However, there would be no consequences to rooting out fraudulent use of food stamps.

Doctor Fate wrote:However, there would be no consequences to rooting out fraudulent use of food stamps.

Do you have documentation to that effect?

I'm not completely sure.

If people are using them fraudulently, then I guess you mean one of two things:

1) people are spending on things they should not be
2) people are getting more of them than they should.

Rooting out the first wil redirect where the value of them goes, which would have some effect.

Rooting out the second means less being spent in shops using them.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, there would be no consequences to rooting out fraudulent use of food stamps.

Do you have documentation to that effect?

I'm not completely sure.

If people are using them fraudulently, then I guess you mean one of two things:

1) people are spending on things they should not be
2) people are getting more of them than they should.

Rooting out the first wil redirect where the value of them goes, which would have some effect.

Rooting out the second means less being spent in shops using them.

Thank you for illustrating how liberals view the money of taxpayers. Fraud? Inconsequential because it provides an economic boost.

Now, what if, and I know this is right-wing crazy talk, the government didn't have to borrow the fraudulently spent money and then later tax people to pay the interest on the money borrowed?

tom

Ricky, no
way off the mark! government intervention is what CREATED the walmart part time nonsense, minimum wage requirements simply present further consequences and if costs go up, does the retailer simply absorb them or do they pass it along? Raise the minimum wage and you find both prices rise as well as fewer hours available to work plus a requirement to cut back on full time jobs. Is that what you want? Higher prices and fewer hours to work, more unemployment? Talk about unintended consequences, by forcing walmart to pay more you end up forcing people to shop at the place with the lowest prices and what happens? Walmart is rewarded while everyone else suffers.

Well, since the minimum wage was introduced in 1938 in the US .... there should be empirical data that either supports or contradicts all the claims that raising the minimum wage will be disastrous.
Indeed there is ...
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 013-02.pdf

The centre for economic policy research published this in February 2013. Its extensive and detailed. It tracks a number of minimum wage increases ....
You may want to read all of it. Or just the title.
By the way, its title is
"Why Does the Minimum Wage Have no Discernible Effect on Employment.?"

The consequences of raising the minimum wage are known. (Intended or unintended). The minimum wage has been raised a lot of times since it was first established in 1938.... (When the first arguments were made that market forces could best establish rates of pay for labour. In the Depression.)

Doctor Fate wrote:Thank you for illustrating how liberals view the money of taxpayers. Fraud? Inconsequential because it provides an economic boost.

Nope, just considering the unintended consequences that you claimed did not exist. Thank you for demonstrating how you (not 'Conservatives') will ignore the point and context to get in a quick dig.

Now, what if, and I know this is right-wing crazy talk, the government didn't have to borrow the fraudulently spent money and then later tax people to pay the interest on the money borrowed?

I don't know. What if the government wasn't subsidising agriculture, or pumping money into foreign wars? I'm sure there are unintended consequences there, too.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Thank you for illustrating how liberals view the money of taxpayers. Fraud? Inconsequential because it provides an economic boost.

Nope, just considering the unintended consequences that you claimed did not exist. Thank you for demonstrating how you (not 'Conservatives') will ignore the point and context to get in a quick dig.

Nope, that was you ignoring the point for a quick score. Of course, the point was yours, which might have made it easier for you to ignore. You built up the glorious results of fraud.

Er, okay.

Now, what if, and I know this is right-wing crazy talk, the government didn't have to borrow the fraudulently spent money and then later tax people to pay the interest on the money borrowed?

I don't know. What if the government wasn't subsidising agriculture, or pumping money into foreign wars? I'm sure there are unintended consequences there, too.

Yes, but neither has to do with welfare fraud.

Nice bit of "look over there! Is that a comet?"

I did not say it was good, I was saying that it has other effects and eliminating it might well have unintended consequences. Your post at the top of the page is unequivocal, claiming none.

rickyp wrote:tom

Ricky, no
way off the mark! government intervention is what CREATED the walmart part time nonsense, minimum wage requirements simply present further consequences and if costs go up, does the retailer simply absorb them or do they pass it along? Raise the minimum wage and you find both prices rise as well as fewer hours available to work plus a requirement to cut back on full time jobs. Is that what you want? Higher prices and fewer hours to work, more unemployment? Talk about unintended consequences, by forcing walmart to pay more you end up forcing people to shop at the place with the lowest prices and what happens? Walmart is rewarded while everyone else suffers.

Well, since the minimum wage was introduced in 1938 in the US .... there should be empirical data that either supports or contradicts all the claims that raising the minimum wage will be disastrous.
Indeed there is ...
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 013-02.pdf

The centre for economic policy research published this in February 2013. Its extensive and detailed. It tracks a number of minimum wage increases ....
You may want to read all of it. Or just the title.
By the way, its title is
"Why Does the Minimum Wage Have no Discernible Effect on Employment.?"

The consequences of raising the minimum wage are known. (Intended or unintended). The minimum wage has been raised a lot of times since it was first established in 1938.... (When the first arguments were made that market forces could best establish rates of pay for labour. In the Depression.)

It's a good study and worth reading. Thanks. Some economists agree with the conclusions and others don't. Note that the authors are concerned with moderate increases in the minimum wage and not drastic inreases. Perhaps the minimum wage should be automatically adjusted with inflation (which was Romney's campaign proposal if I remember correctly).

The study focuses on work since 2000, and not since 1938 as Ricky suggests. It also discusses some of the "adjustment channels" to which Tom eludes.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Now, what if, and I know this is right-wing crazy talk, the government didn't have to borrow the fraudulently spent money and then later tax people to pay the interest on the money borrowed?

I don't know. What if the government wasn't subsidising agriculture, or pumping money into foreign wars? I'm sure there are unintended consequences there, too.

There are many unintended consequences (or maytbe they are intended) of U.S. agriculture policy including much higher prices for dairy products which is relevant to this discussion.

ray

Perhaps the minimum wage should be automatically adjusted with inflation

definitely.

The point of this discussion was that walmart and others in retailing have a significant number of employees who require assistance from the government for medical insurance or food.
Now, this is a consequence of the current labour law. Was it unintended or intended Tom?

I suspect that the government doesn't set out to ensure citizens are going to requiring assistance when labour laws and minimum wages are set... But it would be interesting to understand what you and fate think was intended by the current state of the law? And what consequences have been unintended?

it depends on what law you are talking about ... ACA is creating huge problems in the labor market. Yesterday's employment report shows a shifting towards part time workers because of the 30 hour minimum.

We have to drastically change our agricultural policies so that we aren't causing an increase in food prices to benefit large farmers; same goes with ethanol which is insane.

SNAP should be restricted to reasonably heathy food.

A free market has to be the base line. When we divert from it we have to be careful that we understand the externalities involved. There's a place for SNAP and labor protection; but from what I see, we've gone in the wrong direction in many ways.

ray

A free market has to be the base line

A free market for most services and products is absolutely the best way to encourage the development of a market.
However a completely free labour market has never resulted in anything but a rush to the bottom for those in most of the labour market . The historical record has shown that without government intervention to set minimal standards workers are exploited and there is a increasing disparity in income. The middle class is eroded and the working class living standards suffer. (Examples of completely free markets are in places like Bangladesh. Even China is now developing higher standards as the develop a more prosperous working class to go with their newly emerged middle class.)
With a completely free labour market, the middle class society that the US became after 1940 would not exist.
Much of that is down to minimal standards and unionizarion when the US was a dominant economic force and not just the biggest player in th world. (In 1946 the US economy was 52% of the worlds GDP)

ACA, although it makes incremental improvements still suffers from the fundamental problem of making health insurance provision largely the responsibility of employers. Who want to minimize that cost... naturally.
But its probably all that was politically possible.
The obvious fix is to change the contriubtion employers need to make for an employee to a percentage of their pay, not an arbitrary number of hours... (The most obvious fix would be to introduce a nationalized system that has proven so much more efficient and effective in every other western nation, and in places like Japan and Signapore. But thats not politically on despite a majority of Americans favoring such a move...)
I think we agree that there are hundreds of laws and regulations that are in place that distort or change "the market" . Usually they deserve re visitation and remediation. Ethanol subsidies being a primary example. Its your political system that has seized, and which seems incapable of addressing these kinds of things because corporate dollars in the system have too much influence.
But labour laws and the minimum wage aren't amongst these laws....excepting in arriving at a standard that works better than what currently exists. For example In fact, today’s minimum wage of $7.25 buys less than the minimum wage did through all of the 1960s, 1970s and much of the 1980s. Raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour in 2015 would give us about the same real value as the $3.35 minimum wage of 1981.

Although the minimum wage has been raised 22 times since it was established, those increases are needed to restore its inflation-eroded value back to its earlier real level
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... ct-workers

Whats well understood is that a healthy and prosperous working class and middle class are what defines a first world nation. When one lets the minimal standards erode, to benefit the profits of corporate players, the general standard of living erodes ... You can't let the narrow interests of corporations, intent only on maximizing profits, structure the minimal standards. They don't have the breadth of concern or vision to care about the broad interests of society.

Having worked with the homeless population in both Missouri and New York for the past 15 years I'm always amazed at how difficult it is to get those we serve to sign up for benefits that are rightfully there for them. I would venture to say that the majority of people who are very sick out there refuse to undergo an official diagnosis of mental illness (for a slew of reasons resulting from their illness paradoxically) and prefer to live on the streets. It's often a challenge to assist those who are the most deserving.

Rickyp, I enjoyed any number of your points but make no mistake, there are far more freeloaders than you realize out there, who incidentally, are not homeless and have never been homeless but as long as your definition of "incentive" equals "laziness" I can go along with you.

As an aside, on more than one occassion I've been outworked by men in our shelter. Of the 70 who reside with us for 90 day stretches, over 50% have at least one job. Many have more than one job but still can't make child payments or other bills. My point is that the stereotypes surrounding homeless people being too lazy to work are shite.

I'm also amazed at the number of people from the 1% who take advantage of tax credit programs in Missouri in an effort not only help those less fortunate but lets face it, their own bottom line as well. Talk about a group of people milking the system!

Earlier someone mentioned that Missouri is broke essentially. I've not seen the stats on how many billions are lost in state revenue due to the state's tax credit programs but I'm sure the number is staggering. The irony of course is that the 1% here in Missouri, especially banks and financial institutions, continue to sustain this reality given the break they get on state, and in the case of Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Historic Tax credits, federal taxes.

In my experience both Republicans and Democrats take full advantage of the many tax credit programs here. I once heard one donor refer to these incentives as "stupid money." Yet the state depends on the non profit sector to help it meet the needs of its lower class and poor. Thus the tax incentives obviously. And without the 1% and their tax credits we would be up a very wide and dangerous creek for sure!

dag hammarsjkold wrote:As an aside, on more than one occassion I've been outworked by men in our shelter. Of the 70 who reside with us for 90 day stretches, over 50% have at least one job. Many have more than one job but still can't make child payments or other bills. My point is that the stereotypes surrounding homeless people being too lazy to work are shite.

Let me be clear. I know people who are homeless, nearly homeless, etc. Many are hardworking. I have known criminals who, when they are detoxed, would embarrass most with their work ethic.

I'm not one to blame the poor simply for being poor.

However, as you point out, there are many who willfully eschew the government programs because they want to be homeless. It is something most of us cannot understand, but it exists and I think you for bringing clarity to that.

I don't believe that most who are in their right mind and are genuinely willing to work hard will remain homeless for long. One thing I learned in a decade of middle management is that hardworkers are to be prized.

hard workers are to be prized ...amen!
they may not all end up wealthy but they will get by with relative ease without external help as long as they work hard.