"Day Without A Woman" - General Strike - March 8, 2017

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

A family of 4 where I live will qualify for WIC, a program that provides money to buy essentials to low income families, if they earn less than about 40k/year for a family of 4. Two parents in your scenario will qualify for quite a bit.
Its a little skewed because they only look at gross pay. Someone who has an employer who pays very little towards benefits and gets a larger chunk taken out wont be qualified, but someone else with the same net pay who has a smaller paycheck but employer does contribute more towards benefits would qualify, even though their net pay is the same after benefits.

Yeah, it's always easy to make it seem on paper that people are all provided for. But you live in reality just like me. I'm sure you must recognize that social programs don't keep a huge number of Americans out of poverty, and I'm not talking about drunks and addicts and lazy people. As I said, these amounts afforded families are based on a poverty line that sorely underestimates the needs of families, so I'm not sure how you figure from that that those programs are adequate.

mace1229

I figure because in some cases families living on assistance actually make more than me once you factor in the benefits they receive. I'm a public employee where we have had a pay freeze more years than not with increasing health costs that are approaching $800/month just for my employee contribution. With the addition of a second child we almost qualify for WIC. If my gross pay was $200/month less I would. But someone who makes just a little less than me is going to pay very little in health benefits because that would be subsidized, qualify for WIC and get a large portion of their groceries paid for, possibly qualify for reduced housing, get a subsidized cell phone and plan. Pretty soon it'll be subsidized cable and HBO so they can watch Game of Thrones with everyone else. I don't think we need to add free childcare on top of that in most cases. I'm sure there are exceptions.
We've had to cut back on spending, find creative ways to afford a fun lifestyle, but we make it work.
I'm not against assistance.
The problem I see is too often people begin to rely on it, and never improve their situation. Of course not all, but still too many. I saw it with unemployment, when you give 2 years of unemployment it suddenly took 23 months for people to find a job. There are lots of people who work hard every day and only make it with the help from government, and there are lots who realize they can make it with what is given to them and never try to improve. And for many they just don't have the opportunity to improve. The problem is these programs don't offer any incentive or pathway for them to improve.
If we should provide childcare, then make it a short term program for 18 months. Enroll in a community college which is very cheap (and subsidize that even, my year of community college was cheaper than a month of childcare). So that in 18 months of working your butt off and many sleepless night you at least have an education or a trade skill to get the better job. That to me sounds much better than the current system where many stay at the same level of poverty for years.
Just something to help improve their life, not just sustain the minimum required to live in this country. But what do you expect when the subsidies the government offers have no deadline, and only increase with the more kids you have and the less you make?

PJ_Soul

Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

mace1229

That's why I said provide opportunities to rise out of poverty. The current system of handouts clearly doesn't do that.
Employed people can go to school, I did. Sure, there are obstacles, but like I said instead of just indefinitely increasing handouts, use that money and effort to create programs. Programs like night school for working moms and provide childcare. Place a term limit on the programs so there's an incentive to finish, get a degree or skill, and not work for $8/hr anymore.
I never said it was easy, but getting a degree usually isn't. I still think its better than just increasing the handouts and allowing their situation to never improve.

CM189191

.

PJ_Soul said:

Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?

PJ_Soul

CM189191 said:

.

PJ_Soul said:

Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?

Full time is 35 hours or more per week.

CM189191

PJ_Soul said:

CM189191 said:

.

PJ_Soul said:

Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?

Full time is 35 hours or more per week.

says who? why not 25 hours a week?

josevolution

https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees

PJ_Soul

CM189191 said:

PJ_Soul said:

CM189191 said:

.

PJ_Soul said:

Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?

Full time is 35 hours or more per week.

says who? why not 25 hours a week?

Well it's a legal definition, but I was mistaken in that it is 30+ hours a week and not 35. Anyway, it's not a subjective number.