Why aren't our kids getting fed at home?

[ouroboro]

[Txsweeper]

I won't even begin to imagine what goes on in these kids homes, but there are programs to feed the needy, so here is my personal assessment:

1. Parents too proud to apply for food stamps.
2. Parent/parents into drugs and selling food stamps.
3. Complete disregard for their child's needs.

or

4. Parent/parents fall between the cracks of our welfare system, in which case we need to address the situation and find them help.

There are co-ops in almost every town that hand out food on a weekly/monthly basis. There is the Salvation Army that will help adults get the aide they need and will either feed them themselves or direct them to Food Banks.

I want to strangle people sometimes :halo: (well okay, not really).

[hort1]

Thank you for the link; I missed that story in the news and had not heard of the backpack program. It sounds worthwhile - but it's such a shame that it is needed in the first place.
I don't think there is any one cause or reason for this. My guesses would include:
There are a large number of families that are edging closer and closer to the poverty level; I think that resources get stretched thinner and thinner for these families. Perhaps they cut and cut and don't realize the extent of their situation...sort of a "Well, there's still food on the table" sort of pride/denial.
Some peope are honestly just ignorant about nutrition and kid's needs.
Some people are just neglectful.
I think there are many immigrant families who come from places where there was widespread, systemic hunger and/or starvation. By those standards, the amount of food they buy, or qualify for through assistance, may seem more than enough.

Again, I don't think you can pin it on any one thing - any number of factors might come into play.

When my son was in kindergarten, I volunteered in his classroom. Everyday, at snack time, there were kids who "forgot" to bring a snack. It was never clear who really forgot and who routinely did not bring one.
There is hunger in America, but it doesn't look like the pictures of hunger that we have seen from other parts of the world.

[ouroboro]

[dandylin]

I think there are some good points being made here. I also think that the line at which you qualify for foodstamps and the line where you are hungry, long before you qualilfy are frighteningly not close. A whole lot depends on where you live. There are resources but amazingly, a lot of people don't realize that.

When my husband was in a doctoral program, we qualified and were on foodstamps. You pretty much anymore, have to be your own advocate and be persistent because there is not a whole lot of information out there unless you know how to find it.

Selling foodstamps is pretty difficult now as you use a card and pin (like an atm) and are required to supply an id when you purchase food.

[mamaduckie]

I am a disabled mother of 4 children...my husband works and sometimes only gets in 20 hours a week at $10 an hour...we live in Michigan and currently receive $120 in food stamps for our children...there are many times I go without eating so the kids will have something to eat...and I am not too proud to go to food pantries or any kind of help...the welfare system is a constant struggle...I was told that they were sorry that I was not able to feed my children but since my husband at least did have a job that they would not qualify us for family assistance and the food stamp amount is supposed to supplement my husband's pay for groceries...I am currently in the process of fighting for my SSI...so I don't think it is pride as much as people think....Sorry if I offend anyone...just know from experience.

[ouroboro]

[dandylin]

What I was trying to say is that based on current income guidelines, you could very easily be unable to feed your family and still not be eligible for foodstamps. The income guidelines are way too low. I hope that made more sense because for some reason I don't seem to be able to articulate very well today! :laugh:

[Fidget]

There is a gap between foodstamps and poverty. When your children are under 5 the government somewhat compensates for it through the WIC (women in crisis) program that gives you vouchers for milk, cheese, cereal, beans, juice, peanutbutter carrots and tuna. It helped me tremendouly last year when resources were tight and i was pregnant and had my 1 yr old to think about too. However my friend who desperatly needed help didnt quite qualify for food stamps and her son turned 6 so she was inelligable for WIC. I would bring her my extra milk (they give you SO much milk!) but that was all i could do. many of the food pantries help feed food stamps recipients only so she was SOL as far as that was concerned. I think its important that we help people in other coutries dealing with food crisis but i also think that perhapse we need to make reforms at home before taking on so much

[Hhhyyyddd]

I think it's ironic that the Democrats are called the "tax and spend" party when welfare as it existed was done away with under the Clinton administration. You might think this has nothing to do with the subject at hand but it does. People, mostly single mothers, were pushed off welfare into minimum wage jobs that on paper bring in a larger "income" than a welfare check. In the real world when you deduct transportation, lunches, work clothes, and child care, plus time savers- yes, single working mom just might pay a buck more for milk on her way home because she's just too tired to make a stop that's out of the way, that check doesn't go very far, and because of the allegedly higher "income" the food stamp benefits get reduced! I'm not "pro-welfare", whatever that means, who is? I merely believe that people need decent jobs where they can earn an actual living.
I'm not getting food stamps right now, but I could. Because of my injury I'm on workman's comp, we are living on a little over a thousand dollars a month right now, and do you know what we would get in food stamps for FOUR PEOPLE, two of whom are adolescent boys and bottomless pits? $86.00 a month. In other words, we would starve if it wasn't for family help, four people can't live on a thousand a month. This makes me one of the lucky people, because in today's America the safety of the extended family no longers exists for most people. We could take a clue from the immigrants on this one. I used to live in Chinatown in NYC and the elderly watched children while the young adults were out working. If there were no children to watch, some of them picked up cans- that's right, I said picked up cans, and there was no stigma or shame in picking up cans and bottles for the 5 cent deposit because it was a way to contribute to the family. Do our kids all really need our own bedroom? Do we all really need our own house? Two and a half kids and a two car garage are a nice theory, but can we afford it? As individuals? As a nation? Do all the farms have to be turned into housing developments or can we bunk up a bit?

To sum up what I'm trying to say- there's a lot of reasons hungry kids exist in America. I think two of the major ones are crappy jobs and the fact that people don't look out for their own the way they used to. Maybe they would if they didn't have crappy jobs.

[Txsweeper]

I think it's ironic that the Democrats are called the "tax and spend" party when welfare as it existed was done away with under the Clinton administration. You might think this has nothing to do with the subject at hand but it does. People, mostly single mothers, were pushed off welfare into minimum wage jobs that on paper bring in a larger "income" than a welfare check. In the real world when you deduct transportation, lunches, work clothes, and child care, plus time savers- yes, single working mom just might pay a buck more for milk on her way home because she's just too tired to make a stop that's out of the way, that check doesn't go very far, and because of the allegedly higher "income" the food stamp benefits get reduced! I'm not "pro-welfare", whatever that means, who is? I merely believe that people need decent jobs where they can earn an actual living.
I'm not getting food stamps right now, but I could. Because of my injury I'm on workman's comp, we are living on a little over a thousand dollars a month right now, and do you know what we would get in food stamps for FOUR PEOPLE, two of whom are adolescent boys and bottomless pits? $86.00 a month. In other words, we would starve if it wasn't for family help, four people can't live on a thousand a month. This makes me one of the lucky people, because in today's America the safety of the extended family no longers exists for most people. We could take a clue from the immigrants on this one. I used to live in Chinatown in NYC and the elderly watched children while the young adults were out working. If there were no children to watch, some of them picked up cans- that's right, I said picked up cans, and there was no stigma or shame in picking up cans and bottles for the 5 cent deposit because it was a way to contribute to the family. Do our kids all really need our own bedroom? Do we all really need our own house? Two and a half kids and a two car garage are a nice theory, but can we afford it? As individuals? As a nation? Do all the farms have to be turned into housing developments or can we bunk up a bit?

To sum up what I'm trying to say- there's a lot of reasons hungry kids exist in America. I think two of the major ones are crappy jobs and the fact that people don't look out for their own the way they used to. Maybe they would if they didn't have crappy jobs.

Great post H (you don't mind me calling you that, do you :laugh: ) You are exactly right on the cuts in the welfare or trade-offs as some call it. I am all for welfare reform, if it helps everyone, not just a select few. Arkansas has the highest poverty level in the country because they can't seem to bring in enough big business to employee it's citizens. Big business means higher wages and more jobs. For Clinton to be from there, I would have expected him to pay closer attention to his welfare reform, but that's another thread. Just remember this, you have to spend money to make money. Let's bring our jobs back to the United States, let's encourage business' to grow and become large enough to employ us, let's reopen our steel mills and our coal mines and put America back to work!

[ouroboro]

[Fidget]

it said women in crisis on my paper work - perhapse a regional difference?

it said exactly "WIC - helping Women In financial and personal Crisis"

perhapse i was wrong to assume it them meant women in crisis and the caps thing was a governmental mistake

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[noelleray]

just breaks my heart for those children,i'm so glad Second Harvest is helping them out.

[dandylin]

No, flipping burgers is a crappy job. A crappy job for an adult with a family to raise, possibly not a crappy job for a teenager, the people, for whom those burger flipping jobs should be intended.

I think the answer to our problem is a living wage, based on a 40 hour per week, over 18 or outside of parental living space (unless a single parent).

This will travel off course a bit, but not everyone is capable of making tons of money, we are not all of the same intellect, backgrounds or drive. So why should, say the janitor at the school, have to hold 2 or 3 jobs just to support his/her family? Is his work not of high enough a caliber to warrant being able to support his family? A decent, honorable, living wage is what's needed in the country. And it's quite possible to do. It's amazing what American business people can come up with when they have to.

[Hhhyyyddd]

Yeah, I have to say, flipping burgers is a crappy job, I've done it so I know of what I speak. It's crappy on a lot of levels, one important one being that restaurant work is much more dangerous than people think, again speaking from experience as I was literally crippled in a kitchen last year! Crappy job is when an adult cannot realistically support themselves on the wage, much less dependents.
Waitressing, did I love it? Of course not. But was it a crappy job? It paid the bills, so if fits the decent job criteria. You could make more money if you worked better and harder and you can't say that for a lot of jobs, so again-
I'm not a person who approves of a sense of entitlement, I see it getting worse especially in the young. I'm not saying untrained persons should be "handed" glamorous high paying jobs. But it's not too much to expect honest pay for honest work. Something's wrong when two working parents can't pay for the basics of life.

[ouroboro]

[Hhhyyyddd]

I never said that everyone should make the same, or anything remotely like it. I think the low end wages are just plain too low. I believe the minimum wage has needed to be raised for a very long time, but that's not going to solve everything. Jobs going overseas is no help...
Here is just one example of a way to create livable jobs. In my community public funds are being spent to build a 20 million dollar facility to induce a national corporation to come here. Great, corporate blackmail, they get a free business to run and get to bring bad jobs to town and get a tax break for it too. Would it not be better to take a much smaller amount of money and spend it to make an existing locally owned factory less polluting and to create new positions there with decent wages and/or supplement the wage of the jobs already there? Or would that make too much sense? The corporate welfare isn't working, it exists on a huge level nationwide and it isn't working, the jobs are going out of the country just the same. Spend that money on the community.
Not sure how we got from hungry children to here but that's the way the forum bounces- and it's true that I've only talked about people who actually do take care of their children and are trying to work- back to the backpacks- yeah, it is clear that there are people out there who aren't feeding their kids and I wish there was a simple answer why. It's disturbing to think there are people who don't care if their kids go hungry but I guess there are- I do like to think that people are at least trying.

[ouroboro]

[superchickee]

Maybe it depends on your state (The benefits you receive). My sister is defintely struggling. She has 3 kids & a mortgage. Her car is old, so its paid. She barely earns enough for her mortgage & utilities & gas. two of her kids do odd jobs on weekend for their spending $, like babysitting and lawns. However, she receive medical assistance from medicaid and food stamps. She works full -time. They receive about 400.00 a months in food stamps. They have plenty of food. I don't understand whats going on with these other families. Their is so much help here in our country. Assistance is everywhere. With W.I.C. , food stamps, medicaid, chips programs, shelters, food pantries and etc. Why is this happening??????

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[oldroses]

It is so sad that people can't feed their kids, but frankly I'm not surprised. I've been saying this for awhile now-the middle class is disappearing. The gulf IS widening between rich and poor. Companies are shipping decent paying jobs overseas that people here used to do without a lot of education-jobs in computers, manufacturing and the telephone industry. Companies are wiggling out of paying a livable wage all in the name of more and bigger profits. Where are the jobs that pay $15 to $25 an hour? Those jobs have gone overseas. The U.S. is becoming more and more a service industry and those jobs don't pay, unless there are tips attached ie. waitress, bartender. 20 years ago the union job my Dh worked at at the time-grocery retail-paid around $10/hr, now that job pays about $15. Adjusted for inflation etc that job should pay $20 if not more. Not to mention that the union that he was in is on strike right now in California because the companies want to break the union so they can pay Walmart wages, which is about half. And that's just one example. My husband hasn't finished his education, so he must look for work that doesn't require a degree. Flipping burgers is fine when you don't have a family. But it's close to impossible for one person to live on that, let alone a family. Dh was in the military for 11 years and they fed him a line of bull on how the job he was doing there would translate into a very well paying job in the civilian world. NOT! They LIED! He is making about half of what he made in the military. And the job he has now had like 75 applicants 2 years ago-and it came down to a choice between him and 2 other guys who college degrees-no joke! A similiar paying job a couple of months ago had 400 applicants! People want the jobs because they may not pay well, but there is not much else better around here and also because the jobs are union jobs with job security and good benefits. Frankly, I just don't see it getting any better. And while I'm not saying to pay everyone the same or reward lazy slackers. What I'm saying is if this continues on this way you will be seeing more and more poverty in this country, no doubt about it. People who haven't had this happen to them can't possibly understand how frustrating it is. As they say...walk a mile in MY shoes. Also, read the book "Nickled and Dimed" -it gives insight into this issue.

[ouroboro]

[oldroses]

Ouroboro-I didn't know you were moving I thought your Dh went to school...it's hard to be uprooted! Hope it goes well!

I think the only reason for ANY company to do anything it has to be motivated by money-whether they are saving on wages or getting tax breaks. Why else? Do you think the workers work harder else where? If so, that helps the bottom line too. Are these workers smarter? I doubt that. I just don't think there are any other reasons other than money.

Look, I'm all for this country being entreprenurial-it's what makes this country great and interesting. But if you don't have some unions, what's to insure that some people are paid decently? Though this isn't the case with my dh's job-the pay is low. My dh's union didn't do him or the other employees a good turn when they accepted a 3 year hold on pay raises and cost of living raises to keep people from being laid off. Because hey, he still has a "Job" with good benefits too! (Insert sarcasm here.) Yet those benefits don't pay the bills and the co-pay for the medical keeps going up.

I talked to a Walmart employee the other day-one of the rare times I've shopped there these days-and I was surprised when out of the blue she told me that it was the WORST place she has ever worked! She said the pay bites and they don't treat the employees very well at all. I wasn't surprised that she hated it, just that she was so frank with me. I really felt for her-a single mom with a 2 year old at home. I totally understand where's she's coming from-who can feel positive about an employer who keeps you down and who cares less whether you can eat or barely survive-forget the luxuries?

If dh and I had known things would be this way, we would have done so many things differently. But sadly, we didn't and basically started over 8 years ago. It's been a slow and stressful journey ever since. And what bugs me more is that as much as we struggle, is the knowledge that there are people out there who make less and who struggle more. I just can't bear the thought...it all just makes me angry, but also very sad. :nono:

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[Kym]

IMHO the great divide between rich and poor is spreading. It's becoming harder and harder to find people in the middle. Part of this is job outsourcing. I can't tell you how many friends I have in the IT field who have lost their jobs to people overseas. People who were making $65-100K, comfortably able to support their families, were replaced by workers in other countries (usually India) by people being paid $25K for the same work. Where does the $40-75K difference go? Back into the already overflowing pockets of the company owners.

I recently heard that 60% of large companies paid no taxes this year because they set up shops outside of the US boarders. They attribute losses to the US based branches - deducting their losses - and meanwhile, pushed all of their gains onto their overseas branches.

A lot of this comes down to GREED.

I have relatives who are staunch Republicans. They feel that poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough and that it's their fault. They should be able to live lavish lives because they work harder.

They have no idea what it's really like to have to WORK. The lowest paying jobs are usually the ones where you have to do the most work.

[dandylin]

IMHO the great divide between rich and poor is spreading. It's becoming harder and harder to find people in the middle. Part of this is job outsourcing. I can't tell you how many friends I have in the IT field who have lost their jobs to people overseas. People who were making $65-100K, comfortably able to support their families, were replaced by workers in other countries (usually India) by people being paid $25K for the same work. Where does the $40-75K difference go? Back into the already overflowing pockets of the company owners.

I recently heard that 60% of large companies paid no taxes this year because they set up shops outside of the US boarders. They attribute losses to the US based branches - deducting their losses - and meanwhile, pushed all of their gains onto their overseas branches.

A lot of this comes down to GREED.

I have relatives who are staunch Republicans. They feel that poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough and that it's their fault. They should be able to live lavish lives because they work harder.

They have no idea what it's really like to have to WORK. The lowest paying jobs are usually the ones where you have to do the most work.


Bravo! I sometimes feel that eventually it's all going to end in a class war. I personally think that companies that outsource jobs should be heavily fined and if they continue to do so, lose their ability to do business in and with this country. But, that's a big, fat dream on my part, will never happen!

[ouroboro]

[Kym]

That's funny ouroboro...a single person couldn't survive on their own in my state on a salary of $21K, let alone a whole household.

Even a family of four with an income of $80K struggles here. I also think that 25% of the country earning less than 20K is a pretty frightening statistic.

I think that we HAD to redefine what is rich and poor due to inflation and the increase in housing costs.

[oldroses]

Nightline with Ted Koppel had a story about this last night...there is no link yet to the story but it was very interesting. I'm no economics expert, but one thing that was said last night was that the poverty level is set too low. I mean if $20,000 is the top of the povertly level how can $21,000 be much better? So why is this poverty level set so low? Because that's the way big business and the government like it. That way, minimum wage doesn't have to be raised, therefore companies can get away with paying as little as possible and people can't qualify for government assistance either. What a bad place to be in when you are living on the edge and have no where else to go because the low pay is the same everywhere.

Yes, we all make choices-having kids at a young age or changing jobs for what you think will be a good alternative and isn't. Yes, hindsight is 20/20. We all know that education DOES take you further than a high school diploma, that's for sure. But not everyone can go that route-especially when it seems these days that jobs that used to require a bachelors degree now require a masters. I just think that's unfair and inhuman to keep people down like this. The actions of these large corporations or even the government cannot be deemed acceptable or excused.

I mean how much MORE money do the greedy rich corporations and stockholders really need? You can't take it with you after all.

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[dandylin]

What about those citizens who are not capable of doing better than Walmart? Tough shit? That's what you get for doing your best? Living wage is the answer. Living wage is a basic amount an adult makes, enough to live on. No one is advocating the point that a janitor should make the same as a doctor. That's a silly comparison.

People in the middle class be darned, right now the people in the lower class need some help.

[ouroboro]

[dandylin]

Again, no one is advocating that a Walmart Clerk should make as much as an attorney, but they should be able to support their family. You took that ball and ran! :laugh:

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[dandylin]

Yes, exactly! Raise the minimum wage for adults. Not kids, adults. Not everyone can go to school, not everyone has the support system that your husband has in you. Poor is poor, poor is not being able to adequately house, feed, clothe yourself and your family.

Trust me, I know how hard it is. I've seen my husband through a master's and a doctoral program. You should be proud that your husband has the drive and ability to do this.

And again no one is advocating paying lawyers, doctors and janitors the same rate of pay. But a little dignity by way of a decent paycheck at the end of the week sure goes a long way.

[ouroboro]

[Kym]

I'm in the New York City area.

[dandylin]

Adults, people over the age of 18, in any job they happen to hold. I think a lower minimum wage for younger people is appropriate, those that are not living on their own, could do just fine on the current minimum, rate of pay . And the elderly, if they have to work to supplement their SSI, they should be able to work at a lower rate if it benefits them.

See how flexible things can be if you aren't always so worried about what the other guy is doing or if someone is maybe getting a bit more than you?

And somehow I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[dandylin]

Sorry, but I think you are over-simplifying a concept. Trying to make a working model out of an argument, and it's just not possible for me to fine tune the package for you the way you want me to. Let's keep it in a "big picture" mode here, we are not writing policy, we are debating abstracts.

[superchickee]

My daddy always says:" People spend more than they make" I think that'a big problem!! :frown3:

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[nancy_k1]

I know the cost of living is different in most parts of the United States. I can say that here in my hometown in Arkansas the cost of living seems to always be going up but pay almost always stays the same. As most of you know my husband is a paid firefighter. He has been doing this now for 20 years as of this past march and he only makes a little over $35,000.00 per year. And that is with overtime! Almost all jobs around here start you off at $6 to $6.50 per hour. No one can make it on that around here without help. This is why almost every single firefighter in the City have another job. They just can't afford not too. This is also why we have choosen not to have anymore than one child. Other than promotion raises, my husband has not had a raise in over 7 years. Most places will give you at least a 5cent raise every year or so. Not around here.

It also has to do with babies having babies. At least around here that is how it is. If you came to my town and took a look around you would see that a lot of the children have parents under the age of 18. A lot of the kids around here start having babies at about 14. And some of them have parents that didn't want them in the first place so they do nothing to help. It's just sad to me. I do wish there were better paying jobs around here. Over half the population here is on Food Stamps and Welfare. Even though I wish it wasn't true I can see how some children are not being fed.

[ouroboro]

[Kym]

Ouro...

It is really bad here. It's not just the cost of housing, but the cost of EVERYTHING. My car insurance is probably the lowest of all of my friends, and I pay about $1700 annually. Maybe that's the issue - changing the minimum wage by state or area. Certainly in South Jersey, the cost of living is far lower than it is up here by the city. I don't know how people with kids do it. I have a hard enough time supporting myself and I make a fairly decent salary.

[dandylin]

Sounds good! Abstractly speaking, you are saying the "working" class of adults ages 18-62 (or whatever retirement is these days); should be paid more. Correct?


I'm sorry, I can't answer that for you, abstractly or otherwise. You have taken everything completely out of context and quite honestly, I think you think you are being clever. It's just silly and a waste of time.

If you'd like to debate me in a way that is not quite so nonsensical, I'd be happy to oblige.

[cowleyh]

don't know if i'll help or hurt here, but paying someone differently based on age or gender or any other factor besides meeting job qualifications is discriminatory.

[hort1]

My state has lost approximately 20,000 manufacturing jobs in the last three years. That's out of a population of something like 1,500,000. Those jobs either went overseas or were priced out by imports. Those jobs existed for several generations, in many cases, and provided enough income so that people could afford at least a solid middle class existence.
Many of those jobs were in rural areas and were the only game in town. There is nothing for these people. Yes - education is great. It's not for everyone, however. Not because that is always a choice but because that is just the way it is. Even with education, we are increasingly seeing educated, white collar positions being outsourced.
It;s easy to say hey - these displaced workers should go back to school. There are no schools where they live, and may not be for a couple of hundred miles. Their circumstances may not allow them to go back to school. It's easy to say that people should move to where the jobs are - but that's neither realistic or desirable.
I don't think either political party has any idea what to do about this.

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[oldroses]

I'm sorry, I can't answer that for you, abstractly or otherwise. You have taken everything completely out of context and quite honestly, I think you think you are being clever. It's just silly and a waste of time.

If you'd like to debate me in a way that is not quite so nonsensical, I'd be happy to oblige.


I agree. You know Ouroboro, I think that you are looking to be right ALL the time in EVERY thread and are ALWAYS looking for a fight. You really reeled me in but good this time, because I let my guard down with you and thought you really cared about people for a change. And that you sincerely wanted to gain some insight into other peoples concerns and issues. Silly me!

Why do you feel a sense of entitlement-that going to school makes your husband better and more worthy of making a good income than mine or someone like Nancy_k1's husband whom I'm sure who has also worked his a** off just like my husband, trying to make a good, decent and LIVABLE income?!

FYI, my husband is a TOP NOTCH employee and his bosses hands are TIED-he cannot give my husband a raise and promotion, even though HE HAS TOLD MY HUBBY ON NUMEROUS OCCASSIONS THAT HE WANTS TO DO SO. The job is at a University which is state supported-there just isn't the money to do it-everything is FROZEN by agreement with the union. Why shouldn't we angry and frustrated by that? Who are YOU to judge me or what my family is going through? Your thinly veiled put down that my husband and I are stupid and have painted ourselves into a corner disgusts me. Obviously that's your attitude to anyone who is struggling. Not very Christian like I'd say.

Someday, you will undoubtedly experience something like what we are going through. Hope you can find some understanding and compassion when that happens. Though I doubt you will.

p.s. Next up-tons and tons of links posted by Ouroboro to support her "opinions" .

[ouroboro]

[Tametaz]

I agree. You know Ouroboro, I think that you are looking to be right ALL the time in EVERY thread and are ALWAYS looking for a fight. You really reeled me in but good this time, because I let my guard down with you and thought you really cared about people for a change. And that you sincerely wanted to gain some insight into other peoples concerns and issues. Silly me!

p.s. Next up-tons and tons of links posted by Ouroboro to support her "opinions" .


:cheer7: :cheer7: :cheer7:

[superchickee]

I have a family of 5 and our family earns less than your figures. $32,000.00 last year. We are struggling, but not hungry. By struggling I mean we are on a budget.

[cowleyh]

what in the world is going on here? i saw a good convo going on and then suddenly it all goes awry.

[ouroboro]

[cowleyh]

superchickadee


hee hee! cute. :laugh:

[ouroboro]

hee hee! cute. :laugh:


Ooops! Didn't see that! LOL!

*superchickee*

[cowleyh]

well, crap. i had a whole novel typed out and my computer freaked out on me... poof!

here's a shortened version.

education or experience? or both? you have the job
at the pay you want? sometimes. depends on the market.
employers pay for a skill set. if the skill set is common, the pay is common: minimum wage. if the skill set is uncommon or hard to come by, the pay goes up. it's like pressed wood vs. chippendale furniture. pressed wood. easy to come by, so it's cheap. chippendale furniture is of high quality, expertly carved, mahogany, rare. very pricey! if you are trying to build your company up and come across as a high-quality beacon among your peers, you'll pay for the rare skill sets.

[do my analogies suck? :laugh: ]

location pay is common with government jobs. enough to make it in popular locations easily? probably not. solution? move to a less popular place. :laugh: i laugh, but really, it's true. you are paying a premium to live in a popular location. easy to realize when you look at the price of a house in california or a closet in new york. :shocked4:

[ouroboro]

[jenninshelby]

IMHO the great divide between rich and poor is spreading. It's becoming harder and harder to find people in the middle. Part of this is job outsourcing. I can't tell you how many friends I have in the IT field who have lost their jobs to people overseas. People who were making $65-100K, comfortably able to support their families, were replaced by workers in other countries (usually India) by people being paid $25K for the same work. Where does the $40-75K difference go? Back into the already overflowing pockets of the company owners.

I recently heard that 60% of large companies paid no taxes this year because they set up shops outside of the US boarders. They attribute losses to the US based branches - deducting their losses - and meanwhile, pushed all of their gains onto their overseas branches.

A lot of this comes down to GREED.

I have relatives who are staunch Republicans. They feel that poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough and that it's their fault. They should be able to live lavish lives because they work harder.

They have no idea what it's really like to have to WORK. The lowest paying jobs are usually the ones where you have to do the most work.



Right. Before long there will be no middle class. You will either be rich or poor. There will be no middle and that is not right. One thing we can do is vote Bush out of office simply because the repub party is the party for the rich and the Democrat party is the party for and about All peoples.

[hort1]

I think the issue that others are having with the education argument is that the equation better degree = better pay is just not that black and white. If you pursue a doctorate in, say history, you will have expended a great deal of time and money. You decide to accept a low paying job as associate professor at a university, hoping to get tenure. That's been the traditional path. The next year, though, the university decides to make all associate professors part-time - less pay, no benefits. The same thing is happening in nursing and other fields as well.
Additionally, many careers demanding advanced degrees just do not pay that well - teaching, social services.
The tech example also applies - whole classes of jobs, requiring skill and education, get moved overseas.
Finally, access to education IS vital, and our society emphasizes getting a least a bachelor's. As more and more people get those degrees, though, it can drive down wages within a particular field. The legal field, I believe, is experiencing this.
I don't believe anyone has suggested that we limit anyone's salary, or equalize everyone's wages. A huge chunk of jobs, though, that once guaranteed a decent income and benefits, has either disappeared; or, those jobs have changed in such a way that they no longer provide adequate wages. Someone made the point earlier that the middle class is disappearing, and statistically it's true.

As to the food issue, I don't think that you change that without fundamentally changing the structure of society. That also applies to the job situatuion, I think. That's the trade-off for capitalism. Not trying to be funny, or say I'm for that, but just making an observation.
Every time I go to the grocery, I try and get a couple of items for a food box. I usually try to use extra coupons. When the box gets full, we take it to a food pantry a city agency runs. I've encouraged my son to be involved in this process. Apparently these pantries are facing more and more demand.

[hort1]

Right. Before long there will be no middle class. You will either be rich or poor. There will be no middle and that is not right. One thing we can do is vote Bush out of office simply because the repub party is the party for the rich and the Democrat party is the party for and about All peoples.


HEE HEE!!! That'll fire 'em up, jenninshelby!

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[cowleyh]

I think the issue that others are having with the education argument is that the equation better degree = better pay is just not that black and white. If you pursue a doctorate in, say history, you will have expended a great deal of time and money. You decide to accept a low paying job as associate professor at a university, hoping to get tenure. That's been the traditional path. The next year, though, the university decides to make all associate professors part-time - less pay, no benefits. The same thing is happening in nursing and other fields as well.
Additionally, many careers demanding advanced degrees just do not pay that well - teaching, social services.
The tech example also applies - whole classes of jobs, requiring skill and education, get moved overseas.
Finally, access to education IS vital, and our society emphasizes getting a least a bachelor's. As more and more people get those degrees, though, it can drive down wages within a particular field. The legal field, I believe, is experiencing this.
I don't believe anyone has suggested that we limit anyone's salary, or equalize everyone's wages. A huge chunk of jobs, though, that once guaranteed a decent income and benefits, has either disappeared; or, those jobs have changed in such a way that they no longer provide adequate wages. Someone made the point earlier that the middle class is disappearing, and statistically it's true.


yep. i agree that certain degrees don't always bring the big bucks. adequate bucks? maybe. depends on where you live. and yes, if tons of people are getting the same degree, the competition is going to be tough. that's where experience comes into play (which you can get by volunteering, interning, working part time while you go to school, if possible). to be honest, i kind of wish there was an overabundance of doctors rather than lawyers... kind of makes me wonder where our priorities are as a country.

a friend of mine is a nurse. she works overtime every once in a while and pulls in some major bucks. from what i've read recently, there is a shortage of nurses, so current or wanna-be nurses are getting some major perks: school paid for, signing bonuses, etc.

[cowleyh]

Continuing with your skill set analogy, cowleyh, (don't take offense, just clarifying)...

The expensive skillset made that way either from (experience over time, education, or both) is suddenly getting paid the same as the common skillset and no longer has incentive to do a good job because his skills aren't valued anymore. The common skillset is happy, they don't need to develop the skills the expensive one had they get paid the same either way. Who wins in this situation? Is it a win-win? Wouldn't the company be losing out because its expensive skillsets no longer have motivation?

Back to the who is feeding our children question---both skillsets can feed their kids now that there is equal pay, but education & experience are no longer valued, so I guess they'd be at home watching tv instead? Either way they'd get paid the same, no incentive to learn or to gain experience anymore. And isn't this just shy of communism?

Next theory, the common skillsets appeal to the government for a raise in minimum wage, the government says sure why not, and raises it just enough to feed those kids. Now everyone is happy and education and experience are still valued by the company and the skillsets have incentive again.

Next theory, the common skillsets appeal for minimum wage increases throughout the different states because each state has a different cost of living. Everyone wins this way too.

Final theory, all skillsets are given a liveable wage based on their age, the younger skillsets with baby skillsets lose out on the deal and still can't feed their kids, but the older skillsets are happy.

So the question is: what do we do? What is the solution? Raise the pay for the common skillsets, young and old, but without making it so high that the expensive skillsets aren't valued anymore, just enough that all the baby skillsets get fed. Or organize the welfare program so that common skillsets that qualify have all that is availiable to them, so the baby skillsets still get fed and the common skillsets have opportunity to develop into an expensive skillset. Could include both a raise in minimum wage and organized welfare or one or the other, depends on how large the gap is.

Or not bother or worry about it and dream about skillsets all night! LOL! :laugh:

Derrr, I'm corn-fused. :goofy3:

Because of this, I'm going with the last option. :laugh:

No, I think the main thing we have to remember is that you are never finished learning. If you finish high school, go to college than stop, you become stagnant. In order for your mind to keep functioning and for your paycheck to keep rising to cover the cost of inflation, you have to challenge your mind with education. If you aren't close to schools, look for options on-line. Look for self-study courses. I read somewhere years ago that the average person changes careers at least three times in his or her life. That really seems like a lot! - considering how expensive even one degree is these days. Maybe not all career changes require a whole new degree, but it probably requires a whole new skill set. Those who aren't afraid to take a chance on change are probably much better off in the long run.

Also, there are some people who sacrifice the 'good life' to do what they love, whether it be teaching elementary school or painting funky toilet seats. They just have to be careful with their money and live on a budget. It's possible...

[LastLaugh]

ouroboro you have a very narrow viewpoint of the situation. being raised in poverty i can tell you that there are quite a few stumbling blocks to a higher education. my mother spent all her time working low wage jobs just to keep body and soul together. she didn't have time to pursue a degree until after us kids were grown. there are many reasons for poverty besides lack of education.
one of the best sites i've ran across on poverty -
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/em/em8743/default.html

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[ouroboro]

[superchickee]

Is this just in Oregon? Is there some other links?

[ouroboro]

[hort1]

If you major in painting funky toilet seats and there isn't much of a market for it, you may not get a well paying job doing that, but if its something you love and makes you happy and you can live on a budget doing it, why not? Maybe that is that problem here., that I am not understanding, ..they don't pay a liveable wage on the painting toilet seat job? It may be a good idea to learn a new skill then rather than blame it on the employer..that is what I am saying..am I right? I doubt it but its what we are counting on. My dh is changing careers entirely, we are counting on his new education to get him a job in the career he wants to be in. Autodafe20, makes a good point to though, not everyone can afford education when they are busy just providing the basics, and that is where I am saying a raise in minimum wage or reformed welfare programs could help. Add a job training program if there isn't one already, connect all the different programs together so that you can get as much as you can, increase advertising so people know where to go when they need help. I know there is a childcare program availiable that will pay your childcare costs, so going back to our example of the Walmart cashier with a 2 year old, rather than blame her employer, she see a commercial for the new reformed welfare program, it doesn't look glamorous but hey anythings worth taking a look at. She goes in, sees that she qualifies for job training, childcare and help with food and other basic needs. Walmart gives her two days off a week, she can use those two days off training for a new job and the child care program takes care of the 2 year old while she does. Does that make sense? That is what I'm trying to say. Education and skill are valued compared to no education and skill, welfare and minimum wage could close the gap. Complaining and blaming your employer does nothing they follow the laws set by the government, if the government changes minimum wage, they are required by law to do so.

Well, I think there IS often blame to go on employers. If you lookat it as a triangle -government, business, and labor - I think you're going to find business and governement aligned more often then government and labor. We have had decades of efforts by government, at the behest of business, to undermine labor safeguards. Where is the support for an increase in the minimum wage? Who in Congress is pushing for increased social safety net programs? A new program may be proposed here and there but my suspicion is that we have seen a gradual decrease over the past few decades. This is probably exacerbated by cuts at the state level.

Again - not going to disagree that, if you cannot make enough dough painting toilet seats, learning a new skill/getting additional training/switching careers is a good option - as an ideal abstract. Stating it so blithely, though, ignores the enormous differences in individual situations and circumstances. I understand, from your posts, that your family is moving in combination with a job change/school. I'm sure that you have calculated that it's in your best interests, that the benefits outweigh the costs, etc. I'm not trying to provoke an argument - but there is a danger in looking at our own circumstances and assuming that whatever we do and whatever decisions we make constitute a sort of societal baseline - sort of, "If I can do it other people can too."

Finally - I think I wrote in an earlier post that our society values education, blah blah blah. On further thought, I'm not really sure that is accurate, even as a generalization.