20% of food stamps spent on soda & junk food.

[Spectral]

It's a really simple formula.

If you want someone to work for you full time, pay them enough to not need handouts.

If you can't afford to pay someone enough to not need handouts, you don't get to have them work for you full time.

Part time work is not to be allowed for people unless they won't need handouts.

Anyone who is refused employment gets to have handouts, this will encourage people to employ them.

See? Simple.

This is a great example of why I'm not enthusiastic about universal democracy. We don't have anything that resembles an informed populace.

[Spectral]

really... food stamps are $16 a month? that's almost to the point of why bother with the hassle even if your poor.

They're not. The median household receives ~$250/month and the median individual receives ~$125. His numbers were crafted to paint a pretty dishonest picture.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think virtually outlawing part time jobs is a good idea.

I'd really make labor markets less restrictive rather than more. I don't get why people are obsessed with the idea that creating a labor market that excludes an enormous number of people is a better idea than just having a large EITC. I guess a complete and utter lack of basic economic knowledge combined with never really having given the implications any thought combined with a bizarre and intense spite towards business owners.

[Shadowferal]

if its a form you can fill out online and then they show up in your mailbox, then why not.

if you have to do shit for it every month, like go someplace to collect them or keep receipts, then it's not worth it really really fast especially if you have to do so during business hours.

i was assuming food stamps was closer to $16 a week then month.

Speaking as someone that was in similar straits...no internet. Yes, I filled out stuff every month since it was sent along with my "check," then mailed it back.

[Raptor With a Saber]

Its the cheapest item to buy that goes the longest way.

[Deleted]

They're not. The median household receives ~$250/month and the median individual receives ~$125. His numbers were crafted to paint a pretty dishonest picture.

you mean median household as in with a income of ~$50000 yearly? why would they get food stamps, let alone more then a single mother on minimum wage oO? this shit is weird. or did you mean he was straight up lying instead of cherry picking?

[Spectral]

It encourages business owners to employ people full time over part time by only allowing part time if they wont need handouts while working part time.

You have to make business care about people or they simply use people.

I'd rather let businesses just do business and have the government care about people. Reversing these roles is a recipe for slow motion economic deterioration.

[Necromaniac]

If only you could pay your WoW sub with SNAP.

I mean... It's just as addicting as soda lol.

[Total Crica]

OK, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have part-time work at lower wage levels and those jobs are important to people going to school or trying to fit in 1.5 jobs over the summer or whatever.

If they won't need handouts while working part time, they may work part time.

Otherwise, they simply get handouts until they find full time work.

It's simple.

[Spectral]

you mean median household as in with a income of ~$50000 yearly? why would they get food stamps, let alone more then a single mother on minimum wage oO? this shit is weird.

No, I mean that the median household that receives SNAP aid receives $255/year. Here's a good summary. Apparently this is actually average though and I was mistaken about it being median; these should generally be pretty close though. Scroll to Table 1 for the relevant data.

[Total Crica]

So I can get a job that I don't really need or care about, but an unemployed welfare beneficiary can't because I guess we'd rather pay them more benefits and prevent them from getting experience that may help them land a real job?

Businesses should bend over backwards to accommodate the workers and customers.

This would ensure this happens.

Businesses don't want to handout things for free, so they will opt to employ people instead of refuse them work.

Workers dont want to have to work 3 or more jobs just to not need handouts.

This will ensure this doesn't happen.

Customers dont want to have to pay half their paychecks to afford one item.

This will ensure they dont have to.

[Spectral]

So I can get a job that I don't really need or care about, but an unemployed welfare beneficiary can't because I guess we'd rather pay them more benefits and prevent them from getting experience that may help them land a real job? How does this make sense? This is absolutely fucking backwards. It's not enough to have good intentions. You need to follow through with good thoughts.

Yeah, this is an all around horrendous idea. It's also the reason why I'm not even a big fan of minimum wage laws in the first place. Preventing people from taking apprentice employment isn't doing them any favors. Ironically, this is another way we privilege the children of the wealthy and/or the educated - they're allowed to take internships and gain experience while receiving no compensations, but receiving any compensation makes this illegal.

If we want to subsidize living standards for poor people (and I think you know that I strongly believe we should), we can just do it with direct cash transfers rather than trying to force businesses to "care" about their employees. People have got this entirely backwards - businesses should do business, governments should care about their populations.

Timothy Taylor has a kickass episode on Econtalk that discusses this at much greater length. Summary:

Timothy Taylor, blogger at the Conversable Economist and editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the role of government and business in taking care of workers and creating economic growth. Taylor discusses the paradox that the political process seems to expect firms to take care of workers and government to create growth. The conversation then turns to a wide array of related issues including how Wal-Mart treats its workers.

[unfilteredJW]

Ah, I see the infinite mediocrity is banging their drums of war against those below them having any form of enjoyment in their lives.

I get that you need someone below you on the ladder to feel good about yourself, but kicking them too?

[TrumpIsPresident]

Faux News strikes again...

Basic economics.

Makes me wonder if they still teach that to kids today.

[Pull My Finger]

Oh, is it hypocrite hour again?

Junk food is food. What kind of food people consume doesn't have any bearing on their future integration into the job market.

/thread

[Total Crica]

businesses should do business, governments should care about their populations.

I would agree with that too. Except that businesses are not paying enough to enable the government to care, let alone their own workers.

[Shadowferal]

Basic economics.

Makes me wonder if they still teach that to kids today.

Why were you home-schooled?
Sounds like it.

Or maybe you were just repeating the lame blame game from Ben Carson
He was wrong too...

But then the facts have always been against you...Even your new president is going to be against you. (Which I find hilariously ironic)

[TITAN308]

Junk food is food. What kind of food people consume doesn't have any bearing on their future integration into the job market.

That is not entirely true. Many reports over the years show more healthy looking people are hired over fat people when given a choice between the two.

[Spectral]

That is not entirely true. Many reports over the years show more healthy looking people are hired over fat people when given a choice between the two.

Additionally, obesity has negative impacts on health, which adversely impacts employment. While it's not clear which direction the causality runs, there's also good evidence that obesity and lowered cognition are correlated. Obviously eating less chips isn't going to turn an idiot into a genius, but if I were constructing a probabilistic model for who's likely to do well in employment, I'd bet good money that people with good eating habits do better than people with poor eating habits.

[kail]

Not everyone is able to add sufficient value to justify a $15/hour wage or whatever number you deem relevant is. Hell, not everyone is able to add sufficient value to justify a $7/hour wage. Presumably the solution isn't to say, "well, go fuck yourselves then".

It could be $15, $4$, or $20, w/e is considered "livable". Either that or continue paying for their SNAP and other assistances. Government won't let people starve when they are willing to work.

[Captain N]

They're not. The median household receives ~$250/month and the median individual receives ~$125. His numbers were crafted to paint a pretty dishonest picture..

Except they weren't and I used the Illinois SNAP Calculator Here:

http://fscalc.dhs.illinois.gov/FSCalc/

Household Size: 2

Is anyone in the household disabled: No

Gross Income From Work before Deductions: 1600 (That's $10 x 40 hours x 4 weeks) -$1600

Other Income (Child Support) - $500 per month was a number I used

Dependent Care Costs - $250

Court Ordered Child Support Payments - $0

Out of Pocket Medical Expenses - $0

Rent - $750

Billed For 1 Utility excluding Heat/AC/Telephone - Most apartments around here do charge for electric.

Potential Monthly Benefit Amount - $16

You may put in those numbers and see for yourself.