharged by a bankruptcy court.

In case you haven't been paying attention, things have gotten WORSE lately. It's the worst recession since the Great Depression. There's only enough jobs for about 150 million Americans - that's a maximum employment rate of 50%. Explain to me how someone's hard work can pay off if there's no jobs for them? These aren't the frontier days. You can't just go off into the forest, fell some trees, and establish your own life all on your own. Literally everything is this country is already owned by someone now. You can't even eat without help from others - if no one will give you work because they have no money to hire you, how can you get the money to buy land?

Yeah, people may have TVs and cell phones and computers today, but their cost is insignificant compared to the increased cost of education and health care and steadily falling wages. They don't really improve our lives nearly as much as we would like to believe, either.

You are delusional. And I love that I'm considered not a person in all of this. I've been to grad school, I had to pay for it, I had to get a job, I know people that had go get a job, my wife got a job, my sisters got jobs... I am in no way stating that times aren't tough right now. I'm not sure why you would think I was.

What are you arguing? What does any of this have to do with people taking advantage of welfare? I don't care that you and your friends can't seem to find a decent job - it's irrelevant. People are finding decent jobs - all over the place.

You think that because times are hard that you should be able to collect unemployment without looking for work?

 

[purklize]

And when did you go to grad school? Did you go to grad school now? Did you graduate now? No, you didn't - you did when times were better, when education was much cheaper, when health care was more affordable and public hospitals were still open, when wages hadn't been nearly so eroded by inflation and unemployment wasn't nearly as high.

Look at the objective evidence. All you and others do is cite random bits of anecdotal evidence - "I have a friend that made it!" - but you have no real response to the data. Real unemployment at this country is at 50%. There are only enough jobs for 150 million Americans. How can you possibly believe that everyone can make it if they just "work hard" with a situation like this? You're the one that's delusional.

If there is one steak, and there are ten dogs, and you suspend the steak high off the ground, the dog who jumps highest will get the steak. It appears to the dogs that they can each have a steak, but the fact remains that only one of them will.

 

[cannabineer]

And when did you go to grad school? Did you go to grad school now? Did you graduate now? No, you didn't - you did when times were better, when education was much cheaper, when health care was more affordable and public hospitals were still open, when wages hadn't been nearly so eroded by inflation and unemployment wasn't nearly as high.

Look at the objective evidence. All you and others do is cite random bits of anecdotal evidence - "I have a friend that made it!" - but you have no response for the data. Real unemployment at this country is at 50%. There are only enough jobs for 150 million Americans. How can you possibly believe that everyone can make it if they just "work hard" with a situation like this? You're the one that's delusional.

Are you saying that there are currently 300 million eligible adults in the USA holding or seeking jobs? The number seems high. cn

 

[Gastanker]

And when did you go to grad school? Did you go to grad school now? Did you graduate now? No, you didn't - you did when times were better, when education was much cheaper, when health care was more affordable and public hospitals were still open, when wages hadn't been nearly so eroded by inflation and unemployment wasn't nearly as high.

Look at the objective evidence. All you and others do is cite random bits of anecdotal evidence - "I have a friend that made it!" - but you have no real response to the data. Real unemployment at this country is at 50%. There are only enough jobs for 150 million Americans. How can you possibly believe that everyone can make it if they just "work hard" with a situation like this? You're the one that's delusional.

I love how I went from not a real person to someone you know everything about? We're at 50% unemployment? So if I walk down the street every other family is going to tell me they are unemployed? Dude... really...

 

[purklize]

No, there aren't 300 million Americans seeking work, but a very high percentage would take a decent job if they could get it. Traditional unemployment numbers are very deceiving because once someone gives up after a couple hundred applications, they aren't considered unemployed anymore. The fact is, there aren't enough jobs to go around - not even close - and the ones that are being created are generally paying very low wages with no benefits and no path to something better.

 

[purklize]

I love how I went from not a real person to someone you know everything about? We're at 50% unemployment? So if I walk down the street every other family is going to tell me they are unemployed? Dude... really...

Someone is unemployed if they do not have work. Half of Americans do not have work.

 

[Gastanker]

No, there aren't 300 million Americans seeking work, but a very high percentage would take a decent job if they could get it. Traditional unemployment numbers are very deceiving because once someone gives up after a couple hundred applications, they aren't considered unemployed anymore. The fact is, there aren't enough jobs to go around - not even close - and the ones that are being created are generally paying very low wages with no benefits and no path to something better.

"Most Americans, if offered, without any need to fill the requirements, would take a better job." Yes, I agree. That's a very true statement.