23,116,928 to 20,618,000: Households on Food Stamps.

[Themius]

Kinda sad that in NJ, one of the states with the highest median household income, we still have the federal minimum wage..and like you posted earlier, good luck living anywhere on your own while having a job that pays at or around minimum wage, unless possibly if you live in the country known as South Jersey lol. I'm in central NJ and the crappy apartments up the road are 900$ a month for a 1br.

She lives in the south actually and the average 1 bedroom where she is ranges 600-700. I do have an acquaintance up here though and he makes minimum but lives with 2 other room mates so he can get by lol.

[chrisberb]

I'm guessing you didn't even read it if you think it's biased since they mentioned his statement was true because he picked a favorable period of time to use as proof.

Unless I read this wrong:

Krueger said that "since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions." The statistics show that 87 percent of the increase in jobs between March 2010 and July 2013 consisted of full-time jobs. A shorter time frame would show the opposite pattern, but on the numbers, Krueger is right. We rate the claim True.

It's BECAUSE he used those 3+ years that the claim is true overall. Yes, it is discounting 2009 because it wasn't what they were referring to.
But even one of the links provides a graph showing part time jobs spike up, and then being to decline

[The Riddler]

I'm guessing you didn't even read it if you think it's biased since they mentioned his statement was true because he picked a favorable period of time to use as proof.

Here's the timeline...
1. I make a post saying Obama's job creation is garbage because they're mostly part time.
2. Chrisberb says "I don't know about that" (indicating contradiction) and the cites the Obama shill.
3. I say, "I do know" and cite several links proving the original claim.

Yes, I read the other article. I saw the selective application of truth that is typical of Obama and the ideological clones he employs to spin reality. I am not applying shady, deceptive limiters on the time frame (unlike Politi"fact" and Kreuger). Since Obama took office, he's added hardly any full time jobs, and what job growth has taken place under his watch has mostly been part time. That's the facts.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politi...obs/index.html

The 4 million full time jobs Obama 'created' were merely treading water on his losses, getting him back to pretty much zero jobs created versus jobs that had been LOST under his term. When you look at total net job creation, Obama's jobs are over 90% part time. But its typical Obama-speak. Every time that specimen opens his mouth he is selectively quoting only certain data, carefully limiting what truths he chooses to accept in order to paint a different picture than actual reality. It is just one of those things he does.

[Spectral]

Slightly above minimum wage is about 800-900 a month. Add in rent (500-600 though I can't imagine that here, even for a share) and gas to get to and from work + food and minimum wage (or rahter just above) isn't livable.

I don't recommend poor people live in expensive cities. There's plenty of places where split rent is ~$250/month. I also wouldn't really recommend living at driving distance instead of biking distance. So, yeah, people that behave stupidly will do poorly on low incomes.

- - - Updated - - -

And anyone who says it can be is a college-aged person with no obligations. And newsflash to those people: you won't be forever.

Other than electing to have kids that you can't afford, what obligations does a 28-year old person have to have that an 18-year old person doesn't?

[Ebildays]

You wall do understand the president cannot "create" jobs that is just a media spin that every president has used. If people really wanted to bring back jobs to the US the first thing to do is make the cost of doing business higher over seas with taxes and/or higher tariffs on goods( including parts) made overseas. Manufacturing jobs are what made the middle class in the US and the lost of those jobs is what have drove up poverty and crimes rates in the US. One of the biggest reasons behind the move to making goods overseas was that companies would pass those savings on the people. What really happened was that those "savings" went into the pockets of CEO (if there ever was any) while people were left out of work and the price of goods rose.

While doing business overseas is in the best interest of companies it is not in the best interest of the US worker or the economy. Companies create the job market but along the way companies have turn the US from a nation of consumers and manufacturers to a nations of consumers and importers. What the president can do is try and change polices to make doing business in America a nicer option but that will not happen. People will claim he is punishing big business or other nations will become upset. Just like when Obama first came into office and he wanted people to "Buy American".

[Wells]

Here's the timeline...
1. I make a post saying Obama's job creation is garbage because they're mostly part time.
2. Chrisberb says "I don't know about that" (indicating contradiction) and the cites the Obama shill.
3. I say, "I do know" and cite several links proving the original claim.

Yes, I read the other article. I saw the selective application of truth that is typical of Obama and the ideological clones he employs to spin reality. I am not applying shady, deceptive limiters on the time frame (unlike Politi"fact" and Kreuger). Since Obama took office, he's added hardly any full time jobs, and what job growth has taken place under his watch has mostly been part time. That's the facts.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politi...obs/index.html

The 4 million full time jobs Obama 'created' were merely treading water on his losses, getting him back to pretty much zero jobs created versus jobs that had been LOST under his term. When you look at total net job creation, Obama's jobs are over 90% part time. But its typical Obama-speak. Every time that specimen opens his mouth he is selectively quoting only certain data, carefully limiting what truths he chooses to accept in order to paint a different picture than actual reality. It is just one of those things he does.

Question. Why is it "Obama's job creation"?

[Zecora]

Not an argument for raising minimum wage.

No? This certainly is:

It's an argument against all the idiotic policies that are causing the costs to rise on so many things. For example, the war on gas & coal is increasing the cost of all your goods across the board. Ethanol program is raising the cost of your food. Regulatory burdens are raising the cost of your medicines & everything else under the sun. Obama's QE printing press is devaluing your dollar and decreasing your purchasing power. And on and on and on. Cut the government by 30% across the board, eliminate the EPA and scale back the FDA & FCC and all the other departments that are nickel-diming industry into unprofitability. Eliminate all the tax loopholes and other gimmicks that are creating so much economic uncertainty from day to day. And above all else, repeal the nightmare that is Obamacare. That's what needs to happen - not the pathetic bandaid illusion of increasing minimum wage. That's just a shell game.

That's the worst crap I have ever heard. There IS no "war on gas and coal", what there is is a necessary cutback to limit (it's too late to prevent) catastrophic climate change, the damage of which will be quite disastrous as it is (see "Superstorm Sandy" for an example of what you get when you combine rising water levels with storm surges). What increases cost is corporate greed, as the typical markup on consumer goods produced cheaply in developing countries runs into several hundred percent.

What you need to do is cut the politics loose from the lobbying and corporation, strengthen important offices such as the EPA, guarrantee the right to unionize in law to equalize the employer - employee power ratio, and heavily invest in education, research and development of green technology to ensure that the US again becomes a world leader in technology.
Follow that up with a proper public healthcare system (and cut the inefficient corporate-serving mess you have now) and proper work training and public works programs for those that can't find a job, then increase the accountabillity of both the government and the large corporations and make sure to close tax loopholes while increasing the taxation of the rich and lowering the taxation of the poor. And make sure you prohibit irresponsible GMO tampering too, to safeguard the public health.

That will give you the start of a government and a nation that is there for the citizens, not the corporations and the ultra-rich.

[Bakis]

Raising minimum wage? HELL NO!!!, !¤#@ people use food stamps? Must be junkies! /sarcasm off

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Let each state set a minimum wage

States can set their own minimum wage, it just can't be lower than the Federal minimum.

[Themius]

I don't recommend poor people live in expensive cities. There's plenty of places where split rent is ~$250/month. I also wouldn't really recommend living at driving distance instead of biking distance. So, yeah, people that behave stupidly will do poorly on low incomes.

- - - Updated - - -



Other than electing to have kids that you can't afford, what obligations does a 28-year old person have to have that an 18-year old person doesn't?

You can't always live at biking distance especially if you live in a place where everything is far and you need to drive just to get somewhere. To live at biking distance to where the jobs usually are you'd have to fork out more for rent just because you are closer. Those people aren't stupid, wages just don't match up with what is livable. You also need to add in phones... completely forgot about that. It's near impossible to live without some sort of help from the government if you're on your own.

[Spectral]

You can't always live at biking distance especially if you live in a place where everything is far and you need to drive just to get somewhere.

Why the fuck would anyone that's poor be living in an expensive rural area? That's a really, really stupid choice.

To live at biking distance to where the jobs usually are you'd have to fork out more for rent just because you are closer.

Here's a decent apartment in a Buffalo suburb (I use Buffalo because I grew up there). That's pretty much within riding distance of the majority of the city. I'd recommend something like that be split by two people if they were kind of on the broke side. If someone's single, they could go down to a place that's more like $350-400/month, but they'd probably be best off finding a housemate.

It's near impossible to live without some sort of help from the government if you're on your own.

Especially if you insist on living in a $1K/month apartment and driving a significant distance to work.

[TZucchini]

I know a family that's on food stamps.

The father lost his job of 15 years due to cutbacks. He picked up a job as a restaurant manager just to get by. Doesn't make much. The mother has a 30k/year sales job, works her ass off. They have a mortgage and 3 kids in college. All three kids work part time jobs, and send money home to help out their parents.

It absolutely kills them to pay for groceries with food stamps. They're embarrassed, beaten down, and trying to get back on their feet.

[Spectral]

I know a family that's on food stamps.

The father lost his job of 15 years due to cutbacks. He picked up a job as a restaurant manager just to get by. Doesn't make much. The mother has a 30k/year sales job, works her ass off. They have a mortgage and 3 kids in college. All three kids work part time jobs, and send money home to help out their parents.

It absolutely kills them to pay for groceries with food stamps. They're embarrassed, beaten down, and trying to get back on their feet.

Something's fishy here. In a household of their size, a single person making $30K, plus other income would exclude them from eligibility (chart here).

[TZucchini]

Something's fishy here. In a household of their size, a single person making $30K, plus other income would exclude them from eligibility (chart here).

/Shrug. It's my wife's parents. I see them once a week. Definitely still on food stamps.

I actually think her Dad is paid under the table and doesn't report his income.

[Spectral]

Yeah, I'm probably disinclined to empathize with people committing fraud.

[artemishunter1]

Not an argument for raising minimum wage. It's an argument against all the idiotic policies that are causing the costs to rise on so many things. For example, the war on gas & coal is increasing the cost of all your goods across the board. Ethanol program is raising the cost of your food. Regulatory burdens are raising the cost of your medicines & everything else under the sun. Obama's QE printing press is devaluing your dollar and decreasing your purchasing power. And on and on and on. Cut the government by 30% across the board, eliminate the EPA and scale back the FDA & FCC and all the other departments that are nickel-diming industry into unprofitability. Eliminate all the tax loopholes and other gimmicks that are creating so much economic uncertainty from day to day. And above all else, repeal the nightmare that is Obamacare. That's what needs to happen - not the pathetic bandaid illusion of increasing minimum wage. That's just a shell game.[/QUOTE]

Well, our current economy is a shell game. Our economy depends on people to spend money on things that they DON'T need, or else we would be out of Jobs. Was food ever cheap? We are continiously subsidizing corn. You don't believe Drugs should be regulated, Should we allow every medicines to be ineffective or even dangerous? Drugs are also cheaper in Socialized Nation, what does it say about regulation?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't recommend poor people live in expensive cities. There's plenty of places where split rent is ~$250/month. I also wouldn't really recommend living at driving distance instead of biking distance. So, yeah, people that behave stupidly will do poorly on low incomes.

- - - Updated - - -



Other than electing to have kids that you can't afford, what obligations does a 28-year old person have to have that an 18-year old person doesn't?

What are the Job situation even at driving distance of 250 dollar rent houses? If capitalism works, then logic dictates the reason that house has 250 dollar rent is due to something horribly wrong with the surrounding community.

[Spectral]

What are the Job situation even at driving distance of 250 dollar rent houses? If capitalism works, then logic dictates the reason that house has 250 dollar rent is due to something horribly wrong with the surrounding community.

Your logic relies on a couple assumptions that are simply false. Housing costs relate to jobs availability, but not near as strongly as one would think if they were the only factors involved.

[Tankendog]

Until the easy access to government assistance programs is eliminated, the corps will never raise what they are paying workers. Why should I take a hit on profits to pay more when I can pay workers the highest wage possible while still qualifying for government assistance?

If you want to point fingers, it goes all ways. Government assistance has ruined many things. College is another big problem.

Why would a college only recruit smart, wanting to be successful students, when they can recruit a kid going to school on gov money that the college gets access to regardless if the student stays around?

Unemployment, well fair, food stamps. These are the three big reasons corps will not pay workers more money. And frankly, once you raise the lowest wage, every wage will shift to compensate for the baseline, causing prices to shift, meaning no real gain in income.

[Raelbo]

Apparently there were more households on welfare then there were households?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...all-households

Articles like this annoy the life out of me, because the authors have a terrible grasp of numbers and stats.

Firstly they are mixing precision. 23 116 928, the number of households is quoted to 8 points of precision (totally inappropriate given that when dealing with numbers this size, there will always be a margin of error), whereas the population of regions is only quoted to 5. They really should just round to the nearest million, or maybe .1 million.

For example: 23.1M vs 20.6M. Honestly adding that massive pile of numbers to the end is ridiculous and detracts from the readability of the article.

Secondly, why are they quoting national numbers against regional numbers?

Seriously, when I read crap like this, all I see is an attempt to obfuscate the real issue by confounding the reader. Maybe they have to do that because their article isn't actually saying anything that can't be summed up into 2 sentences, and they need more meat on their article....

[Themius]

Why the fuck would anyone that's poor be living in an expensive rural area? That's a really, really stupid choice.



Here's a decent apartment in a Buffalo suburb (I use Buffalo because I grew up there). That's pretty much within riding distance of the majority of the city. I'd recommend something like that be split by two people if they were kind of on the broke side. If someone's single, they could go down to a place that's more like $350-400/month, but they'd probably be best off finding a housemate.



Especially if you insist on living in a $1K/month apartment and driving a significant distance to work.

Who said 1k a month apartment? I said 500-600, on top of this all rural areas are expensive on that type of salary as you have to drive and gas isn't free. I am speaking of the south, by the way. Rural + jobs = not likely unless you're on some type of farm, otherwise you will most likely have to drive to work, biking is not practical.

You keep saying it's a stupid choice and whatever but not everywhere is Buffalo, if you live in an area where the jobs are here, but decent priced living is driving distance from the city should choice does one have but to move somewhere else, and moving itself is costly.