It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iwilliam
Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by newcovenant
Now I know that many people will fault the Food Stamp Program itself but when you consider the cost of living and price of food today
I have to laugh at people who complain about the food stamp program. I wonder if they realize the asset cap is $2000 and has been that way since the program was started in 1984....
So, in 1984 the government believed that $2000 in assets was poor enough to be on a gov food program .... Yet in 2012 inflation adjusted dollars the asset cap has the buying power of $750 ?????? or if the program would have adjusted the cap with a COLA tied to the CPI the asset cap now would be about $5500 ......
in reality you have to be more than twice as poor to get food stamps than in 1984 ...... austerity American style .....
And yet the number of people who qualify has gone up. Funny thing.
as i said previously, i believe you have misinterpreted the conversation.
your conversation has seemed to go off on a tangent arguing whether or not a company should be entitled to keep their employees at poverty wages
however, how many corporations can you name that aren't ??
i do believe the intent of the OP was to talk about our hypocritical support of a corporation that is in bed with a communist country
Originally posted by Honor93
it does take 'skill' to operate a computer/cash drawer.
[why else do you think clerks can't make change on their own ?]
it does take 'skill' to operate a library.
it does take 'special skills' to care for animals.
and it certainly takes 'skill' to raise a family.
while none of the 'skilled' labor mentioned above is ever compensated at their true value to society ... i'm afraid you and i will never see eye to eye on such a point.
so here's a question, since WalMart doesn't produce anything, why shouldn't they be required to provide a certain percentage of "profit" directly back to the community that supports it ??
(and not in the form of 'taxes' either)
oh and btw, i'd be careful just how much 'skill' you associate with number crunching cause as most already know, the 'skill' to which you refer involves a whole bunch of 'cooking' too
that's ok, that's why we are engaged in a conversation
I am missing your point
Originally posted by Honor93
i have never met any employee that has -0- skill set.
every student or dope dealer has skill sets, even if they've never touched a computer screen or a cash register
what you are insinuating is that specific skill sets are more compensable than others and when you compare a rocket scientist to a brain surgeon, i would agree.
most skills are natural and subsequently enhanced with additional knowledge.
some skills are acquired through knowledge and practice.
Neither nature or nurture has cornered the market on skills ... see previous post for example.
Ms Walton does not have either the skills or knowledge to operate WalMart or she'd be doing it ... however, neither of the above is motivation to improve herself or an excuse to be a killer, is it?
so, how does skill or knowledge or money for that matter, make a 'better person, a better professional or even a better participant in society' ??
especially one who is worthy of said compensation ?
and then, in the same breath, you state ... "I am talking about what job would be worth minimum wage." ... and there i have to say "HUH?"
see, this is where i fail to follow the reasoning.
in one breath, (she) her efforts, though unskilled, are priceless and in the same breath, minus her presence, those same unskilled skills become "slave wage eligible" ... care to discuss how that's even possible, let alone acceptable ?
in WalMart's view, they are 'creating jobs' because it will take 10 employees to complete the tasks 2 could perform with full time hours,