"I have guys who qualify for food stamps now," he said. "I have guys who don't know how they are going to pay their mortgage. There are kids working at ice cream stands earning more than their fathers, which is ridiculous."
This is pulled from an article in the Bradenton Herald regarding the latest government action to scrimp and save. The story goes something like this: with no money in the bank, the mayor of Scranton, PA, cut public employee wages to minimum wage for the foreseeable future. Politics aside (although the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post, makes a great point of the necessity for bipartisan cooperation), I think this issue brings to light an extreme issue plaguing millions of people: minimum wage is not enough to live on. In the wealthiest nation in the world, a topic brought up in every election is what to do with welfare and social programs - do we fund them or cut them? Well, long story short, as long as minimum wage is not enough to stay off of welfare programs. At $7.25 an hour (as it is in PA and WI, at least), one can expect to make only $13,000 a year, which comes about $100 under the maximum monthly income to qualify someone for food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm).
Now, if we were to look as this systemically, one may agrue that welfare and social services will always be an issue as long as people aren't making enough to stay off of them. Seems pretty straightforward, right? Apparently not. All we talk about is the Band-Aid we put on the issue - welfare, food stamps, reduced-price lunch - without delving into the actual issue: people don't make enough NOT to use them. I should think that this situation in Scranton, PA may be a wakeup call to policy makers. But, alas, I won't get my hopes up.
Find the entire article here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/10/4109205/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay.html
No comments:
Post a Comment