[geeks] rescue Digest, Vol 157, Issue 6

[hike]

We know an Iraqi refugee family.  The wife went to work for a newly-founded
cleaning service.  As the business grew, the wife earned more.   (The
business was run as a co-op.)  Not only did the wife earn money but she
also travelled about the city, interacted with her team-mates, clients and
store people, that is, it was a big social outlet for her.  Once the
business started turning a profit and her wages (share of the co-op)
reached a certain point, the Federal Government reduced the familybs
housing (welfare) payment.  The husband forced the wife to quit so that
they would not lose the Federal housing subsidy (welfare).  This family has
been in the USA for at least five years.

Paying more encourages those courageous people who will take responsibility
for themselves to do even more.  Though, it seems, there are many more who
love the Federal teat and hate the disruption.

I know small business owners who have told me the same thing throughout the
years b if you raise the pay of welfare recipients, they risk a loss of
bbenefitsb (welfare).

This problem is caused by some Do-Gooder, IMHO.  Federal Government
involvement is detrimental to the citizenry and local communities when long
term welfare for the able-bodied is concerned.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Fred <fred at miser.misernet.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 rescue-request at sunhelp.org wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:49:49 -0500
> > From: Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net>
> > Subject: Re: [rescue] rescue Digest, Vol 157, Issue 3
> > Message-ID: <5660487D.3090006 at caerllewys.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> >
> > Sociopathic.  That particular kind of 'smart' - don't get caught, always
> > maintain plausible deniability - is part of it.  We have made the
> > terrible mistake of allowing upper management culture *nationwide* to be
> [cut]
> > fossil fuels were changing the global climate, or Wal-Mart forcing the
> > taxpaying public to subsidize their payroll by paying their floor staff
> > so little they still qualify for public assistance *as a deliberate
> policy*.
>
> Yep - that's the word.  Being directly involved (read: in the crosshairs)
> of said situation was how shall I say ... interesting.  I still shake my
> head at some of the shenanigans that went down.  The interesting part is
> it usually takes "normal" people awhile to figure out that their leader is
> a sociopath, and by that time the damage is already done.
>
> Regarding the Wal-Mart comment (which I fully agree with and have read
> articles describing such) - I'm not one to say "there ought to be a law"
> but what is the fix?  For whatever reason, even if some people think
> "That doesn't seem right ..." (large) companies will continue to get away
> with all they can because "Hey, it's legal.".   What's the fix?  (being a
> technology person, not being able to come up with a fix rubs me the wrong
> way ...)
>
> Similar to what I read in earlier posts - make the minimum wage $15?
> Great!  Folks just want to work less because even at $15 it seemingly
> benefits them "more" to stay on assistance.  I don't have a fix here,
> either.
>
> I am cc'ing this to geeks just in case folks want to move it off rescue
> ... ;)  This time I have no ObRescue content.
>
> Fred
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks