Should there be changes for the working poor?

[bloodyminded]

This is offensive. My bona fides are at least as valid as your own, and I'll thank you to take your nose out of the air and address the ideas instead of inventing a position for me so that you may disapprove of it.

Hey, you're the one who asked if it "was so bad" if people worked for fuck-all, at the whims of their employers.

I guess I could have just answered, "yes, it's bad."

Was it a serious question?

And to set the record straight, it's those who sniff blithely about it being fine and dandy to pay folks close to nothing for their work who have their "nose in the air."

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

How so? If productivity does not determine the value of work performed, then what does?

I'm saying that productivity itself is not easily measured; and when it is measured, it approaches meaningless in most cases.

If you didn't think so, why apply a "building widgets" scenario, rather than a real-world one?

I can give you an example, once again using Walmart (North America's biggest employer, almost entirely of very low-wage workers, and a profoundly successful company...so the example is arguably the very best one could find):

Walmart does have "productivity requirements." However, they don't follow them. Why? Because they're untenable and meaningless. Presumably, they were concocted by productivity "experts" who were wildly overpayed to come up with some useless polciies that are impossible to follow. (What is the "productivity" of these experts, the question is begged?)

I imagine it's a little sop for the sake of the shareholders, added to the file for them to look over while they pretend to appreciate the drones who do all the work for very little.

And so what are the rewards for one's alleged level of productivity, as devised by the elitist fuckheads who run the company?

Well, once a year you go in to the manager's office for an Assessment. Aside from a couple of reasonable points that may or may not come up--how well you work with others, and so on--the rest of the assessments is performed without any detailed knowledge or understanding of how actually, objectively "productive" the employee has been.

So you can get anywhere from zero to fifty cents raise each year.

Almost no one gets zero; far fewer ger fifty cents. virtually the entire staff gets thirty cents, based on an "assessment," in which each point is ticked off, from "poor" to "excellent."

Everyone gets rated "good."

Wow, that's believable, huh? Almost no one deserves fifty cents raise an hour (even though they work harder than, say, currency speculators, uncontroversially...but fifty cents an hour in a year is a loooot of money for the greedy dicks, I suppose); almost everyone gets rated "good," and receives a thirty cents an hour raise.

Now, you didn't know this. But now you do; so can you explain how you think this is some valid and meaninfully objective measurement of (literally) millions of individuals, with diverse talents at diverse tasks?

It's a joke. "Value" and "productivity"?

Please.

Everyone gets their work done; those who don't, eventually get fired. Some people pull twice their weight compared to others, but will be accorded the same benefits. Almost without exception.

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Molly]

Hey, you're the one who asked if it "was so bad" if people worked for fuck-all, at the whims of their employers.

I guess I could have just answered, "yes, it's bad."

Was it a serious question?

And to set the record straight, it's those who sniff blithely about it being fine and dandy to pay folks close to nothing for their work who have their "nose in the air."

Deadly serious.

Scotty noted: "For every raise in the minimum wage you'll have employers trying to figure out how to do with less staff. Or how to defray their costs by outsourcing so they don't have to pay benefits." Exactly so.

Everyone's work (at any given task) is worth what their product can be marketed for/ what it would cost to replace their effort. Unless you can propose some alternaive valuation method, that's the math the world is going to use...

And everyone's capacity to contribute is someplace on the great continuum- some worth nearly nothing, and some very valueable indeed.. The great value of various sheltered workshop systems is the simple human dignity involved in doing something productive and recieving a commensurate reward. That's separate from social need, which is also, separately, acknowledged. The fact that the productivity of an individual may not be of sufficient value to cover the cost of their care should not prevent them from doing swomething of value...

...nor should the the social welfare system- concerned with the minimum needs of all citizens- rely on the (unwilling) altruism of employers.

And, any given employment situation involves a mixture of quite a few conditions that all go into the pool to determine whether the employee finds it a desireable position... (Some people would pay for the opportunity to do things that you couldn't get me to do with a gun to my head.) Wages aren't the only criterion determining the desireability of a job. SOME of the working poor have actively chosen that lifee for reasons of their own. Is it so terrible that they should be allowed that negotiation?

Edited February 20, 2011 by Molly

[bloodyminded]

Deadly serious.

Scotty noted: "For every raise in the minimum wage you'll have employers trying to figure out how to do with less staff. Or how to defray their costs by outsourcing so they don't have to pay benefits." Exactly so.

I'm not saying it's not an issue...the fact that those with the most money and power work through this sort of blackmail.

But if there is no minimum wage, how is that good?

...nor should the the social welfare system- concerned with the minimum needs of all citizens- rely on the (unwilling) altruism of employers.

There's no such thing as unwilling altruism, of course.

And, any given employment situation involves a mixture of quite a few conditions that all go into the pool to determine whether the employee finds it a desireable position... (Some people would pay for the opportunity to do things that you couldn't get me to do with a gun to my head.) Wages aren't the only criterion determining the desireability of a job. SOME of the working poor have actively chosen that lifee for reasons of their own. Is it so terrible that they should be allowed that negotiation?

What do you guess is the percentage of working poor who would agree with any of this, and consider their wages to be less imporant; and who would object to a minimum wage?

Very few have "chosen" to be part of the working poor. I know, Reagan said otherwise, but he wasn't especialy bright, now, was he?

Why do their opinions not matter?

As usual, it's the poepel who don't have to live this way who come up with such notions...which always (and this is no coincidence) favour those with the most power and money.

It's top-down class warfare. Most class warfare is.

And, any given employment situation involves a mixture of quite a few conditions that all go into the pool to determine whether the employee finds it a desireable position...

Rarely. The desperate need for some money, any money, even a pittance, is the overwhelming, overriding concern of almost all of them.

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

I'm saying that productivity itself is not easily measured; and when it is measured, it approaches meaningless in most cases.

If you didn't think so, why apply a "building widgets" scenario, rather than a real-world one?

I can give you an example, once again using Walmart (North America's biggest employer, almost entirely of very low-wage workers, and a profoundly successful company...so the example is arguably the very best one could find):

Walmart does have "productivity requirements." However, they don't follow them. Why? Because they're untenable and meaningless. Presumably, they were concocted by productivity "experts" who were wildly overpayed to come up with some useless polciies that are impossible to follow. (What is the "productivity" of these experts, the question is begged?)

I imagine it's a little sop for the sake of the shareholders, added to the file for them to look over while they pretend to appreciate the drones who do all the work for very little.

And so what are the rewards for one's alleged level of productivity, as devised by the elitist fuckheads who run the company?

Well, once a year you go in to the manager's office for an Assessment. Aside from a couple of reasonable points that may or may not come up--how well you work with others, and so on--the rest of the assessments is performed without any detailed knowledge or understanding of how actually, objectively "productive" the employee has been.

So you can get anywhere from zero to fifty cents raise each year.

Almost no one gets zero; far fewer ger fifty cents. virtually the entire staff gets thirty cents, based on an "assessment," in which each point is ticked off, from "poor" to "excellent."

Everyone gets rated "good."

Wow, that's believable, huh? Almost no one deserves fifty cents raise an hour (even though they work harder than, say, currency speculators, uncontroversially...but fifty cents an hour in a year is a loooot of money for the greedy dicks, I suppose); almost everyone gets rated "good," and receives a thirty cents an hour raise.

Now, you didn't know this. But now you do; so can you explain how you think this is some valid and meaninfully objective measurement of (literally) millions of individuals, with diverse talents at diverse tasks?

It's a joke. "Value" and "productivity"?

Please.

Everyone gets their work done; those who don't, eventually get fired. Some people pull twice their weight compared to others, but will be accorded the same benefits. Almost without exception.

You know what will really piss you off? Knowing how raises are actually decided in many of these corporate retailers. It has absolutely nothing to do with productivity, as Molly would like to assume. It has to do with bottom-line and bottom-line alone. Corporate head offices will send to the store an "envelope" of money, a fixed amount by which they are able to dole out raises. Now, say your store has 75 people in the current rotation for raises. You only have a fixed amount to give everyone. The raise is decided practically before the review. They're not free to just give out whatever amount they want, or whatever amount a person's work-ethic deserves. They have to pick and choose, sometimes between people that are equally deserving. It's all a game and at the end of the day it has more to do with profit-margins and bottom-lines than individuals' working habits.

[bloodyminded]

You know what will really piss you off? Knowing how raises are actually decided in many of these corporate retailers. It has absolutely nothing to do with productivity, as Molly would like to assume. It has to do with bottom-line and bottom-line alone. Corporate head offices will send to the store an "envelope" of money, a fixed amount by which they are able to dole out raises. Now, say your store has 75 people in the current rotation for raises. You only have a fixed amount to give everyone. The raise is decided practically before the review. They're not free to just give out whatever amount they want, or whatever amount a person's work-ethic deserves. They have to pick and choose, sometimes between people that are equally deserving. It's all a game and at the end of the day it has more to do with profit-margins and bottom-lines than individuals' working habits.

Yes, I see what you mean, and of course you're right. The idea that working people--especially on the lowest wage rungs--will be "rewarded" for "productivity" is so preposterous that I can scarcely believe it when it is asserted.

The low-wage workers themselves tend never make such statements. But then, why should anyone listen to them, even when discussing them?

[GWiz]

After listening to a radio program on the working poor, I thought I would post it here. One caller said in Australia, minimum wage is $17.00 and there are no tips like for waiters and waitresses. For it to work here, the government could get rid of welfare because it wouldn't be needed, everyone would have get an education of some sort. The money saved from getting rid of welfare could go to help with the increase in wages and the businesses already have the get the benefit from tax cuts. I also think the governments should have more apprenticeships for people out there that lose their jobs. Do you think something along these lines to work in Canada?

I gotta tell ya, it ain't all peaches and cream living in Aussieland...

It's good, don't get me wrong, but it is VERY expensive to live there...

[Jack Weber]

You know what will really piss you off? Knowing how raises are actually decided in many of these corporate retailers. It has absolutely nothing to do with productivity, as Molly would like to assume. It has to do with bottom-line and bottom-line alone. Corporate head offices will send to the store an "envelope" of money, a fixed amount by which they are able to dole out raises. Now, say your store has 75 people in the current rotation for raises. You only have a fixed amount to give everyone. The raise is decided practically before the review. They're not free to just give out whatever amount they want, or whatever amount a person's work-ethic deserves. They have to pick and choose, sometimes between people that are equally deserving. It's all a game and at the end of the day it has more to do with profit-margins and bottom-lines than individuals' working habits.

Pretty much...

"Productivity" is the neoliberal excuse to cut jobs..

The basic definition of productivity is that it is less people doing more work for less money..This thereby inceases that good 'ol bottom line and increases the sacrosanct "shareholder value"...

Edited February 21, 2011 by Jack Weber

[GWiz]

Hold on. Productivity is what determines the value of a job. Workers are not equal or interchangeable, and however you cut it fiscal sanity is part of the employment/wage decision process.

It's all very well to propose paying people according to their needs (and wants and wishes) to perform a task, but the more they cost, the easier it is to invent a machine to cost-effectively replace them. The employer's goal isn't 'to employ people'. The employer's goal is to cost-effectively accomplish a task.

Joe Palooka who can make 4 widgets/hour on his best day may or may not be worth a minimum wage that allows him to move out of his parents' basement, so yes indeedy, HIS work isn't worth doing or paying someone to do. Now Elsie Palooka on the other hand, has greater manual dexterity, a lick of sense and some work ethic, and averages 8 widgets an hour... and thus is worth 2X any wage that Joe is worth (with a little premium thrown in, because the lack of headache is worth something)...

Is Joe unemployable at any price just because he can't achieve that threshold of productivity? Should Elsie's job be eliminated because Joe can't achieve a minimum threshold of productivity? Just how would a non productivity-based wage system work?

That's why I'm no fan of unions in general...

I see nothing wrong with REWARDING productive workers with raises and promotions that a "poor" worker doesn't get, that's what GOOD businesses do...

Bottom line is there are good and bad businesses and there are good (and needed) and bad unions...

It's about people every TIME...

Businesses that don't look at people as people and ONLY look at the "bottom line (read greed)" are bad businesses and will "outsource" jobs in a heartbeat in MHO...

Unions that only look at a wage rate and benefits (often the union exec benefits more so than it's members) instead of productivity from it's members to help a company succeed are just as bad in MHO...

Oh well, that's life, that's just the way it is and I don't see it changing much anyTIME soon...

[bush_cheney2004]

...Unions that only look at a wage rate and benefits (often the union exec benefits more so than it's members) instead of productivity from it's members to help a company succeed are just as bad in MHO...

You got that right. Union shops will force more productive workers to slow down to minimum quotas. The big prize for them is to force more overtime pay at time and a half or double time.

[GWiz]

You got that right. Union shops will force more productive workers to slow down to minimum quotas. The big prize for them is to force more overtime pay at time and a half or double time.

Yeah, but I got the other part about businesses right too... Scared to admit THAT?

[Molly]

Yes, I see what you mean, and of course you're right. The idea that working people--especially on the lowest wage rungs--will be "rewarded" for "productivity" is so preposterous that I can scarcely believe it when it is asserted.

The low-wage workers themselves tend never make such statements. But then, why should anyone listen to them, even when discussing them?

You know what pisses me off? That you would have the nerve to invent both a life story and a whole series of opinions for me, and then tut-tut about 'why should anyone listen to them, even when discussing them?'

Hypocrite.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, but I got the other part about businesses right too... Scared to admit THAT?

Concerns over executive pay are "mice nuts" and a distraction from the main topic. Pay the executives nothing and you would still have the same issues...only worse.

[GostHacked]

Again it isn't my fault because some people chose not to finish their schooling or training. You all seem to think that these people who refused to go to college or Uni are owed something by the rest of us. I'm sorry but I don't think I should have to pay for someone else's mistakes.

The government shouldn't be solving all of our problems for us but you clearly think that it should. I don't need the government controlling every aspect of our lives but you want it involved in every step. It's appalling.

But yet you support fascism. Which is the government 'solving' all our problems and controlling every aspect of it. Not to mention we all are paying for our corrupt leaders mistakes.

[Cyberguy]

Hold on. Productivity is what determines the value of a job. Workers are not equal or interchangeable, and however you cut it fiscal sanity is part of the employment/wage decision process.

It's all very well to propose paying people according to their needs (and wants and wishes) to perform a task, but the more they cost, the easier it is to invent a machine to cost-effectively replace them. The employer's goal isn't 'to employ people'. The employer's goal is to cost-effectively accomplish a task.

Joe Palooka who can make 4 widgets/hour on his best day may or may not be worth a minimum wage that allows him to move out of his parents' basement, so yes indeedy, HIS work isn't worth doing or paying someone to do. Now Elsie Palooka on the other hand, has greater manual dexterity, a lick of sense and some work ethic, and averages 8 widgets an hour... and thus is worth 2X any wage that Joe is worth (with a little premium thrown in, because the lack of headache is worth something)...

Is Joe unemployable at any price just because he can't achieve that threshold of productivity? Should Elsie's job be eliminated because Joe can't achieve a minimum threshold of productivity? Just how would a non productivity-based wage system work?

Are you suggesting, then, that there should be legions of people working full-time unable to pay the rent?

Nice, "necessary" picture that you paint, but it's unworkable in the end.

I do mean what I say: that if it can't be done for a basic minimum wage, then it shouldn't. That's wasting labour on a product or service for which there is insufficient demand. I like your idea of automation or paying by piece work. Employers like those kind of fixed costs per unit & so, actually, do employees. It wouldn't take more than about a week's working to know if the rate is fair or not. I am not actually referring to piecework or job suitability, or the "lazy" poor. All I am saying is that slavery simply forces people onto welfare so that they can get a roof over their heads. That is 1 place where corporate charity must end.

I can give an example of how a non-productivity based system might "work" as well, since it was asked for.

Potash Corporation earned $1.8 billion last year after paying a royalty of just $75 million to the province of Saskatchewan. In 2009 Saskatchewan actually owed Potash Corp close to $.2 billion- a situation where the province was technically paying them to mine the stuff. We know that in the '80's, when the province owned the company, the director earned around $385,000 anually & the company annually paid hundreds of millions in profit to the provincial treasury. Now PC(S)'s director can pay himself & his cronies hundreds of millions annually & still show billions in profit for the shareholders. Bill Doyle (the CEO) was estimated to be "worth" over a billion himself, in 2008, if you account for stock-options. These guys simply occupied their ivory tower, in Chicago no less, & raked off all the cream. There is a collossal example of how a non-productivity based wage system works. It's modelled after present-day Capitalism. It's totally corrupt & obviously has everyone fooled into slavery even though the math is hard to hide. This is only 1 example, but anywhere within the monopoly sector you'll find it if you care to look. Even ologopolies are also run that way. By the way the Premier campaigned on a 10-year royalty freeze, so now you know who he's working for.

I feel sorry for mom & pop enterprises as many of these ventures do go under. I am only addressing the corporate model which is the only one that can automate or compete on a basis of scale. Even Egyptians demand sustenance. They just want a government that will address their NECESSITIES rather than advance corruption. As the fiscal imbalance of power corrupts absolutely, then even small business can't flourish as export markets will become unreachable & the domestic market will whither under the burden of inputs, taxation, & general corruption .

[Bryan]

I do mean what I say: that if it can't be done for a basic minimum wage, then it shouldn't.

I think both sides of this debate actually agree with that statement, they just interpret it to mean different things.

What I say is, if you can't pay your bills on minimum wage, then don't. Don't work for minimum wage, that is. If you can't find a better paying job, at least do something that supplements that wage. A second job, a home based-business, some sort of freelance work, even just make sure that minimum wage job is one that pays good tips.

I know two people who have quit secure well-paying unionized jobs to go be waiters -- specifically because with tips, they were actually clearing more money.

[Molly]

Concerns over executive pay are "mice nuts" and a distraction from the main topic. Pay the executives nothing and you would still have the same issues...only worse.

This is probably the first time we have ever agreed about anything, but... but that's exactly right.

[madmax]

Concerns over executive pay are "mice nuts" and a distraction from the main topic. Pay the executives nothing and you would still have the same issues...only worse.

It depends on the trend lines.

If Executive Pay continues to rise while their Productivity continues to decline (and many executives at the top pay scale are figureheads) while the desire for greed and profits and larger executive salaries continue to press upwards, then the economic pressures will ultimately be put upon those of lesser economic status and those not sitting around the board table.

Pay Executives nothing.. no one suggests this.

But Executive pay vs real earnings and productivity are never matched.

However Executive protection of their self interest has no limit. They will defend their desires for more and more and justify "their needs" as greater then others and making bold statements of why they have earned it. Fact is, if you are at the top, you have the power to set the bar.

This thread really isn't about the hardships of executives.

But look how quick one is to defend them

[bush_cheney2004]

...This thread really isn't about the hardships of executives.

But look how quick one is to defend them

Let the commies and socialists protect the "poor workers"....I will defend the executives!

[coldfires]

Whatever the minimum wage is set at, why is the rightwing solution to unemployment and welfare to cut benefits off those who are in the system? The standard claim is that welfare or unemployment lowers their incentive to work....well, why not put some rungs on the ladder, so someone who was on welfare and able to work, would have a good reason to...instead of taking a minimum wage job and losing whatever benefits they currently have on welfare or disability.

It all sounds like capitalism to me. People have the right to live the way they want. What makes you or others happy and content does not necessarily make others so, nor may they want what you have. Perhaps the poor are happy not working and scraping by, but enjoying more time with family, having time to enjoy the sunshine, smell the tulips and watch the sunset. They are not marching to the sound of the bosses drum. Let the rich be rich. How long will that last if the poor can't purchase what they sell. Let the rich gouge the rich.

Not one person asked to be born; but we all were. We all should have the right to decide whether we want to get caught up in capitalism or eke out a living poor as it may be. The poor our pushed here and shoved there, they can't afford ie milk because the truck drivers want more money so the price of milk went up...

Incentitive to work!!! Maybe they just don't want to. Maybe they just want to be left alone. Why can't they have a piece of this earth to toil as their own. Who bought and sold this country??? It is our land. It belongs to all the people. Our planet does not belong to the rich, or the poor and certainly not to any government. Maybe everyone would be better off enjoying life.

You raise the chickens and I will raise the cows and we can trade eggs for milk.

[William Ashley]

The royalties issue is a little bit slanted. In addition to royalties corporate taxes are paid. I support the removal of corporate taxes (an annual decrease of 1%) - but only with a balanced budget. (I actually don't support deficit spending - I'm for a bare bones approach you have x amount of money to spend, NOT x amount of programs to fund). No money = no money.

I do however think that royalties on natural resources should be raised - including "resources brought into the country - so that all natural resource products would be issued a royalties fee for extraction/exploitation - as well potential an ecofee - that all products produced or brought into the country (this eco fee is an environmental damages assessed as the cost of countermanding the enviornmental effect of the products production and removal/remediation from the product lifecycle in Canada --- products made in Canada would be issued a production ecofee while products shiped into Canada or not shipped from Canada would be issued a "waste/remediation" fee. All on an equal basis. Foreign products would also be issued the production fee if any environmental effects directly or indirectly caused damage to the Canadian Environment.

This of course is with the removal of the corporate taxes and for the ecofee and exploitation royalties to be mutually ramped up and down --- as corporate taxes are reduced royalties would increase (this specifically targets resource industries) however royalties could be exchange for entering product into the strategic reserve system (with royalties being paid by sale to the reserve or profit on exchange given to the reserve.

The goal here is to 1. remove corporate taxes 2. provide a mechanism that profit is not taxed, but a royalty (base price for the commodity is given) resource extraction - eco fee is moderated by how damaging the extraction or production process is.

Funds raised through the ecofee are payable to environment Canada for GreenBusiness and other environmental programs to reduce harm to the environment while fueling transition to a better industry. Companies could also pick from a list of goodies to fund their own aquisition of Environmental technologies such as 0 emissions or better extraction process equipment. (sale of these materials however would be costlossed in that funds would be calculated on the overall costing to the benfit - so the product actually has to be used - and it has to be bought through Environment Canada and spent in Canada for Canadian production or extraction.

CORPORATE TAXES: none (service and resale based industries don't have to pay corporate taxes)

ECOFEE: cost of remediation/removal/processing at point of production including imported product, product produced in Canada or product left in Canada. Companies can allocate ecofee funds for production/extraction upgrades such as O emissions, or less impactive extraction procuesses. Allocations must be from a list of Environment Canada approved products (through Environment Canada established crown corporations to "control prices" and prevent shady dealing - with "shell companies" to funnel profits. Companies wishing to sell through the EcoFee program could put in a submission to enter product for listing in the program or enter a partnership with Environmenta Canada to market the materials.

ROYALTIES: baseline cost of good in terms of loss to the public - to compensate them for loss of mutual goods. Royalties would be issued a loss fee based on materials of product shipped out of country - "leaves Canadian ownership and control." Royalties can be offset by sale through the strategic reserve or to the strategic reserve. Resources levied an export fee on basis of loss to the Canadian economy - any sales under the reserve price the difference would be issued a levy. Royalties are only paid on items in the reserve after sale (the governments gets its cut if the product is sold) If it doesn't sell the product can remain in the reserve - with a forfiture if the product is near the end of its life for a removal of the ecofee for the forfiture. If the product is not put in the reserve system then royalties must be paid, if the product is removed from the reserve royalties would need to be paid.

Edited February 24, 2011 by William Ashley

[bloodyminded]

You know what pisses me off? That you would have the nerve to invent both a life story and a whole series of opinions for me, and then tut-tut about 'why should anyone listen to them, even when discussing them?'

Hypocrite.

Oh, get out of my face with that.

Your whole thesis was based on the idea of some rational measure of "productivity"...which you then used "building widgets" to describe!

Well, what else are you going to use? Real-world examples? Good luck with that.

And I, on the other hand, gave you a concrete example: North America's most successful company, which is also by far the largest employer...and you can't explain how this mystical "productivity," which miraculously rewards the good workers rationally for their productive behaviour, even begins to work.

They're not seeing any of these rewards...but hey, Economics 101 trumps lives reality every time.

At any rate, your derision of the working poor is evident. And you're entitled to your opinion (shared by several other elitists here on this board).

Why not defend your stance, rather than pretending to moral outrage?

Edited February 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

It all sounds like capitalism to me. People have the right to live the way they want. What makes you or others happy and content does not necessarily make others so, nor may they want what you have. Perhaps the poor are happy not working and scraping by, but enjoying more time with family, having time to enjoy the sunshine, smell the tulips and watch the sunset. They are not marching to the sound of the bosses drum. Let the rich be rich. How long will that last if the poor can't purchase what they sell. Let the rich gouge the rich.

Not one person asked to be born; but we all were. We all should have the right to decide whether we want to get caught up in capitalism or eke out a living poor as it may be. The poor our pushed here and shoved there, they can't afford ie milk because the truck drivers want more money so the price of milk went up...

Incentitive to work!!! Maybe they just don't want to. Maybe they just want to be left alone. Why can't they have a piece of this earth to toil as their own. Who bought and sold this country??? It is our land. It belongs to all the people. Our planet does not belong to the rich, or the poor and certainly not to any government. Maybe everyone would be better off enjoying life.

You raise the chickens and I will raise the cows and we can trade eggs for milk.

A budding Anarcho-Syndicalist???

Hmmmmm????

[Mr.Canada]

If the working poor don't want to be poor they should apply themselves better to improve their situation. The government shouldn't be interefering with every facet of our lives. These socialists won't be happy until the government is tucking us in at night...honestly this is how absurd this is getting.