2013 Cedar Fair Season pass question

Just fleshing out the concept a little. We want to get rid of "the safety net", right? If people are working full-time jobs and "contributing" (even with a substandard skill set)....then do we as a society want them to also need food stamps, housing subsidies (Sect 8, e.g.), subsidized health insurance, and the whole gamut of public services? The burden will fall to us either privately or publicly, unless we simply dismantle the safety-net altogether and let the pieces fall where they may. I suspect that leads to a society none of us are prepared to live with....

I walked across the border to Juarez from El Paso many yerars ago. I've driven in South Florida many times. People living under bridges, on street corners, hawking newspapers, apples, roses....doing whatever they can to survive. Can we eliminate that altogether...I strongly suspect not. Can we afford to have upwards of 50% of our children growing up in poverty, unsure of their next sleeping place or meal....I sure hope not.

Switzerland's proposed minimum of 50K would NEVER fly in America. But anyone working full-time should NOT qualify for benefits - they should be paying IN to the system at that point. THAT is how you get them to have "skin in the game", NOT by peeling the flesh from their bones....IMO.

I get where you're going, and have thought of that many a time. I definitely feel that someone who is working full time shouldn't be dependant on the government for assistance. But, then, I know too often people that are in full time jobs that can't and/or won't better themselves.

Having said that, to me, I would rather see someone that is working full time with a limited skill set that may get a housing subsidy and some financial help. I would much rather help someone out that is at least trying by working full time, even if they have a minimal skill set, than I would someone who could do more to provide for themselves but refuses.

Two of my huge issues that I saw when I worked with Govt. Assistance Programs were people that worked full time at low wages getting assistance and then living beyond their means (Not just an issue with the middle and upper class), and then those people that had minimal skill sets that had potential, but refused to start at the bottom like I did and work their way up.

If you're not going to go to college then you have to be prepared to put in at least 4 years of work to work your way up. Yes. You may have to start at Walmart or McDonalds. You're not going to make $30000 a year fresh out of high school with no skills other than texting.

As for the ones that 'lived beyond their means', they barely had enough money to pay rent/mortgage, utilites, and buy food, but they had cell phones, land lines, high speed internet, cable/satellite, and the latest electronics. I lost my job for 4 months and you know what? I didn't buy expensive stuff, I canceled all of my entertainmnet bills like internet and cable, and I roughed it. Most families aren't willing to do that.

There's a constant struggle we face between market interference and letting a natural course of things happen. I think there are certain things we can concede are good, like safety regulations. It's manipulating the money side that tends to have unintended consequences, like raising minimum wage, subsidizing student loan interest, or offering tax incentives. They all tend to have immediate benefit, true, but at what long term cost?

Sometimes the market does decide, and I think it's better off for it. Costco obviously gets that, and sees the value in retention. Fast food went through a period where it realized it offered a crappy job, and people want more money to do a crappy job.

Tekwardo said:

But, then, I know too often people that are in full time jobs that can't and/or won't better themselves.

While I understand what you're saying, there's a fundamental flaw that's always bugged me about that argument. Even if somehow we got everyone in our society to be highly motivated go getters, armed with bachelor's degrees in whatever the hot industry of the moment is, there will still be people making minimum wage flipping burgers, running roller coasters, etc. because that's all that's available to them.

Those positions will always be there, and always need to be filled by somebody. I know Gator touched on this, but to me, it makes more sense to require their employer to make sure people willing to put in 40 hours a week at a job meet some minimum set of standards for functioning in our society. Otherwise, you have the situation Walmart has created*, with a massive workforce that makes so little they still have to rely on government assistance to get by.

*I know it's not just Walmart, but as the largest and most profitable employer of those types of workers, the blame tends to fall towards them.

But here's the thing:

Menial jobs will always be there.

There will always be people to fill those jobs.

Both statements are true, but that doesn't mean one has to stay in a menial job forever. As others die off or retire, there should be people to fill those jobs. As the population grows and more workers in skilled jobs are needed, people should be working towards that, allowing another crop if people to start in those menial jobs and work their way up. Instead I've seen countless people that refused higher wages because it would mean they would have to work harder. Some refused higher wages because it meant less government assistance. I know because I was their caseworker.

A "menial job", at 40 hours per week, should pay a "subsistence wage." I want more, and I'm taking courses to get an advanced degree, because I want more. But if someone just wants to "get by" - they shouldn't need government assisntance IN ADDITION TO a full-time job...if they want a Mercedes instead of taking the bus to work, that's different. People shouldn't need to "better themselves" in order to meet their basic needs of food, clothing, housing, and medical care.

When minimum wage doesn't provide the basic *necessities* of life, the gov't is merely subsidizing the employers (like Wal*Mart's 420K per store).

Billionaires should not be getting handouts!

rollergator said:

When minimum wage doesn't provide the basic *necessities* of life, the gov't is merely subsidizing the employers (like Wal*Mart's 420K per store).

If the goverment is the one making the guarantee, they should pick up the tab.

The way I see it, the second you set a bottom line the money has to come from somewhere. The goverment can force employers to pay it (in which case the citizens fund it through higher prices) or they can offer welfare benefits in various forms (in which case the citizens fund it through taxes).

Right now we seems to be riding the line between the two - a minimum wage exists, but one earning it also receives welfare benefits.

Not sure I really have a point other than that part of it is merely a debate over how the money is funneled down.

A "menial job", at 40 hours per week, should pay a "subsistence wage."People shouldn't need to "better themselves" in order to meet their basic needs of food, clothing, housing, and medical care.

And this is the other half of the debate. What the 'guarantee' should be.

I tend to think that if there's no guarantee beyond, "Go! Be productive, offer value and create wealth for yourself!" then the other half of the debate doesn't even exist.

With all of that said, I do understand that maintaining a floor of sorts is better for all of us. I mean, I'm not naive enough to not realize that some people's idea of creating wealth for themselves would simply be to rape and pillage. We need to maintain an incentive not to.

Again, no real point. Just a stream-of-consciousness ideas post. :)

The incentive not to rape and pillage should be the same as it is now, regardless of the floor of sorts: the laws against such actions and the punishments that follow.

Yeah, on paper. But realistically if the choices are take the chance of maybe being caught or starve (or whatever basic necessity isn't being met), then you take your chances.

I think that's the whole poverty creates crime thing in practice.

Now with that said, I'm on your side, Vater. The systems in place should all take care of themselves - your paid what your worth, game the system with crime and be punished appropriately, etc.

But I think I understand where the arguments from the other side are coming from. I get it. I just don't necessarily agree with it.

I get it, too. But my thoughts always go back to the fact that we as a country survived with no minimum wage and no welfare. And in fact, the lack of both provides more of an incentive to better oneself.

I think if you're really looking at history in an honest way, a lack of minimum wage and welfare would have likely destroyed this country. And as fashionable as it is to yell "socialism!" in a crowded theater, while enjoying the benefits of roads, public schools, police, fire and a military force, there is quite a moral spectrum between "wealth redistribution" and allowing your fellow human being to starve.

Yes, because I think all government programs are evil. Come on. We've had this discussion before. Roads, schools, police, fire, and military are all well and good (although I'd argue that the Dept. of Education is entirely unneeded). It's the progressives' agenda to "equalize" the people via wealth redistribution--among other things--that goes against what the Founders intended.

Beyond that, the main thing that is destroying this country is the size and overreach of the federal government. The Constitution gave states sovereignty and limited the fed's power, and protected individual's unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not the "collective's" rights to shelter, clothing, food, medical care and at least 9 bucks an hour.

But I'm not convinced that there is a widely held "progressive" agenda to equalize anything, any more than there's a stingy conservative agenda to oppress the middle class. Both appear to me as fringe elements that are not widely held beliefs in government or among the public at large. I think people buy into either end to reinforce their echo chambers, but I still don't believe either end of the spectrum is widely held.

Vater said:

...the main thing that is destroying this country is the size and overreach of the federal government.

The main thing that is destroying this country are people who are convinced that the country is being destroyed, and that a single behavior is responsible for most of said destruction.

OK, so that's technically two things, but you get the idea. ;-)

I would counter that argument (is it even an argument?) by saying the beliefs that 1) the federal government isn't too big and overreaching, and 2) that one would consider said size and overreach a "single behavior", are those of either ignorance or delusion.

When the Tea Party began with its (supposedly) grassroots uprising against big government, who stepped in with funding and organization to make sure "the movement" didn't simply fade away? Large MNCs with their agendas. It isn't like "we the people" were taking back our power....we were simply handing it over to different masters.

Is the power of "the government" too large? Yes. Is turning all that authority over to corporate interests in any way an improvement? Not in my mind.

^^ Ah, Gator, that is why I adore you! :) When I cannot express something well (I'm sick today and am doped up on meds), you put out exactly what I was thinking. Yay!

Vater said:

I would counter that argument...

I don't disagree that the government is too far-reaching. I just disagree that it's a huge, massive, terminal, worthy-of-sign-making, etc. problem. And we likely disagree in which areas government is too big (i.e. education).

That said, I think the size of the government is among the least of our worries. Government spending is another story, but cost is very different than scope.

Scope of government and spending are very much related. Directly in that the more it does, the more the federal government spends. Indirectly in that the more it does and thus spends, the less likely any one spending item or group of spending items will be considered carefully. $100 million is a trivial rounding error at this point. And we have taken the stigma/shock away from $1 billion when you are looking at multi hundred billion dollar/trillion dollar deficits. Now DC has taken to multiplying everything by 10 to make it appear more significant.

I do agree though that there is too much drama in politics at this point (and really in life in general). There is very much a tendency in virtually all areas of life to be overdramatic. So many things are the greatest ever. Worst ever. Life changing. Etc. In large part I think that is because of the media. There is just so much coverage of so many things that really do not merit it. In reality, we do not need 24/7 coverage of politics. But we have it so to better sell the message (and keep with the entertainment aspect of media coverage of politcs as well) things are overdramatized.

Seems to me there is a risk at some point of becoming the boy who cried wolf. First we had the election and all the dire predictions that came with it (on both sides). Then the fiscal cliff deal. Then the sequester. Now we have the continuing resolution vote later this month. And then the debt ceiling vote sometime in the summer. With all of the drama of the first three, seems like we will need to come up with the political equivalent of ludicrous speed to describe the next two to get people to even pay attention.

Biggest issue I see right now (though not the only one) in terms of addressing our fiscal problems is that too many people want to solve those problems on the backs of someone else. Cut someone else's spending, not mine. Raise someone else's taxes, not mine. Can't we just continue to make our kids and grandkids pay for our unability to live within our means today?

Although bad in execution, the one appealing thing with the sequestor is that it gets around that issue at least with respect to spending. Don't complain that your spending is getting cut because so is everyone else's (other than social security and medicare which are the biggest drivers of our deficits going forward but thats a whole 'nother topic).

Blaming "the media" is just a distraction from the fact that "they" are just selling the crap that stupid Americans want to buy. We get the government and media we deserve.