Indiana and 7 other states to reinstate food stamp work requirements

Another myth of "zombie economics". No matter where these schemes have been tried, the effect on unemployment is negligible.

What does happen though is corporates get lots and lots of free/cheap labour.

This drives wages down because workers are now competing against free/cheap labour.

The purported aim, to get people off food stamps, fails as wages go down. Now even people who didn't need food stamps, suddenly need them because their conditions have been driven down in order to comptete.

End result, more, not less people on food stamps.

Well, #5 is true! I'M HUNGRY NOW!!!!!!! The rest are FALSE! They AREN'T myths!

#1? Overwhelming majority? GREAT! We can forget about minimum wage, since they aren't in those jobs! Ask them to ask for a raise! PROBLEMS SOLVED!!!!!! STILL, "overwhelming majority" say it is 100% true is some cases!

#2? It isn't a drain? GREAT! DEFUND IT! I mean if it doesn't cost anything, why pay anything? "Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity". OK, I guess you could say the same about ANY $1! Why don't they pay us all $100,000/year? We can all quit our jobs and go shopping! The FACT is that paying $1 DOES create more *******ACTIVITY******* than that. *****DUH*****! But the cost is MORE than $1! It is called INFLATION folks! The money costs money which means prices go up which raises ACTIVITY but lowers our net worth etc....

#3 SNAP DOES have fraud and abuse. It is a well known and accepted fact, SORRY!

#4 I have KNOWN immigrants even illegal ones, that got this stuff! OBAMA CARE actually allows illegals to be called something else to get past RYANs claim, even though he was, and still is, RIGHT!

#6 SORRY, it is FACT! Does this affect EVERYONE? OF COURSE NOT! But it gives them money that is often used to pay for worthless stuff, including candy and worthless snacks. Supposedly more than 34% of the US is OBESE. Do you REALLY think they are ONLY people that aren't on SNAP? I bet most of them ARE on SNAP! And I HAVE seen OBESE people using SNAP!

Steve

Right. That's demonstrated by corporate profits never being higher and wage stagnation never being more entrenched than in any period in our nation's history. I can understand people wanting to espouse their 'talking points,' but when they are so easily shown to be far from factual, sometimes you just might want to pass. I may not be a brain-trust but I loathe having the modicum of intelligence I do possess, to be so blatantly insulted. lol

Cheers. - Frank

There fixed that for you.

MAN, is THAT a lot of GRADE A *****BULL*****!

Full-time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW The US, until the ACA defined it as 30, defined full time as FORTY hours a week!!!!!!!!! 40!!!!!!!! Other countries laughed at us because, at the time, we had like the HIGHEST WHPW of just about ANY! And Wikipedia is WRONG! Full time has, for a LONG time, been specified by the US GOVERNMENT! WHY? Because it is the trigger for so many laws, like insurance. Some IDIOT obviously thought that merely lowering the number triggers the benefits, and thus the ACA is engaged. Of course, the companies HAVE to defeat that to stay in business, so they simply cut the hours back and/or laid off workers. A university here STARTED student workers at like $10/hour. If they worked out, they got OVER $15/hour! And there were BENEFITS! They are NOW offering that UNSKILLED job opportunity to fewer people, thanks to the ACA! MAN, those were nice jobs that would have looked good on a resume. THANKS ACA! HOBBY LOBBY was paying $15/hour, UNSKILLED, WITH FULL INSURANCE!!!!!! THEY have cut back because of the stupid ACA SUITS!

So don't blame the US employers for the short work weeks! Blame the ACA!

MOST minimum wage jobs, like sales, construction, etc.... need it as long as possible! They HAVE to have a person there for 40 hours or more. Some places, like some CVS and wallgreens, 7/11 etc... need a position filled for 168 hours a week! SERIOUSLY! If people were willing and able to work that long, they COULD! So WHY the 40HPW? To keep it reasonable. You NEED to sleep, eat, etc... and you want vacation and time to relax, etc... WHY did they lower it to <30? Because after 29, a lot of laws start coming into play, and the cost SKY ROCKETS, thanks to the ACA! It becomes cheaper to hire 2 people for 20hours a week each, or even 29, than 1 for 40.

Oh well, NOW that they have lowered the hours, they want to raise the minimum wage to compensate. MANY, and likely MOST minimum wage earners will STILL end up making LESS, but the government looks so much better because they make more per hour. Never mind that the value will drop, the number will be HIGHER!

Seriously? So few see the pattern? Government raises regulations and taxes, and companies cut back and the value of savings DROPS! Sometimes I wish that the company town idea took off at a decent company, and the script became useable NATIONALLY. I went to one employer and was SHOCKED to find that you could have almost EVERYTHING done there! They had their OWN restaurant, car dealership, credit agency, healthclub, hospital, and even a SALON! And those are only things I casually heard about, and within a few blocks. The town wasn't their town, but it might as well have been. The street, a couple parks, etc.... were named after them, and everyone seemed to know of them.

Another company owned most of the malls in the area, hired off duty cops(to do things like security), and the companies employees were treated like VIPs if they were stopped by the police or whatever. If a cop saw their ID badge, it was like bribing the cop. I asked a cop about it, and he said that company just did so much to help the cops that the cops reciprocate.

Steve

Well, I never saw it or heard of it. HECK, my mother often ran such things, and she always mentioned FORTY! She worked at a LOT of places, like I do now. Even the ACA says to change 40 to 30! STILL, you would have a HARD time refuting that it is now 30 because of the ACA, and that that is LOWER than any of the other countries.

As for your stint at coors, I don't doubt it was hard. There is often a spot that catches you. And I never wanted t get into such a job. I had trouble enough being the sole box boy at a store, trying to keep it clean and stocked while helping customers with physical tasks. I ALSO didn't like being the most productive PC board inspector. I wanted to quit because of the chemical vapors and also want to because of the "supervisors" incessant smoking, ESPECIALLY since the vapors were EXPLOSIVE! I didn't even like working on my knees to rearrange the computer resources to suit the bosses idea of how it should work, especially since null modem cables weren't properly marked. In my home office, I have 2 crossover cables, and they are ORANGE to keep them separate from the grey and blue cables. It is a simple idea that has only been around a few hundred years or so, but it works!

But HEY that is why places have turnover!.

Steve