TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Work Less = Make More
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Work Less = Make More

post #1 of 33
3/21/11 at 4:00pm
Thread Starter 
Good friend of mine's girlfriend was unfortunately laid off, but on the plus side it was a job she hated that she worked at usually six days a week for $23K a year.

She found another part time job thats $4 an hour higher, but only half days for only five days a week. So money is going to be tighter, right? Nope!

They got a $130 a month lonestar card and you can get anything in the grocery store short of alcohol and cigs. No longer has to pay for school lunches as that is now free as well for em. The daycare went from $85 down to $20. She went on and on, but end result, she's being paid more NOT to work than she was otherwise earning busting her butt... *facepalm*

I'm happy for her, out of the lame job and gets to work half days for more money, but it just seems so backwards.
Reply
post #2 of 33
3/21/11 at 10:25pm
Yeah, I know a lot of people who can't afford to work full-time. It is backwards. Hard work should be rewarded, not punished.

I mean, I think food stamps are $200 per month per person (or at least per adult. . .not sure of the details). That alone is like a week's take-home pay for someone working full-time for minimum wage.
Reply
post #3 of 33
3/22/11 at 2:13am
Food stamps are based off how much you make and your rent. Then on top of that if you have any kids etc.

The only reason they get that much from Lonestar is because they have a kid. I've been on Lonestar for the past year, despite working full-time and going to school. I can tell you I do not get more then $50 from it because I do not have a kid.
Reply
post #4 of 33
3/22/11 at 4:25am
I know a couple of people like that. One friend in London only works 2 hours for a couple of days at a nursery. Any more hours and her benefits stop.

One friend who was unemployed went for an interview, got accepted for the job as a forklift driver, but turned it down because he was getting more on benefits!.

The system is all wrong!
Reply
post #5 of 33
3/22/11 at 4:32am
this bugs me so much because in some cases theres no help whatsoever when we were loosing the flat we couldnt get any help

so for me as im a part time worker yes money is very very tight, i could stand to sponge off the state like that I believe in working for my money
Reply
post #6 of 33
3/22/11 at 5:44am
Some days I feel I just work to pay for day care.
Reply
post #7 of 33
3/22/11 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by adymarie View Post
Some days I feel I just work to pay for day care.
Sometimes that's true. I know my SIL chose to stay home with the kids because, after daycare, work clothes, etc. she wouldn't have actually made anything.

A Lonestar card must be a Texas thing? (hence the name, I suppose, LOL) the people I know who get food stamps (it's a card, too) get $200 a month.
Reply
post #8 of 33
3/23/11 at 4:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post
A Lonestar card must be a Texas thing? (hence the name, I suppose, LOL) the people I know who get food stamps (it's a card, too) get $200 a month.
Yeah, its a food stamp thing. Perhaps Texas is cheap, or its more if you have more kids or younger ones? She only has one preteen, but he brings in enough money for both of em regardless plus ex is paying IIRC.

Nothing against welfare, as its absolutely needed and the duty of society to give a safety net of temporary assistance to those falling on hard times that need a helping hand. I just wonder though if this enforces a permanent welfare lifestyle though. I mean, if its comfortable just working a little bit w/ assistance that disappears if you work hard (basically just laying on the net instead of climbing back up the ladder once you're able), you don't advance your career starting at the bottom and so never end up making more. Just seems like a huge disincentive the way its set up.
Reply
post #9 of 33
3/23/11 at 9:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post
Yeah, I know a lot of people who can't afford to work full-time. It is backwards. Hard work should be rewarded, not punished.

I mean, I think food stamps are $200 per month per person (or at least per adult. . .not sure of the details). That alone is like a week's take-home pay for someone working full-time for minimum wage.
I guess I'll never understand government reasons on why things are the way they are. I can only guess the rationale is something like: If you work more hours, then your chances of getting a promotion at work are higher and more hours mean you get to build your skills and get paid for it. Or something along those lines --Just a guess. It doesn't hold water and I think it shouldn't result in monetary punishment
Reply
post #10 of 33
3/23/11 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Just seems like a huge disincentive the way its set up.
That's the thing. Y'know a million sentences begin with "There's a fine line between _________ and __________." Your friend's GF's situaton is a solid example.

So if someone misses a mark (of qualifying for help) by being $5 over, how does the government handle that? The easy fix I guess is to set up a grey zone where the final yes or no would need to be 'arbitrary' based on someone's past history, if they have a realistic/viable 3-year plan, etc. But then that's more government.
Reply
post #11 of 33
3/23/11 at 10:02pm
Thread Starter 
I always thought the simplest solution would be to implement a three strike rule and/or employment/drug stipulations.

You can go on public assistance three times within say a 15 yr period for up to say 16months at a time. During the time on public assistance, you have to take drug tests and meet with a counselor for managing money and assistance getting work. If you're positive for the drug test, you have to attend a mandatory drug clinic. In Germany, to get public assistance you also can't turn down reasonable job offers the counselor finds for you, and blatant abuse of intentionally getting fired repeatedly is grounds for ceasing benefits.

Now the question is, well, what if they have kids and are just unemployable or won't get clean off drugs and their strikes have run out?

Well, IMO I'd say they are then unfit parents to care for their child(ren) and child protective services would need to put them up for adoption. The way it is right now, I've heard several say that if you were actually content with living on welfare, it makes sense to have more babies to improve your lifestyle..... Loss for them long term, loss for their kids, and loss for society.
Reply
post #12 of 33
3/24/11 at 6:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I always thought the simplest solution would be to implement a three strike rule and/or employment/drug stipulations.

You can go on public assistance three times within say a 15 yr period for up to say 16months at a time. During the time on public assistance, you have to take drug tests and meet with a counselor for managing money and assistance getting work.
Interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Now the question is, well, what if they have kids and are just unemployable
Sadly there are lots of unemployable people out there. The worst have delusions and think they should actually have good jobs. Others hate any type of work, some don't give a flying fig, others are wishy washy, etc. I guess you can do what England is doing for Prince William's upcoming wedding. Criminals are being forced to clean the streets around the wedding location.
Reply
post #13 of 33
3/24/11 at 1:41pm
The foster care system is so overburdened right now that I hate to think about what would happen if they started taking kids away from their parents because they were on welfare too long. Plus, I doubt there will be very many volunteers to take on kids who were raised by lazy welfare queens!

Sadly, there aren't any easy answers. The system is flawed but I guess it's the best they can do.
Reply
post #14 of 33
3/27/11 at 8:33am
And for every story about the lazy welfare queen you hear, there are thousands more untold stories of people that try to get real work to get off of welfare/unemployment/whatever and can't find it.

When I finally found a job 10 months after being laid off, and that job was less than what I was getting for unemployment, I had a moment of "what have I done?". But I took the job anyway. Most of the people I know in my situation (there were thousands in my company laid off) did the same thing. Since most of the laid off workers were over 50, there aren't the opportunities for them to scratch themselves up from the bottom so late in life.
Reply
post #15 of 33
3/27/11 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
And for every story about the lazy welfare queen you hear, there are thousands more untold stories of people that try to get real work to get off of welfare/unemployment/whatever and can't find it.

When I finally found a job 10 months after being laid off, and that job was less than what I was getting for unemployment, I had a moment of "what have I done?". But I took the job anyway. Most of the people I know in my situation (there were thousands in my company laid off) did the same thing. Since most of the laid off workers were over 50, there aren't the opportunities for them to scratch themselves up from the bottom so late in life.
In Florida, the most you can get on unemployment is $275 a week, regardless of how much you were making. My husband was unemployed for 2 years. Thank GOD he found a good job. I used to think that everyone who was able and wanted to work could find a job, and perhaps it used to be that way. Not anymore.
Reply
post #16 of 33
3/27/11 at 5:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
II used to think that everyone who was able and wanted to work could find a job, and perhaps it used to be that way. Not anymore.
IMO it still is that way, the question is what you consider a "viable job".

Many people consider jobs beneath them or are unwilling to retrain and enter another field or move.

So they wait and wait and wait to find a job thats in the same field they were in, with similar pay, close to home... and yeah, if you do that, you're going to have a tough time in an economic downturn.
Reply
post #17 of 33
3/28/11 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
IMO it still is that way, the question is what you consider a "viable job".

Many people consider jobs beneath them or are unwilling to retrain and enter another field or move.

So they wait and wait and wait to find a job thats in the same field they were in, with similar pay, close to home... and yeah, if you do that, you're going to have a tough time in an economic downturn.
What would you consider a viable job? One that pays 10% of your previous income?

One that if you take it you lose your home because you can no longer afford to live in it?

One that involves a level of manual labor that you struggle with after working 30 years at a desk job?

Would you go back to college at the age of 50 (or more) to get employment at an entry level income? And once you've retrained, do you think a company would hire you and invest in you if you can only give them another 10 years (or less) of work?

Would you move to take another job when it means you could loose $100K on your house when you sell it?

Unemployment is brutal to people these days, particularly if you have a resume spanning 30 years in a decent wage profession. People are adjusting, but not without a lot of frustration and anger.

It is the rare person who chooses to live like they are poor if they are making a decent wage. Our economy wouldn't work if everyone hoards their money while they are working. Faulting people that want to retain their standard of living makes no sense to me.
Reply
post #18 of 33
3/28/11 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
IMO it still is that way, the question is what you consider a "viable job".

Many people consider jobs beneath them or are unwilling to retrain and enter another field or move.

So they wait and wait and wait to find a job thats in the same field they were in, with similar pay, close to home... and yeah, if you do that, you're going to have a tough time in an economic downturn.
Yeah, when my husband was looking he drew the line at minimum wage.
Reply
post #19 of 33
3/28/11 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
Yeah, when my husband was looking he drew the line at minimum wage.
I currently work with a man who was an artist for Hallmark for close to 40 years. He brought his portfolio to work the other day and I was shocked to recognize many of the art pieces that he did over the years for that company. At 58 with his salary background, no one wants to hire him, so he's resigned himself to work a part time job at barely over minimum wage. As he told me the other day - he hopes to hang onto his house until he can get at some of his pension and SS money. He's trying to sell his art but that's a luxury that most people can't afford right now so he can't depend on it.

Over half the people in the store that I work at has a similar story (past 50 and having to start over). It's sad to see many of them limping around the store because the physical work is too hard on them. It's sad to see them selling off their assets to pay their bills. It's sad to see them scared because they lost their health benefits when they lost their jobs and the company doesn't give part timers health insurance.

Every last one of them is working harder for far less pay. Is that fair?
Reply
post #20 of 33
3/28/11 at 7:29pm
Thread Starter 
Well, to preface, as stated of course people should receive welfare. But I don't think it is right to setup a system that punishes people for working, or allows for permanent lifelong income for doing little to nothing. Thats not good for society or the recipient.

Its supposed to be a safety net for when you fall down, so you can get back up... not a hammock to take a nap on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
What would you consider a viable job? One that pays 10% of your previous income?
One that puts food on my plate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
One that if you take it you lose your home because you can no longer afford to live in it?
If I couldn't afford my car or my home and my savings ran out, yes, it would be wise to downgrade to a smaller home or apartment I could afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
One that involves a level of manual labor that you struggle with after working 30 years at a desk job?
Surely you aren't suggesting there are no non-manual labor jobs left in the entire country, especially for someone with experience?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
Would you go back to college at the age of 50 (or more) to get employment at an entry level income? And once you've retrained, do you think a company would hire you and invest in you if you can only give them another 10 years (or less) of work?
By age 50, I would think I would have sufficient work experience that I wouldn't need to by then, even if it was just a middle-management or lower position outside of my previous field.

A search for a good fit might take some time, but if I was still looking more than 16months later as suggested, then I'm being too picky IMO and just need A job.

I could always continue to submit applications for other positions while working a temporary other one.
Reply
post #21 of 33
3/28/11 at 7:54pm
It's not that easy to find A job in some parts of the country. It really isn't. Some places won't hire someone who has a lot of experience for an entry-level job. And moving a family is expensive, finding affordable, suitable housing in a school district that won't kill your kid is difficult, and even then it's no guarantee you'll keep THAT job. Maybe single people can go flitting off to chase promised employment, but it's just not that easy for someone with a family. I have known people (good, hard workers with plenty of experience) who were truly looking for and applying for work constantly, and simply couldn't find anything.
Reply
post #22 of 33
3/28/11 at 8:19pm
Thread Starter 
Relocating an entire family can be expensive and difficult.

My dad moved three times without the family for work. My ex's dad worked in an entire other country to send money back.
Reply
post #23 of 33
3/29/11 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
My dad moved three times without the family for work. My ex's dad worked in an entire other country to send money back.
Sure, sometimes that works. But Dad still has living expenses, rent, food, etc., so unless he's making substantially more than he could make where his family lives, he might not be sending much money home. Plus the toll it takes on the family. I don't think it's worth it most of the time.
Reply
post #24 of 33
3/29/11 at 2:03pm
Thread Starter 
Its worth it if you need food on your plate and a roof over your head. Brother in law is also overseas for the last year in Afghanistan. In my dad's case it was really just career advancements and ditto for her dad, but even illegal aliens making relatively little here in Texas so point is that if your savings have run out, its not good for the recipient or fair for society to just pay their bills for years.

IMO welfare was always meant to be temporary help from your neighbors to keep food in your belly while you get back up on your feet, not to ensure that working is optional, or back to the original post, actually undesirable since more work can mean less money for some (if thats not a demotivator, I don't know what is). Its often called the Welfare Trap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap
Quote:
The principles underlying the welfare trap ultimately stem from the way people make decisions in light of personal valuation of their time and effort. Consider this next example: a man is receiving welfare from the government to the tune of $15,000 per year. He does, essentially, nothing to earn that money and spends his days doing whatever he pleases (within the limits of what he can afford, given the money he is receiving).

Eventually, he is offered a job paying $25,000 per year. Should he take the job?

At first, the answer might seem to be a simple "yes", due to the obvious material gains: an extra $10,000, which represents an increase of two-thirds in his revenue. However, he would have to pay taxes from his new salary, which might reduce his new income from $25,000 to say, $22,000, and therefore reduce his net gain accordingly from $10,000 to $7,000. This is still an improvement in his material situation, but it comes at the expense of a lot more work: the man would likely have to work 40 h per week at his new job, at an effective wage increase of $3.50 per hour, which is below the minimum wage. Also, he will incur additional ancillary costs such as time and money spent commuting and increased stress. As such, he will weigh the benefits of the extra money against the "cost" he incurs from working. If he decides, as he likely will given the above circumstances, that the extra money is not worth the effort, he has been "caught" in the welfare trap.

A more extreme example arises if he is offered a job paying $15,000 a year. If this causes him to no longer qualify for welfare, then after taxes, he will almost certainly have less take-home income than before. He will have a strong economic incentive to refuse the job. This is certainly a welfare trap.

In short, the welfare trap demonstrates the way that social welfare systems can create a perverse incentive. Although such systems are intended to provide a buffer for unemployed citizens and thereby raise the standard of living, they may create a situation whereby the welfare recipient has an incentive to avoid raising his own productivity because his net income gain after benefits and taxes is not enough to compensate for the effort he must expend at work.
Reply
post #25 of 33
3/29/11 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Well, to preface, as stated of course people should receive welfare. But I don't think it is right to setup a system that punishes people for working, or allows for permanent lifelong income for doing little to nothing. Thats not good for society or the recipient.

Its supposed to be a safety net for when you fall down, so you can get back up... not a hammock to take a nap on.

One that puts food on my plate.

If I couldn't afford my car or my home and my savings ran out, yes, it would be wise to downgrade to a smaller home or apartment I could afford.

Surely you aren't suggesting there are no non-manual labor jobs left in the entire country, especially for someone with experience?

By age 50, I would think I would have sufficient work experience that I wouldn't need to by then, even if it was just a middle-management or lower position outside of my previous field.

A search for a good fit might take some time, but if I was still looking more than 16months later as suggested, then I'm being too picky IMO and just need A job.

I could always continue to submit applications for other positions while working a temporary other one.
I sincerely hope that you don't lose your job in this marketplace.

But I bolded one point that is a huge issue for older people these days. I've seen the line drawn as young as 40, but it gets worse as you get older. Every last older person that I've talked to on this topic says the same thing. If you put your previous salary down on an application, no one will call you. If you tell them in an interview what you used to make, they don't hire you. But if you can second guess what salary they might offer and lie to them about your previous salary, they might actually consider you. And people lie so that they can get that job at 10% of their previous earnings. Then they tap into their retirement nest egg to actually live off of, in the hopes that there may be things like SS, Medicare and Medicaid when they are actually old enough to retire.

Previous job experience and training mean nothing these days. I've even had a college advisor tell me that they are discouraging people in some fields because they won't be able to find a job when they are thru college. And these are fields like IT.

And to your food point. I had our store manager tell me today that the reason she buys the popcorn in our break room is that some of the employees can't afford food these days, so they depend on it for their meal while at work. But that's a whole other issue about the wages in this country.
Reply
post #26 of 33
3/29/11 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I sincerely hope that you don't lose your job in this marketplace.

But I bolded one point that is a huge issue for older people these days. I've seen the line drawn as young as 40, but it gets worse as you get older. Every last older person that I've talked to on this topic says the same thing. If you put your previous salary down on an application, no one will call you. If you tell them in an interview what you used to make, they don't hire you. But if you can second guess what salary they might offer and lie to them about your previous salary, they might actually consider you. And people lie so that they can get that job at 10% of their previous earnings. Then they tap into their retirement nest egg to actually live off of, in the hopes that there may be things like SS, Medicare and Medicaid when they are actually old enough to retire.

Previous job experience and training mean nothing these days. I've even had a college advisor tell me that they are discouraging people in some fields because they won't be able to find a job when they are thru college. And these are fields like IT.

And to your food point. I had our store manager tell me today that the reason she buys the popcorn in our break room is that some of the employees can't afford food these days, so they depend on it for their meal while at work. But that's a whole other issue about the wages in this country.
I completly agree with the bolded bit, I watched my dad (who at the time was what we thought the riht side of 50) spend nearly a year on the dole (what you guys call unemployment) makin a meer approx £54 a week and my dad is damn good at his job he is an asessor (sp) on the Railway basically making sure everyone who works on railway matentince can do the job they do but because of the shambles this country is in hes had to go back to workin on the tools back where he started so hes gone from a job that pays nearly £60k a year down to just over £30k and we now only see him two out of seven days a week well sorry i dont even see him that because of my shift pattern.......


guess what benefits he could claim.......... thats right nothing, fter he paid into the system since he was 16
Reply
post #27 of 33
3/29/11 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by -_aj_- View Post
guess what benefits he could claim.......... thats right nothing, fter he paid into the system since he was 16
I went on the dole for about 10 months. I also paid into the system since I was 16. Guess what I got for dole? Roughly .04% of what I had been paying all those years. Yes, I did the math.
Reply
post #28 of 33
3/29/11 at 3:49pm
yeah my dad did too its an absoulte disgrace as theres A LOT of people never paid into the system sitting on the dole without a care in the world

I could make £1 more if i was on it but I would rather work for the money I earn
Reply
post #29 of 33
3/30/11 at 10:26am
I think they should limit the benefits for those who are not working and allow benefits for the working poor.

When I had to go on unemployment, that was to much money for any benefits. When I took a minimum wage job that was more money than my unemployment I didn't qualify for any benefits. How is that right?

Disability is the new welfare. SSD is a much needed social program for those who actually need it. Many of those I see don't need it. Heck, they get more cash per month than I do and I work! The parent gets a check and all their children get one. They have a foodstamp card, a check from the housing commission for their utilities, a medical card that they don't have to have a co-pay for and a voucher for rent. Many have just moved from TANF to SSD. All one has to do is apply and find a lawyer and fight with SS and eventually it can be won. I see commercials all the time for lawyers fighting for SS benefits.

As I said, SSD is needed for those who have a bonafide disability.
Reply
post #30 of 33
4/3/11 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Its worth it if you need food on your plate and a roof over your head. Brother in law is also overseas for the last year in Afghanistan. In my dad's case it was really just career advancements and ditto for her dad, but even illegal aliens making relatively little here in Texas so point is that if your savings have run out, its not good for the recipient or fair for society to just pay their bills for years.

IMO welfare was always meant to be temporary help from your neighbors to keep food in your belly while you get back up on your feet, not to ensure that working is optional, or back to the original post, actually undesirable since more work can mean less money for some (if thats not a demotivator, I don't know what is). Its often called the Welfare Trap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap
i guess a motivator would be to land an opening in a field suited to your talents. mcdonalds and burger king suit no one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zohdee View Post
I think they should limit the benefits for those who are not working and allow benefits for the working poor.

When I had to go on unemployment, that was to much money for any benefits. When I took a minimum wage job that was more money than my unemployment I didn't qualify for any benefits. How is that right?

Disability is the new welfare. SSD is a much needed social program for those who actually need it. Many of those I see don't need it. Heck, they get more cash per month than I do and I work! The parent gets a check and all their children get one. They have a foodstamp card, a check from the housing commission for their utilities, a medical card that they don't have to have a co-pay for and a voucher for rent. Many have just moved from TANF to SSD. All one has to do is apply and find a lawyer and fight with SS and eventually it can be won. I see commercials all the time for lawyers fighting for SS benefits.

As I said, SSD is needed for those who have a bonafide disability.
for some reason that sounds like SSI. did you mean SSI instead of SSD? if they're getting a lot of SSD it usually means they've been paying into SS since their late teens. unless i'm mistaken, no one gets a lot of SSI because it's pretty much a flat(ish) handout.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Work Less = Make More