- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The workforce shortage is real and ridiculous
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:46 am to JiminyCricket
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:46 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Your pay is not based on how important you job is, it's based on how many people in the workforce are capable of doing what you're being asked to do.
It's actually based on the market. Businesses have kept low paying jobs at a lower rate for years now because they know the government will supplement those people with welfare benefits.
3
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:47 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Create a UBI
The only people that support this are too stupid to comprehend second and third order effects.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:47 am to The Spleen
quote:
It's actually based on the market. Businesses have kept low paying jobs at a lower rate for years now because they know the government will supplement those people with welfare benefits.
Um no.
I hire people all the time and we have discussed "let's give them less money since they'll likely be on welfare anyway" a grand total of zero times.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 9:50 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:48 am to The Spleen
quote:
because they know the government will supplement those people with welfare benefits
Sounds like we need to get rid of welfare and end LBJ's dream of making a permanent government dependent voter class.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:48 am to CptRusty
quote:
It really isn't even this. There are powerful incentive structures set up that make the "welfare" lifestyle more attractive than the admittedly difficult road out of poverty.
The *only* way to solve this is to reduce the attractiveness of the welfare route. The policies would take probably at 2-3 decades of some pretty extreme growing pains to manifest meaningful results, but we'd come out of the other side a better country. Unfortunately there is *zero* political incentive to actually solve these problems. They're far too useful of a tool to pander for votes.
Unfortunately, I believe you are spot on.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:49 am to CptRusty
quote:
There are powerful incentive structures set up that make the "welfare" lifestyle more attractive than the admittedly difficult road out of poverty.
Your perception of how many "welfare queens" there are is severely overstated
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:49 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Um no.
pretty sure WalMart literally admitted to this, but ok
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:50 am to Salmon
quote:
pretty sure WalMart literally admitted to this, but ok
Spleen said it, has to be wrong
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:53 am to Salmon
Walmart wouldn’t be my first choice of a company reflecting conservative values and ideology.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 9:56 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:54 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Walmart wouldn’t be my first choice of a company reflecting conservative values and ideology.
Of this is what you're looking for you're going to have to look a long time.
Even though it's not particularly relevant
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:56 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Your perception of how many "welfare queens" there are is severely overstated
You know frick all about my perception.
But on the question of how many welfare recipients we have in the US, let's just ask the government:
LINK
They say 21.3%.
That's 1/5 of the population. If not that, then at what point would you say we have too many "welfare queens"?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:58 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Walmart wouldn’t be my first choice of a company reflecting conservative values and ideology.
has literally nothing to do with anything being discussed
the point is that corporations have kept pay purposely low for low skilled employees because they know that the government will support their employees with welfare
this is how corporations get welfare without actually receiving it themselves, they receive it by not having to pay their employees
nothing Spleen said was wrong
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:59 am to CptRusty
quote:
You know frick all about my perception.
But on the question of how many welfare recipients we have in the US, let's just ask the government:
LINK
They say 21.3%.
That's 1/5 of the population. If not that, then at what point would you say we have too many "welfare queens"?
People receiving welfare aren't automatically welfare queens.
Most recipients are only getting food stamps values at like $150/month
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:59 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Unfortunately, I believe you are spot on.
Also to be clear, when I say it's a tool for pandering, I am implicating both sides of the aisle.
The right will use it to gin up resentment for the poor, while promising lower taxes.
The left will use it to gin up resentment for the rich, while promising more free shite.
and round and round we go.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:00 am to Salmon
quote:
pay purposely low for low skilled
Why would they have to do that on purpose? Wouldn't it make sense that low skilled employees are payed accordingly?
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 10:02 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:00 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
I hire people all the time and we have discussed "let's give them less money since they'll likely be on welfare anyway" a grand total of zero times.
Cool. I never said it was a conscience decision businesses make. How in line with your competitors in your market are your lower wages? There are outliers in nearly every market that pay above the market rate, even for entry level jobs. Those places usually have very little trouble filling those roles, and also usually have very little turnover.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:03 am to Mingo Was His NameO
Very similar to peoples' general perception of how many people live in poverty in this country
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:04 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Why would they have to do that on purpose? Wouldn't it make sense that low skilled employees are payed accordingly?
Sure.
But they know that they can get away with paying their employees less because the government will subsidize their pay and they won't lose employees to "higher" paying jobs.
This isn't a secret. They have literally admitted to this.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:04 am to CptRusty
quote:
Also to be clear, when I say it's a tool for pandering, I am implicating both sides of the aisle.
The right will use it to gin up resentment for the poor, while promising lower taxes.
The left will use it to gin up resentment for the rich, while promising more free shite.
and round and round we go.
I agree for the most part. The only difference I have is that I don't resent the poor as much as I resent policies and psychology used by politicians that keep many poor people poor.
Page 21 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News