Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I was at a client meeting today. In one of their plants, laborers work just enough and then resign. If they earn too much they lose their Govt perks. Ownership wants to retain them but it’s not beneficial for the employees? System is broken.

bad luck is a fat loser.

If ownership really wanted to retain them, they'd pay them more. But it's not worth it to ownership to pay them more, so they deal with the turnover.


I'm surprised it wasn't two plant-owning friends instead of just one client.

They pay market. Not all the employees do this but a small % does. They come back every year and work just enough. Doesn’t make sense to pay more than market. Their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

As to your snide comment, while in NY I had dinner with one of my 2 black friends. He is a registered Republican. But like you he hated Trump. He is still not a fan but likes most of his policies so he is a sometimes Trump now vs never Trump.

Let's look at the food stamp eligibility:

You have to work at least 80 hours a month

If you are employed, you are not allowed to quit your job, and if you are recently unemployed, you may have to provide proof unemployment was not voluntary.

You also can not intentionally reduce your hours. If your hours were reduced, and that is what made you eligible for SNAP benefits, you may have to provide proof that you did not voluntarily cut your hours.

If your household only consists of one person, then the gross monthly income to be eligible for SNAP is $1,287 (net $990). For two people, gross is $1,726 (net $1,335).

Seems like laborers on food stamps can't just quit. And they have to earn basically nothing to be eligible.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Let's look at the food stamp eligibility:

You have to work at least 80 hours a month

If you are employed, you are not allowed to quit your job, and if you are recently unemployed, you may have to provide proof unemployment was not voluntary.

You also can not intentionally reduce your hours. If your hours were reduced, and that is what made you eligible for SNAP benefits, you may have to provide proof that you did not voluntarily cut your hours.

If your household only consists of one person, then the gross monthly income to be eligible for SNAP is $1,287 (net $990). For two people, gross is $1,726 (net $1,335).

Seems like laborers on food stamps can't just quit. And they have to earn basically nothing to be eligible.

If a single mother of 3 stays home and doesn’t work she cannot qualify for food stamps?

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I was at a client meeting today. In one of their plants, laborers work just enough and then resign. If they earn too much they lose their Govt perks. Ownership wants to retain them but it’s not beneficial for the employees? System is broken.

bad luck is a fat loser.

If ownership really wanted to retain them, they'd pay them more. But it's not worth it to ownership to pay them more, so they deal with the turnover.


I'm surprised it wasn't two plant-owning friends instead of just one client.

They pay market. Not all the employees do this but a small % does. They come back every year and work just enough. Doesn’t make sense to pay more than market. Their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

As to your snide comment, while in NY I had dinner with one of my 2 black friends. He is a registered Republican. But like you he hated Trump. He is still not a fan but likes most of his policies so he is a sometimes Trump now vs never Trump.

It makes sense to pay more if it leads to lower turnover.

In the case of your client, they have decided to put up with the turnover in exchange for paying less. I'm not saying they should do anything different, I'm saying I have little sympathy for their complaints about workers leaving.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Let's look at the food stamp eligibility:

You have to work at least 80 hours a month

If you are employed, you are not allowed to quit your job, and if you are recently unemployed, you may have to provide proof unemployment was not voluntary.

You also can not intentionally reduce your hours. If your hours were reduced, and that is what made you eligible for SNAP benefits, you may have to provide proof that you did not voluntarily cut your hours.

If your household only consists of one person, then the gross monthly income to be eligible for SNAP is $1,287 (net $990). For two people, gross is $1,726 (net $1,335).

Seems like laborers on food stamps can't just quit. And they have to earn basically nothing to be eligible.

If a single mother of 3 stays home and doesn’t work she cannot qualify for food stamps?

The employment requirements are only in place for able bodied adults without children. I was assuming single mothers of three aren't working at your client's plant.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I was at a client meeting today. In one of their plants, laborers work just enough and then resign. If they earn too much they lose their Govt perks. Ownership wants to retain them but it’s not beneficial for the employees? System is broken.

bad luck is a fat loser.

If ownership really wanted to retain them, they'd pay them more. But it's not worth it to ownership to pay them more, so they deal with the turnover.


I'm surprised it wasn't two plant-owning friends instead of just one client.

They pay market. Not all the employees do this but a small % does. They come back every year and work just enough. Doesn’t make sense to pay more than market. Their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

As to your snide comment, while in NY I had dinner with one of my 2 black friends. He is a registered Republican. But like you he hated Trump. He is still not a fan but likes most of his policies so he is a sometimes Trump now vs never Trump.

It makes sense to pay more if it leads to lower turnover.

In the case of your client, they have decided to put up with the turnover in exchange for paying less. I'm not saying they should do anything different, I'm saying I have little sympathy for their complaints about workers leaving.

It was not a complaint but just a statement of fact. They have 10 plants and this only impacts one of them. Oddly. By paying more they would almost have to double their pay to make it worthwhile and they won’t do that. I did not really pursue this farther as we had bigger fish to fry but it was just an interesting fact. Same reason my wife stays home. Working part time only increases our tax burden so the $$ she would make would be negligible and she would have less time to spend with the kids

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/24/2018 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/24/2018 12:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
"So called poor."

cccp believes the myth that all people deserve what they get and the only thing separating the poor from the not-poor is hard work.

People don't always get what they deserve. But if you don't work hard, and depend on the government to provide for you, then yes, you shouldn't get anything that I'm paying for.

All welfare and government assistance for able-bodied individuals should only be in payment for public service

Well said. There should be required community service in exchange for government assistance.

This is kind of dumb.

Most poor people aren't sitting around doing nothing all day. They're working ****** jobs or taking care of kids. They usually don't have a ton of free time to do community service.

Vocational training, schooling, etc., are great things to have jobless people on assistance complete. You want them to get better at something so that they are able to earn a living. But having them pick up trash on the side of the road is nothing but a time waster.

why is it dumb? You're right, not all poor people are sitting around doing nothing all day and collecting welfare, but many are gaming the system. If we eliminated even 25% of those gaming the system it would save a lot of money. Taking care of kids is not an excuse for not working. My wife and I take care of our kids and yet we still manage to each work 40+ hours a week.
And why is having them pick up trash a time waster? Somebody has to do it. Why not have people the government supports do it in return for that support?

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I was at a client meeting today. In one of their plants, laborers work just enough and then resign. If they earn too much they lose their Govt perks. Ownership wants to retain them but it’s not beneficial for the employees? System is broken.

bad luck is a fat loser.

If ownership really wanted to retain them, they'd pay them more. But it's not worth it to ownership to pay them more, so they deal with the turnover.


I'm surprised it wasn't two plant-owning friends instead of just one client.

They pay market. Not all the employees do this but a small % does. They come back every year and work just enough. Doesn’t make sense to pay more than market. Their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

As to your snide comment, while in NY I had dinner with one of my 2 black friends. He is a registered Republican. But like you he hated Trump. He is still not a fan but likes most of his policies so he is a sometimes Trump now vs never Trump.

you call him a fat loser, but his comment is snide?

Posted by wylie715 on 10/24/2018 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/24/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I was at a client meeting today. In one of their plants, laborers work just enough and then resign. If they earn too much they lose their Govt perks. Ownership wants to retain them but it’s not beneficial for the employees? System is broken.

bad luck is a fat loser.

If ownership really wanted to retain them, they'd pay them more. But it's not worth it to ownership to pay them more, so they deal with the turnover.


I'm surprised it wasn't two plant-owning friends instead of just one client.

They pay market. Not all the employees do this but a small % does. They come back every year and work just enough. Doesn’t make sense to pay more than market. Their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

As to your snide comment, while in NY I had dinner with one of my 2 black friends. He is a registered Republican. But like you he hated Trump. He is still not a fan but likes most of his policies so he is a sometimes Trump now vs never Trump.

you call him a fat loser, but his comment is snide?

Both cannot be true? Please explain why.

never said both can not be true, but I have no idea if BL is fat, or a loser. I know for a fact your comment was snide and not very civil.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/24/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):
never said both can not be true, but I have no idea if BL is fat, or a loser. I know for a fact your comment was snide and not very civil.

I took an educated guess.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/24/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/24/2018 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/24/2018 12:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
"So called poor."

cccp believes the myth that all people deserve what they get and the only thing separating the poor from the not-poor is hard work.

People don't always get what they deserve. But if you don't work hard, and depend on the government to provide for you, then yes, you shouldn't get anything that I'm paying for.

All welfare and government assistance for able-bodied individuals should only be in payment for public service

Well said. There should be required community service in exchange for government assistance.

This is kind of dumb.

Most poor people aren't sitting around doing nothing all day. They're working ****** jobs or taking care of kids. They usually don't have a ton of free time to do community service.

Vocational training, schooling, etc., are great things to have jobless people on assistance complete. You want them to get better at something so that they are able to earn a living. But having them pick up trash on the side of the road is nothing but a time waster.

why is it dumb? You're right, not all poor people are sitting around doing nothing all day and collecting welfare, but many are gaming the system. If we eliminated even 25% of those gaming the system it would save a lot of money. Taking care of kids is not an excuse for not working. My wife and I take care of our kids and yet we still manage to each work 40+ hours a week.
And why is having them pick up trash a time waster? Somebody has to do it. Why not have people the government supports do it in return for that support?

Thanks, Wylie.

And don't you know it's dumb because B_L says so.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/24/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):
never said both can not be true, but I have no idea if BL is fat, or a loser. I know for a fact your comment was snide and not very civil.

I'm going with 5'9", 180 lbs. He's probably much softer than his younger days, but we all are. Anywhere close, B_L?

Posted by wylie715 on 10/24/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2018 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/24/2018 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/24/2018 12:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
"So called poor."

cccp believes the myth that all people deserve what they get and the only thing separating the poor from the not-poor is hard work.

People don't always get what they deserve. But if you don't work hard, and depend on the government to provide for you, then yes, you shouldn't get anything that I'm paying for.

All welfare and government assistance for able-bodied individuals should only be in payment for public service

Well said. There should be required community service in exchange for government assistance.

This is kind of dumb.

Most poor people aren't sitting around doing nothing all day. They're working ****** jobs or taking care of kids. They usually don't have a ton of free time to do community service.

Vocational training, schooling, etc., are great things to have jobless people on assistance complete. You want them to get better at something so that they are able to earn a living. But having them pick up trash on the side of the road is nothing but a time waster.

why is it dumb? You're right, not all poor people are sitting around doing nothing all day and collecting welfare, but many are gaming the system. If we eliminated even 25% of those gaming the system it would save a lot of money. Taking care of kids is not an excuse for not working. My wife and I take care of our kids and yet we still manage to each work 40+ hours a week.
And why is having them pick up trash a time waster? Somebody has to do it. Why not have people the government supports do it in return for that support?

This!!

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/24/2018 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/24/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):
never said both can not be true, but I have no idea if BL is fat, or a loser. I know for a fact your comment was snide and not very civil.

I'm going with 5'9", 180 lbs. He's probably much softer than his younger days, but we all are. Anywhere close, B_L?

Replace the 1 with a 2 and you’re on the right track.