Quantcast
Moneywise

35 states that offer more in welfare than minimum wage earnings

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Aug. 26, 2013 4:14 a.m.

    This is part of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Increase the number of welfare recipients to such a degree as to collapse the system. This is a forerunner of socialism. Obama is following it point by point.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 5:01 a.m.

    It should be noted that CATO is a libertarian think tank that is opposed to virtually all government programs of any kind.

    Right wing billionaires have spent decades trying to convince the middle class that most of their taxes go to lazy people, usually minorities, who simply refuse to work. Only about 5% of the federal budget goes to the non-working poor.

    A bigger problem is companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds who pay their employees so little that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. In other words, our taxes are subsidizing the profits of these gigantic corporations.

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    Everyone looks forward to the vision of retirement and being able to do what one wants to do and not have a boss. A lot of the time those losing a job and going on unemployment think they are in a retirement mode and start to enjoy not having to get up early and answering to a boss at work. I have seen several friends have initiative drained out of them with unemployment benefits. I can see why businesses do not like to hire people out of work but instead like to hire talent away from other companies.

  • readerman pleasant grove, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    "Does welfare rob Americans of their incentive to work?"

    No.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 26, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Look at the article closely, nearly 60% of "welfare" recipients do work and they fall into the category Roland is talking about folks working for billionaires who won't pay a living wage. The other 40% probably contains some who'd rather receive than work, but, it also contains mothers with small children, the disabled, and those who have temporarily lost decent paying jobs who are actively looking. This is more of the same old Regan welfare queen nonsense.

    The bigger problem is the situation described where the 60% as they get ahead go through a period where they lose their support benefits but still don't make enough to get by. That's a disincentive not the nonsense about paying people not to work.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    The Cato Institute loves to imagine that there are simple solutions to complex problems. For example, single mothers who want to work have to deal with finding and affording child care, which can eat up much of what they make by working. People without a car are often limited in where they can work due to lack of public transportation. Those in small towns have a limited number of places to apply and can't afford to move elsewhere. Other places have such massive unemployment that there are few jobs for which they qualify, and there are literally hundreds of applicants for the jobs where they do qualify. If there's one job and a hundred applicants, simple math tells us that there will still be ninety-nine unemployed people left when that job is filled.

    None of these problems are insoluble, but the solutions are more complex and challenging than the simplistic ideas put forward by the extremest positions that Cato holds.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 26, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    Easy welfare destroys people, families, cities and nations. Detroit is an excellent example. Black on black crime, while liberals refuse to talk about it, is a direct result of destruction of the family. Don't need a father in the home because welfare eliminates the necessity, i.e. welfare replaces the father in the family as breadwinner and 70% of babies born have no father. Social consequences of easy welfare are enormous.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    My assumption is that Utah pays welfare benefits less than the minimum wage.

    The problem I have with this information is that it is comparing an hourly rate to what must be an annual amount. What are the particulars of each?

    If the minimum hourly wage applies only to start up employees, as businessmen tell us and start up employees seldom work full time, what is the annual salary that should be used for the comparison.

    About the annual salary used, does it apply to a single person, a family, or a child? What is in the “benefits” and what is their estimated value? What are the welfare benefits that might apply to the minimum wage worker?

    I think this article is well below the standard we should expect from the media.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    Looks like a good solid case for raising the minimum wage.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Where do the "47%" fall?

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Perhaps there is an easy solution to this: ALL Employers should pay a living wage for a fair day's work. Don't expect government or charities to come in and subsidize your labor costs. And shop around and find healthcare plans for your employees. If you don't do both of these, don't whine to me when government steps in and forces you to do it. Socialism is a last resort when amoral capitalism runs amuck.

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Does welfare rob Americans of their incentive to work?

    Absolutely! This happens all the time. But they cannot be faulted. If you can make more on welfare, this is a rational decision.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Salaries and wages must be governed by free market competition. If you don't possess the job skills that demand more than minimum wages, whose fault is that? Some of you want to blame the employer but ask yourself how an employer can survive and compete in the real world by paying high wages for minimal contributions? Its why brain surgeons and engineers make more money than janitors or hamburger flippers! If you want to earn more money, improve your jobs skills!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    So Max, why do 60% of welfare recipients work if they've been robbed of their incentive to work? Welfare robs incentive to work is pure baloney. As the article itself says few qualify for all welfare programs so they have to work, conversely welfare is not set up to rob someone of their incentive to work. Once again Republicans/conservatives just making up the world the way they want to see it. It's why they haven't had a decent solution for anything for over 60 years.

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    Ironic that many who berate Wal-Mart and McDonalds (and all other "billionaires" cashing in on the blood of the working class), actually own stock in those same corporations. Stocks are widely distributed and part of many indexes commonly part of 401k, IRA, insurance, annuity or other investment vehicles.

    And if you don't have an investment in them you have almost certainly shopped at WMT or eaten at MCD (and are therefore still complicit in exploiting the proletariat).

    Ironically, it is Capitalism that has distributed ownership and voting rights to the masses through stocks and open markets while socialism ends up concentrating power in the hands of the political elite.

  • pelon Las Vegas, NV
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    Mountanman your statement works both ways, how does an employer such as owner of Papa Johns make the money he does and not pay decent wages or medical. If employees are showing up for work everyday and you make a substantial profit shouldn't the employer give some back to his employees. The only reason employers don't pay better is because of GREED and the rich want to get richer.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Welfare....slowly destroying personal dignity, work ethics, and the family since the 1960's when the "safety net" of the 1930's turned into the conformable hammock we see today. Raising the min wage to $15 an hour is pure stupidity. It will be like putting a screen door on a submarine and will have the same effect. Businesses are already cutting to the bone, both hours and wages, to deal with O care,higher energy costs and transportation of product due to higher gas prices.. Raise the min wage on them and you will get more jobs lost and more out-sourcing, not less. Contrary to what this "I'm more equal than you,everybody gets a trophy generation" thinks, flipping burgers at McDonald's is not a "career skill" that is worth $15 an hour

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    want to make more than minimum wage? Make your labor worth more than minimum wage.

    In too many cases the labor provided is not even worth minimum wage.

    Labor is a commodity - differentiate the value of your labor; make it worth more

    blaming billionaires who already pay 80-95% of the income taxes is just an excuse.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    It's this whole black and white, either or, capitalism versus socialism, if you don't like your wage go to college despite coming from generations of poverty, I did it so everyone should be able to, lack of reality inside the bubble attitude that turned many of us here who are personally very successful, and fiscally pretty conservative away from the Republican party decades ago. It's also the reason the Republicans are getting hammered nationally. Republicans can only succeed where they can create and maintain the bubble. The world doesn't look like or function like you want it to. Try as you may you can't change that.

  • viejogeezer CARLSBAD, CA
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Mountainman and Terra Nova:
    Maybe you should learn a little more about Capitalism. You might try "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. When a few oligarchs control the means of production (today the top 20% own 93% of the nations wealth and the masses less than 1%) there is no serious competition and workers simply take the crumbs the giants of industry give them. Someone can work for Walmart, or in City Creek for 30 years and still not receive sufficient wage to live on. Maybe you should read a little about Rockefeller, Carnegie, of JP Morgan. The oligarchs of today (Microsoft, HP, Toyota) are no different, they just have better PR departments.

  • ken12s North Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Mainly Me, how do you explain why Obama wants to increase the minimum wage? Just admit it you dont like Obama get over it the election is over find another dead horse to beat... also In some places unemployment pays $10.00 an hour or more, so why get off it to work for minimum wage. When it comes right down to it the rich one percent and big business have been working at getting things this screwed up for a long time... With the help of the Bush administration the pretty much have it all their way now.... So your either part of the one percent or you have your head in the sand and your butt in the air waiting for someone to come along and kick it....

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    @ pelon. Why does Papa John's pay less than other business' employers? Because not that much talent or skill is needed to produce pizzas compared to producing computer programs or Boeing airplanes. Let's say Papa John's doubles the salaries of their employees and therefore is forced to double the price of their pizzas. How many pizzas do you think they would sell against their competition with half the price and just as good quality products? They would be out of the pizza business very quickly. The only way Papa John's or any other company can command higher market share and therefore pay higher salaries is by either better products or by producing them cheaper than their competitors. Very few customer will buy your product otherwise! That's why nearly everything is made in China today! American companies can not compete and when consumers go into Wal-Mart the price of goods made in China are less expensive than those made in America. Consumers always vote with their wallets and there goes the jobs!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Interesting to see that those eager to "punish the rich" or "make them pair their fair share" are silent about the basic finding of this story-- that welfare pays more than work.

    So, they basically see nothing wrong with people not working getting paid more than those who do, and even worse, the non-workers being paid by the people who actually work.

    As long as socialists do not run out of other people's money to spend, they are eager to push their rhetoric of envy and greed, projecting those vices on to the working class who subsidize all their welfare schemes.

    With a near majority now collecting freebies instead of paying for them, we will eventually end up with class warfare when the "free stuff" inevitably must be reduced or eliminated, or when the "makers" get fed up with being robbed by the "takers."

    There should be no minimum wage. Employers should pay what the free market determines is a fair wage for the hours and skills provided. And, a radical as it may sound, no able bodied person should ever have an automatic right to welfare. Starvation is a powerful motivator to get a job. Any job.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    "Black on black crime, while liberals refuse to talk about it"

    If liberals talk about it, but conservatives never watch their news shows where it's covered, does it actually get talked about according to you all? (hint: urban crime comes up a lot for liberals, if you don't believe me, maybe you will when I note it's often connected to gun control)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    @lost in DC
    "blaming billionaires who already pay 80-95% of the income taxes is just an excuse."

    They deserve it. Wealth inequality has skyrocketed in this nation ever since Reagan was elected. Besides, the top 1% has 84% of the wealth so if they pay 84% of income taxes, that's just consistency. Now... what percentage of payroll taxes do billionaires pay? Oh right, very little. It's inconvenient to your argument. Guess that's why you used income taxes instead of total taxes.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    DN headline...

    "...35 states that offer more in welfare than minimum wage earnings...".

    DN intro to the actual list...

    "...Find out which states POSSIBLY offer more in welfare than minimum wage earnings...".

    No qualifier on the headline but "...possibly..." on the intro...

    Why?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    Welfare is calculated to establish a minimum level of support to make sure that a recipient can keep a minimal roof over their head, a minimal level of food on the table and little else.

    The fact that this minimal level of public assistance for people who need it is more than what can be earned working full time at the official Minimum Wage is a strong argument in favor of raising the minimum wage.

    The other day this newspaper ran a story about the new F-35 fighter jet that congressional representatives and Lockheed are essentially forcing on the Air Force even though the Air Force doesn't really want it. It's too expensive to operate, and they don't have a use for it. It's $400 billion in corporate welfare - pure and simple. Why is Lockheed Corporation worthy of public assistance, but the single, low-income mom with a special needs kid is not?

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    @Mountanman - well and succinctly said. Your post at 10:45 a.m. is not even Economics 101 - it's more like Pre-Economics 101. It's common sense to anyone with the slightest economic acuity. Despite a long history of economics that supports the truth of these most fundamental principles, many of our fellow posters are still incapable of seeing beyond "poor people need help, and government should require rich people to help them," as the overriding principle on which to establish markets and economies on a macro scale. Money grows on printing presses, $16 Trillion in debt doesn't hurt anything, rich people can forever afford whatever wages and benefits their employees desire, all without raising prices at Wal-Mart or Burger King.

    Although not everyone on welfare, or those who are overpaid for the skills they perform, are lazy and entitled, our system is increasingly incentivizing such an attitude, and de-incentivizing a work-your-way-up ethic. A good safety net should be a temporary help that provides motivation to return to work. Our system has gone far beyond that.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    Republican/Conservative minset:

    Corporate Welfare = Good.
    General Welfare = Bad.

    Liberal Mindset:

    Corporate Welfare = Un-Constitutional
    General Welfare = Constitutional

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 26, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    If you want to better understand why living on welfare is easier than working or even working to get promoted read "Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty" in the Weekly Standard. Think about it, if you can work Walmart making minimum wage and live like the guy down the street that went to college and got a degree, why put in the effort to get the degree?

    The Senate Budget Committee found that the government on average spends enough on the poor that they live a similar lifestyle that a family making $60,000/yr has. Why work harder or improve yourself when you can live just as good as the average american without as much work?

    To "LDS Liberal" I don't think you know what liberals believe. They believe fully in welfare to corporations and to anybody willing to pledge their support. You also have no idea wt the "General Welfare" clase was originally intended to mean. I will give you a hint, it had nothing to do with giving money to the poor, and had more to do with funding the federal government.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    Who owns business?

    Who creates the opportunity for a business operation?

    Who creates the need for a business operation?

    Who provides the customers for a business operation?

    Who provides the workers for a business operation?

    Who specifies the quantity, quality and the manner of creation of the product?

    Who provides the infrastructure needed for the business operation?

    Who provides the protection from other businesses for the business operation?

    Who provides the rules and regulations for the business operation?

    Who pays for all the costs, wages, taxes and profits?

    The answer to all of the above is the people of the society and its agent called government.

    ---

    Who provides the money to build, run and create the product?

    Who gets all the profit?

    The answer to these questions is the Investor, who loans the business operation some of his surplus money.

    Should all the people who invest in a business operation receive part of the profit? As a part owner of the business operation and as full owner of the concept of business people should demand and receive a proper share of the profits of the business operation.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    I find it interesting that the end of the article notes that single adult benefits aren't as much as those for single mothers. Might it not be better to motivate less creation by single mothers of more "dependents"?

    LDS Liberal - your summary is absolutely incorrect. I don't believe that conservatives believe corporate welfare to be good. Neither do I believe that liberals thing generally in line with "constitutional v. unconstitutional." The question is, what works, and what is the best way for things to work. Conservatives and libertarians lean towards not including government in the decisions regarding general welfare or in business - just get out of the way, government, is the mantra.

    While compassion for those is essential to the survival of any civilization, the question is who is best to take care of the issues that compassion, charity or welfare can answer. My "neighbor" or some employee of a large organization in some remote area that is unfamiliar with the particulars of the need? I vote for the neighbor solution - not the bureaucratic one (governmental or corporate. It just seems more efficient in solving people's needs.

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    Republican/Conservative mindset:

    Incentivizing Business Growth = Good
    Incentivizing Handout Mentality = Bad

    Liberal Mindset:

    Incentivizing Business Growth = Un-Constitutional
    Incentivizing Handout Mentality = Constitutional

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    @Ultra Bob - so, if I have my very own unique idea and formulate it into a business, the owners are now other members of society and the government? Maybe in North Korea.

    Who places myriad obstacles to creating a business, getting customers, and hiring employees? The government.

    And, you think society and government pays for all the "costs, wages, taxes, and profits?" That could be the most absurd comment in the history of comments. How does the government pay for it's own taxes, let alone come up with the many trillions of dollars in operating costs and payroll for every business? Do you really think the government pays for those things? What does it even mean to pay for profits?

    Do you think a business does not pay fees for access and easement, and for land development that includes infrastructure? Doesn't the business have to pay for infrastructure through taxes when they purchase fuel, and don't you think fuel taxes are built into prices charged by any shipping service they hire?

    Of course the business keeps all the profits. By the time it's a profit, they've already paid wages, operating costs, and taxes, taxes, taxes.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    How can Costco even compete with SAMs club if costco's employees earn on average forty percent more and have better insurance? By redshirt, mountainmans and others logic costco prices should be at least forty percent higher but there not. Every time I go to costco it is packed but the SAMs club parking lot always seems empty.

    Now what kind of skills does a Costco employee have over a SAMs club employee? I really don't know but every Costco employee I know owns a house. They can afford to go out and buy things. I assume they pay more taxes than a SAMs club employee. So what is the true difference. Costco values their employees work and sees the value in paying them a living wage. SAMs club and its parent company Walmart only care about shareholder value, which is mostly the Walton family. SAMs club and Walmart could easily afford to pay their employees more, which would provide a more vibrant economy but their sole focus is the shareholders.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    Ultra Bob says:

    "As a part owner of the business operation and as full owner of the concept of business people should demand and receive a proper share of the profits of the business operation."

    Sorry to break the news to you Bob, but if you buy a hula bobble doll for your dashboard at Checker Auto Parts, the one and only piece of ownership you have is the hula bobble doll for your dashboard. Seems kind of crazy to think such a purchase would entitle the buyer to a share of Checker's profits of the business operation. Maybe if you resell it at a garage sale, the new buyer should demand and receive a proper share of your estate, or a portion of your will. Somehow I think you're keeping "all the profit" on that transaction.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 26, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    To "Shaun" you make no sense. Please explain how what I stated earlier has anything to do with private businesses.

    Costco being packed has nothing to do with welfare, but has to do with quality either perceived or actual. As you pointed out Costco is always packed, and Sams is not. Costco can afford to pay its employees more, and encourages employee development so that they can grow and do more than just stock shelves their entire life. Sams/Walmart does not encourage employees to become more than they are. Maybe that is the difference.

    But again, if you can live comfortably with putting in little to no effort, why would you want to gain skills that could lead to better employment or a promotion? All you get for improving yourself is having to pay for more of what you consume out of your own pocket.

    The US government has deincentivized working and building skills that lead to better paying jobs.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    Walmart pays so poorly that a good percentage of their employees have jobs and still qualify for welfare.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 26, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    RedShirt, the error in assuming you can "live comfortably" on welfare is assuming that you can qualify for all available welfare programs. Then as he article says you may make as much or possibly slightly more than minimum wage. However the article points out that very few can qualify for all of the programs, that's why 60% work. It's just not true that there are vast numbers of people "living comfortably" off of welfare.

    I happen to be well acquainted with someone who has three kids by different fathers and doesn't work when she absolutely could and the welfare system is not providing her a living much less a comfortable one. She gets by, mooching off of parents ex-boyfriends and some government food and medical support for the children who are not at fault her. The point is she is Regan's welfare queen and the system is not designed to nor does it enable her to "get by" with out working. That's accomplished by enabling parents and ex's. That's why most welfare recipients work.

  • podunk utah DRAPER, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    the best thing about this article... knowing that there are 7 too many bureaucracies when it comes to welfare...

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Can you imagine offering the following prayer?

    "Father, the Scriptures say, 'Do not judge,' and 'How can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye," while there is a beam in your own?'

    "But, Father, Thou knowest that I have no beam in my eye, so I'm sure Thou wilt agree that I am justified in judging my brothers, who, in my opinion, aren't trying hard enough.

    "Father, for their own sakes, I think they should starve awhile. I starved once, for a few hours, and it did me a world of good, and thankfully, instead of making me weak with compassion, this experience made me strong in my own sense of righteousness.

    "The Scriptures also say, 'Treat others as you would want them to treat you.' If I were a lazy good-for-nothing, as I'm pretty sure my brothers are, I would want my betters to let me go hungry, instead of inflaming their envy by spending my food stamps on cupcakes and potato chips.

    "Father, in short, my brothers and sisters living in poverty aren't suffering enough, so please let them suffer more."

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    When a business operation comes to town the first thing is to get permission to operate a business operation from the local government in the form of a business license. The issuance of the license assumes that your business is legal and that you will abide by all the laws and regulations applicable to your business operation.

    The sponsors and investors of the business operation expect that the business operation not only will return their investment but also a profit. The do not create a business operation to give away money. Every penny of the money paid out from the business, every tax, wage, fee, salary and profit comes from the sale of products to mainly the people of the town.

    The increased tax revenue for the town, that the business paid, actually was a tax increase on the people of the town. Which is OK if the people feel that the product received is equal to the purchase price.

    The important fact is that the businessmen leave the town with more than they brought.

  • River Dog Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    Mainly Me: Your absolutely correct. The number of welfare recipients wil continue to increase, eventually collasping the system. Welfare without work programs does rob incentives from individuals. It is relatively easy to get on welfare today. Why not do it? Someone else will pay. Was it Margaret Thatcher who said, "Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money" or something to that affect.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    @RedshirtMIT. Do yourself a favor and go to the Utah government website and do the prescreen tool for snap(food stamps). Fill it out like you are making minimum wage and the rent you would be paying for a one person apartment.

    I am not on welfare and hope I never have to but your assumption that someone who is making minimum wage can live like someone making $60000 a year is way off.

    I filled out the prescreen tool as a single person making minimum wage and my rent was 425. I stated i had $500 in my savings account and I had no other related income like stock dividends. The program said I may be eligible for $43 to $53 worth of food stamps per month.

    So a person making minimum wage would make $14400 a year plus $600 a year in food stamps. That is $15000. Where does the other $45000 in lifestyle living come from?

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    @Lightbearer - I can't imagine anyone saying that prayer. I can't imagine anyone believing the contents of that prayer. I can't imagine anyone self righteous enough to create a prayer like that, believing it actually represents anyone else.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Aug. 26, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    @ken12s

    This type of wage control is typical of the socialist agenda. I agree that some realistic minimum wage is necessary, but with the increase in minimum wage, you get a corresponding increase in the cost of living. Just look at where I live, Australia. Every time they increase the minimum wage, the cost of living goes up and eats up the so-called wage increase. Everything goes up, housing, transportation, food, everything except medical (the medical is a joke).

    Setting a high minimum wage is only the beginning. Once that is done, then the Obama goobermint will try the same thing done here. A massive bureaucracy will be set up to regulate every tiny aspect of employment. It kills initiative and chokes the free market. You only see the wondrous ideas spouted by the Dear Leader. Try living in a socialist country and watch your freedom evaporate.

  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 27, 2013 2:52 a.m.

    I really don't understand how New Hampshire made #9. If you are single with no children and are not disabled or a senior you do not qualify for food stamps unless you are working at least 20 hours per week. You don't qualify for any type of medical help unless you have children/disability. They only give financial aid to those with children. You don't qualify to get your name on the list for public or section 8 unless of you have a kid or are a senior or disabled.

    One the foodstamps if you lose your job you can get foodstamps for 3 months that's it whether or not you have found a job at the end of 3 months.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 27, 2013 3:02 a.m.

    "The program said I may be eligible for $43 to $53 worth of food stamps per month."

    Outrageous! Outrageous! 53 dollars a month. Over 13 dollars a week! A week! Outrageous!

    No wonder these deadbeats don't want to improve their lot in life! Who would, getting over 13 dollars a week in FREE food? 13 dollars that the the working people (the real people) have to pay. It's an outrage! Burr! I can hardly see straight!

    This is the end of this once great nation! It's all over! All of it I say!

    In fact, I'm going to quit my job so I can wallow around in the luxery that the welfare people enjoy in this country. Ah, now for the good life of the poor in America! I can hardly wait.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 27, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    It's simple. Raise the minimum wage.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 27, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    atl134
    the wealth disparity has INCREASED under BO.

    The underlying cause is we no longer require anything of our students and youth. Just so long as they have good self-esteem, get “participation” awards rather than 1st and second place trophies, etc, our society thinks they are OK. We idolize smart-mouthed slackers (Bart Simpson) and similar ne’re-do-wells. And liberals think the slackers deserve the same outcomes as those who work hard and overcome their personal obstacles

    We no longer require life skills and marketable skills of them. Those with a modicum of ambition improve themselves and get ahead, and they are vilified by the “tolerant” left, which drives the ambition from some, allowing those who still care to get even further ahead.

    I have no problem with a progressive tax rate – please do not think I am complaining that those who make the most pay the most. Just stop blaming them for the disparity between their ambition, skills, and abilities and the lack thereof of those content qualifying themselves for nothing better than minimum wage jobs.

  • mhilton Lancaster, CA
    Aug. 27, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    I didn't even read the article, yet, I would HIGHLY AGREE! And, I'll bet that California is on the list! But, this is what the Democrats want...people to be dependant upon the government. I've often asked myself why I work and why I remain married, if I could get more disposable income just by staying home and being single. It's so wrong!

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 27, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" yes, they are living comfortably. You may not consider it comfortable, but you have higher expectations. By global standards they are living comfortably. They have a roof over their head, at least a 3 bedroom apartment, and have flat screen TVs (maybe not giant ones, but they still have them). You should read my original post. I recognize that many of the poor work, but how many of them are making efforts to improve their job skills and qualifications?

    To "Shaun" the $60,000/yr figure comes from the senate. While some people may not qualify for much, many do qualify for a lot and they like it that way. Read "Julia’s mother: Why a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job" at the American Enterprise Institute. They have a graph that explains everything about how a working mother making #29,000/yr is better off than if she was earning $69,000/yr

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 27, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    The federal government got it's wish of 40 years ago when they enticed the States to join the public federal funding game. States have lost their control due to the money that bought their freedoms for the gain at the election box office for more and more handouts from a federal government that has lost control of itself.