Is This Why Americans Have Lost The Drive To "Earn" More?

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-01/why-americans-have-lost-drive-earn-more

In the recent past we noted the somewhat startling reality that "the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045." While mathematics is our tool - as opposed to the mathemagics of some of the more politically biased media who did not like our message - the painful reality in America is that: for increasingly more Americans it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is such an important topic that we felt it necessary to warrant a second look. The graphic below quite clearly, and very painfully, confirms that there is an earnings vacuum of around $40k in which US workers are perfectly ambivalent toward inputting more effort since it does not result in any additional incremental disposable income. With the ongoing 'fiscal cliff' battles over taxes and entitlements, this is a problematic finding, since - as a result - it is the US government that will have to keep funding indirectly this lost productivity and worker output (via wealth redistribution).

As we noted before (details below):

We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and... have the same disposable income at the end of the day.
Naturally, the topic of wealth redistribution is paramount one now that America is entering the terminal phase of its out of control spending, and whose response to hike taxes in a globalized, easily fungible world, will merely force more of the uber-wealthy to find offshore tax jurisdictions, avoid US taxation altogether, and thus result in even lower budget revenues for the US. It explains why the cluelessly incompetent but supposedly impartial Congressional Budget Office just released a key paper titled "Share of Returns Filed by Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, by Marginal Tax Rate, Under 2012 Law" which carries a chart of disposable income by net income comparable to the one above.

But perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

  • For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
  • For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.
And since nothing has changed in the past two years, and in fact the situation has gotten progressively (pardon the pun) worse, here is our conclusion on this topic from two years ago:


We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.
But for now, just stick head in sand, and pretend all is good. Self-deception is now the only thing left for the entire insolvent entitlement-addicted world.
* * *
Full must read presentation: "Welfare's Failure and the Solution"


Some other thoughts on this topic: DOES IT PAY, AT THE MARGIN, TO WORK AND SAVE?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
lol, calls medicaid and food stamps welfare.

might as well call desertdude a welfare baby since he benefits from social welfare programs.

might as well call nodrama a welfare baby since all he does is grow crops at a loss and wait for the government to send him a check for the difference.

might as well call multi-billion dollar oil companies welfare babies since they collect government subsidy checks after paying nothing in taxes.

i saw this piece of mental retardation masquerading as data a week ago and wondered who would be the idiot to post it here. question answered.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
reminds me of when conservatives were up in arms because of how many people had refrigerators. and ovens too!

not only are these fat cat poor people heating their food, they're also preserving it by keeping it cool!

:cuss:

don't you poor people know your place?!? should be boiling potato skin soup over a rusty pot in the park by the community bonfire, you hobos!
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
reminds me of when conservatives were up in arms because of how many people had refrigerators. and ovens too!

not only are these fat cat poor people heating their food, they're also preserving it by keeping it cool!

:cuss:

don't you poor people know your place?!? should be boiling potato skin soup over a rusty pot in the park by the community bonfire, you hobos!
When did this happen?? cn
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
zerohedge is a pretty awesome site.

why doesn't rawn pawl run as an independent?

shouldn't you be buying gold?

there's no real austerity in europe!

greece greece greece greece welfare ponzi scheme!


what a joke.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
I wonder if Mr Welfare basher knows most people on welfare are white?
the article had no mention of race or implications about it, it was your own prejudices if anything if something came to mind

lol, calls medicaid and food stamps welfare.

might as well call desertdude a welfare baby since he benefits from social welfare programs.

might as well call nodrama a welfare baby since all he does is grow crops at a loss and wait for the government to send him a check for the difference.

might as well call multi-billion dollar oil companies welfare babies since they collect government subsidy checks after paying nothing in taxes.

i saw this piece of mental retardation masquerading as data a week ago and wondered who would be the idiot to post it here. question answered.
UncleBuck is an expert of the Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem


  1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


And Buck the author I am sure would not disagree with you about your point of cartel payments in terms of government subsidies/contracts/loopholes etc...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck is an expert of the Ad Hominem
there was no ad hominem in pointing out that food stamps are NOT welfare as we know it.

most people on food stamps work, for your edification.

oh, and medicaid? not only do you have to be super super poor to be on medicaid, you have to be poor AND [X], with [X] being something really disabling and crippling.

i'm sorry that you enjoy mouth farting clearly biased "studies" onto pot websites. you should have checked out some of the other garbage they were hocking at zerohedge first.

being a good consumer of information is sorely lacking nowadays.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
there was no ad hominem in pointing out that food stamps are NOT welfare as we know it.

most people on food stamps work, for your edification.

oh, and medicaid? not only do you have to be super super poor to be on medicaid, you have to be poor AND [X], with [X] being something really disabling and crippling.

i'm sorry that you enjoy mouth farting clearly biased "studies" onto pot websites. you should have checked out some of the other garbage they were hocking at zerohedge first.

being a good consumer of information is sorely lacking nowadays.
says the guy with his homepage as the Daily Kos
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
says the guy with his homepage as the Daily Kos
Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem



  1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
 

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem



  1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
LOL too funny. What a fucking hypocrite. :p
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
a while back.

did you know that about 80% of these supposedly "poor" people have VCRs?

i mean, VCRs! talk about your top of the line technology. poor people should not have access to these $10 relics.

i mean, 78% of people in poverty have washing machines!

oh, the indignity! :cuss:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
Translation: I couldn't find a single link anywhere to corroborate my claim, but here is an article that is long, has nothing to do with what I claimed, but hoping you won't read it and call my bluff.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
oh, and medicaid? not only do you have to be super super poor to be on medicaid, you have to be poor AND [X], with [X] being something really disabling and crippling.

.
Really? My old lady is on medicaid, works, makes over $40K per year and lives with me and has not a single expense. SHe fully qualifies. Oh and she gets anxious sometimes.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Translation: I couldn't find a single link anywhere to corroborate my claim, but here is an article that is long, has nothing to do with what I claimed, but hoping you won't read it and call my bluff.
ummm, dude. duuuude.

the stats i talk about are in the link.

i'm positive we had a thread or two about this a while back.

meh. whatever.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
ummm, dude. duuuude.

the stats i talk about are in the link.

i'm positive we had a thread or two about this a while back.

meh. whatever.
I saw NOTHING in there showing conservatives harping on poor people for owning Refrigerators and ovens, NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!!
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Hey you know what? I actually sell my crops for a profit, not a loss. The government pays me to NOT grow certain crops though.
 
Top