Dependency Breeds Poverty

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Dependency Breeds Poverty
75
Sun, 09-12-2010 - 8:25am

Education and a value system that supports a stable lifestyle prevent poverty. . .programs that foster dependency

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 4:36pm

Interesting article.

I wouldn't expect all who enter a training program to graduate, just like all who go to school beyond HS don't graduate. 16 out of 24 isn't bad for a job that pays only $13/hr. It would be nice to know the circumstances behind those failures. Perhaps some were simply lazy or incapable. But others, I'm sure, had family/childcare problems or found jobs paying much better. Maybe Mr. Sperry's company has a bad work environment--I don't know. I'd expect fewer to graduate if they are subjected to verbal abuse or discrimination of some sort. Maybe Mr. Sperry's company offers lousy benefits. The hourly wage is only one consideration when someone decides to spend 40+ hours a week working somewhere.

How does Mr. Sperry know that those applicants he saw at the job fair were just going through the motions? Does he know them personally?

I can understand that someone who was earning $30/hr would rather take unemployment benes than a job paying $10/hr. If he takes that job, then when the economy picks up, that low-level recent experience could actually make him look bad in the eyes of prospective employers in his field and he may never get back to his chosen career. Where there are wide discrepancies between the type of work and the pay, unemployment comp may mean fewer go back to work at low wages. But I think that's the exception, rather than the rule.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-19-2010
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 6:55pm
Exactly! Always the victim....everything is always somebody else's fault.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-03-2010
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 8:56pm

>>> No. Socialists don't give money to businesses; they prefer that the businesses be state-owned.

Obama's well on his way to taking care of that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-03-2010
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 11:50pm

>>> Let's see you said YOU paid for your college HA! Not in the US?

Well, don't I feel the fool for paying all those thousands in student loans!

>>> Hmmm Harvard 70% US government funds. So called private take federal funds! Even the most private take funding from others no You did not pay the entire cost.

State colleges and schools, not private colleges or trade schools, are subsidized by the state, not the Federal Government, which is, again, just another example of MY taxes supporting education for MY family. But your contention was, rather bizarrely, that college was "free"...which will come as a surprise to everyone else who actually pays for it.

>>> But nowhere does it say the government has a right to take MY money and give it to someone else.<<<<<<<

>>> Yes it does. Your money? And you are whining about paying taxes?
Taxes are taking "your" money and giving it to someone else.!! LOL!!!!

With the possible exception of welfare, no, it isn't. I pay taxes and, before the Dems took over, received services in return. My tax money wasn't collected and then handed to other individuals...especially for the purposes of "redistributing the wealth."

>>>>Er...I'm afraid not...but feel free to go to your local college and demand free admission.<<<<

>>> You mean the full ride scholarship?

Yes...amuse us...go to your local college and demand a "full ride scholarship." We'll wait...

>>>>So...the government protects the people without defending their rights? That's some trick. I guess it explains how Obama has been able to stomp all over them.<<<<<

>>> what rights? Oh you must mean the right to huge profit and to cry to congress when they get into a downturn because of bad ,outdated, business models? And get THE TAXPAYERS TO BAIL THEM OUT!

Bailing out failed businesses is a liberal notion. Most conservatives I know said "let them fail."

>>> Do you imagine that corporations are like transformers? LOL! Actually, they're run by people, for people and they employ people.<<<<

>>> What? you admit there are humans running businesses?

Well...unless you're a big believer in robots taking over the world. LOL!

>>> The same humans who let the business almost go out and had the nerve to ask the taxpayer to bail them out?

And the liberal humans who wasted my tax dollars bailing them out and having the government control private business?

>>> The business that loves to pay low wages and sell high prices?

Are you from China? LOL! Here in the US, businesses pay market wages and sell goods at market prices.

>>> The ones who complain about the crappy cheap insurance they pay the worker?

I can't speak for you, but the companies I've worked for have always provided pretty good insurance.

>>> The ones who want to keep it that way because then they can lord over someone?

I've never had a company "lord" my insurance coverage over me. You must have worked for some horrible people.

>>> OH the real problem is that when people have a good living then someone is unhappy.

Usually liberals and slackers...liberals who want to take that "good living" away and give handouts to the slackers...usually in exchange for votes.

>>> When people can't afford good medical care because the costs are too high?

Kick the illegals and slackers off the dole, do tort reform and watch the prices magically come down.

>>> And that employer paid insurance does not cover it?

The employer provides general coverage. If you want more, pay for it yourself, rather than expecting someone else to pay for it.

>>> But no taxes even thought it would be cheaper and result in superior care if it was single payer?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *COUGH* *COUGH* CANADA * COUGH* *COUGH* BRITAIN *COUGH* *COUGH*

<< But nowhere does it say the government has a right to take MY money and give it to someone else.

>>> No the government takes your tax money and gives it to failed business with no oversight (TARP). Business is about profit and control.

Thank you Democrats.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-03-2010
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 11:52pm
Liberals never care about money...until someone tries to take some of theirs. ; )
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:16am

First your profit is profit it does not have a liberal or Conservative label it is what it is profit. Market wage and market prices are nonexistent. Many businesses sell below market to gain market share. The pay some workers higher wages than the market to attract the best.
So those two adages fail!

>>State colleges and schools, not private colleges or trade schools, are subsidized by the state, not the Federal Government, <<<
Wrong. all state schools have federal funding too!

>>>But your contention was, rather bizarrely, that college was "free"...which will come as a surprise to everyone else who actually pays for it.<<<<<
Again the misunderstanding.
Even in Europe there is not "FREE LUNCH". There never has been "free education". It is all paid by taxes and fees; or a combination or one or the other. In the tax paid educations currently Europe and Russia and some other countries do have tax supported educations that depending on the nation may not have other fees or costs. But still it is not free. I never said free education.

The contention that taxes pay for the education for your family is correct just make sure that you understand federal tax monies are there also.
So, what is your objection: You pay taxes you get services.

Now what is this""redistributing the wealth."?
Is it a misunderstanding of how a republic functions?

rogressive income redistribution evens the amount of income that individuals are permitted to receive, in order to correct the ineffectiveness of a market economy to remunerate based on the amount of labor expended by an individual. The objective of moderate income redistribution is to avoid the unjust equalization of incomes on one side and unjust extremes of concentration on the other sides. Today, income redistribution occurs in some form in most democratic countries, most commonly through income-adjusted taxes (in which the amount of tax paid is directly connected to one's income), some of which goes to fund welfare programs to assist the poor , or to all of society. Progressive income taxes are a widely used method of income redistribution. The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such a taxation.

All political and economic systems facilitate the transfer of wealth, including capitalism, communism and socialism ; however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system. Some methods of redistributing wealth are welfare, nationalization and taxation.

"Property redistribution is a term applied to various political policies involving taxation or expropriation of property, or of regulations ordering owners to make their property available to others. Public programs and policy measures involving redistribution of property include eminent domain, land reform and inheritance tax. Redistribution policies are usually promoted (in democracies) by arguing that less stratified economies are more socially just."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

Please note: "All political and economic systems facilitate the transfer of wealth, including capitalism, communism and socialism"

So capitalism is not on your approved economic system list. Right?

>> I can't speak for you, but the companies I've worked for have always provided pretty good insurance.<<<<
Yeah right!(dripping with sarcasm) Hope you never have serious illness or accident! Then you will find how bad it is or read your policy very carefully!!!

You do not like welfare good let's get rid of it and the concomitant laws Yea!

>>>>And the liberal humans who wasted my tax dollars bailing them out and having the government control private business?<<<<<<
Can you spell TARP!
Congress because it allows the elections to be influenced by big money interests does not have the interests of the citizenry at large but those who are bit contributers Both prates are at fault!

Tort reform might have some difference but the costs will continue to rise. Only by governmental subsidy can the average wage earner hope to obtain state of the art medical-dental care.

blue dragon with sword




















xvx Pictures, Images and Photos


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:21am

>>First your profit is profit it does not have a liberal or Conservative label it is what it is profit. Market wage and market prices are nonexistent. Many businesses sell below market to gain market share. The pay some workers higher wages than the market to attract the best.
So those two adages fail!<<

No. Your statement contradicts itself. Both examples you gave are a result of market wages and market prices. A worker who can demand higher pay is able to do so because that's what the market (those in need of his skills) will bear. Prices and wages are "the market".

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:28am

In the example first give market means average. It is known that companies pay employees doing the same job differently.

In retail there are products that are sold below cost to gain what is called market share. And the idea of higher over all ticket sales.

blue dragon with sword




















xvx Pictures, Images and Photos


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:43am

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 2:50pm

You have already had a negative experience with a state-run bureaucracy that was not responsive to your needs and provided inferior services, WHY on earth would you want an even larger, more inefficient, and less responsive bureaucracy (national)

Pages