Quote :

"Job quitters could lose free rent in Durham Matt Dees, Staff Writer DURHAM - The Durham Housing Authority is aiming to crack down on unemployed, able-bodied people living rent-free on the federal dime. The DHA Board of Commissioners will consider a policy change Wednesday that would say full rental assistance is available only to people who are laid off through no fault of their own, not to people who quit their jobs. Authority officials hope that quells what has become a widespread problem, DHA spokeswoman Jean Bolduc said. About 1,500 of the approximately 4,500 households on the DHA client list now are paying either no rent or a nominal $50 a month. That's because current policy says that people receiving federal housing assistance from DHA who lose their jobs will have the rent taken care of until they find another. Bolduc said many people are abusing the system, quitting their jobs soon after they enroll with DHA and making no effort to find a new one. "They'll say things like, 'They didn't treat me right, I didn't like the hours, there were things I didn't like,' " Bolduc said. "They're walking away from jobs without concern, because they know the Housing Authority will take care of them. That's not the intent of the program." People who abuse the program eat up DHA resources that could go to others in need, Bolduc said. "Most of the families we serve, when they're in public housing, our objective is to move them in, move them up and move them out," she said. "That is a critical goal of this agency that's being compromised by, unfortunately, a substantial number of people. We're going to more aggressively enforce the policy that says, 'We're not here to give you free housing for life.' " If the board approves the change in policy, the new rules would probably take effect in January, Bolduc said. Mara Torain is proof that DHA's path to self-sufficiency can work. Torain, 34, a mother of five, works 12-hour shifts at Duke Hospital as a nursing assistant while living in a public housing unit off Club Boulevard. But she and her family are leaving next month to a new home she was able to buy. "I'm venturing out," she said with a broad smile. She's thrilled to be leaving public housing, but she said that far too many of her neighbors are content to stay there forever. "They just stay in the houses, don't do anything, just stay at home all day long," said Torain, who supports the policy, from her porch Thursday afternoon. "I think they should be made to go out and get a job." But Joyce Robinson, 38, who says she's unemployed, homeless and trying to get into public housing, thinks the policy change would be unfair. She said DHA can't really determine whether someone left a job for a good reason, such as harassment. "If they don't have no job, how they going to pay the rent?" she said, sitting outside a friend's house at Oxford Manor. "Just more homeless people out here, people doing stuff out here just to make a living." Bolduc said the policy change would allow exceptions for people in certain circumstances, but it will shift the burden of proof to the client. "It simply means that the benefit is no longer automatic," Bolduc said. Dee Dee Johnson, 31, is all for the policy. She has lived in public housing most of her life, from "the projects" to her current home off Club Boulevard, her residence for nine years. Johnson, 31, a mother of three, admits she has made mistakes. Like many of her neighbors, she said, she got pregnant too young "by a sorry man." But she'll be starting school at N.C. Central University in the fall, and she's ready for a better life. "If you just voluntarily up and quit 'cause you're tired of working, that shows you're not being responsible, that shows you're being lazy," Johnson said in support of the new policy. She said it will send the message to young people that living on government support shouldn't be a way of life. "Public housing is not for you to come here and just relax," Johnson said. "It's for you to get yourself together, to maintain something so you can get something better than what you have now." "

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/674846.html

8/18/2007 4:13:56 PM

bout damn time

8/18/2007 4:22:14 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=490225

people with no jobs get more leisure time!!

8/18/2007 4:58:28 PM

quality

8/18/2007 6:34:51 PM

It sounds unfair (especially if you're int the low-income bracket), but if you're not at least making the effort to go out and earn your daily bread why should the government help you? Why should you receive benefits from the system whilst giving nothing back? This measure is obviously meant to only hurt the free-loaders, and I say good riddance.

8/18/2007 9:42:50 PM

good work. However it wont be long before some group protests this.

Seriously, why would you work when you get everything provided for you for free? Its human nature to take the path of least resistance, however, we dont need to mow, pave, then guide them down that path. We just need to fix the glitch.

8/18/2007 11:10:03 PM

WTF?!? Someone in government made a decision with some common fucking sense!

8/19/2007 12:19:41 AM

^ Yep. I wonder how long until they get punished for this?

8/19/2007 8:23:28 AM

does this mean more guys in orange vests attacking my car when I get off the highway?

8/19/2007 9:05:56 AM

just say you felt your life was endangered and take them out of the gene pool.

8/19/2007 9:29:32 AM

Seems like a basically good idea. I just wonder how they are going to prevent people from getting fired from their jobs instead.

8/19/2007 2:14:39 PM

^Maybe there could be some sort of grace period. If you lose your job unexpectedly and therefore don't have any other positions that you can run to immediately, you could be given some time to go out and look for a job. Maybe a couple of months or so. If, after that time, you still haven't gotten a job, then you're cut off.

But the only problem I can think of that would be that people who have a bad record, for instance, might find it really hard to get another job. So even though they're actually trying, they still fail and wind up getting their housing cut off. I guess no matter what we do, there's always going to be somebody getting shafted by the system.

8/19/2007 5:08:33 PM

Yeah, like taxpayers such as myself.

8/19/2007 5:14:38 PM

^ STFU bitch.

my taxes subsidized 75% of your education at a State University.

you fucking welfare queen.

8/19/2007 6:38:04 PM

WELFARE FTW

30 thousand a year!!!!!

oh noes no college.

8/19/2007 8:22:36 PM

Quote :

"STFU bitch. my taxes subsidized 75% of your education at a State University."

Yeah, I definitely feel "shafted" because taxes go to help people attend college at a state university

8/19/2007 9:10:37 PM

haha

oh shit durham crime is about to decrease because they will now have to have real jobs instead of runnin dem streetz

[Edited on August 19, 2007 at 9:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2007 9:40:58 PM

Quote :

"David0603: Yeah, like taxpayers such as myself."

You don't have to pay taxes.

Apparently, you can move to Durham, lose your job, and live rent-free...all while paying minimal taxes.

That's such a sweet deal. You should go for it.

8/20/2007 2:36:30 AM

Quote :

"my taxes subsidized 75% of your education at a State University."

mind giving me a source on that figure? Just curious.

8/20/2007 8:23:07 AM

^^

Obviously your post is meant to be sarcastic, but doesn't the article say that exact thing is happening? For any college educated person this isn't a "sweet deal" but for some lazy high school dropout it is.

8/20/2007 9:20:16 AM

There is nothing wrong with what they are trying to do. THe problem will persist bc of enablers like some on this board. They will fight this and make sure this doesnt pass.

I cant believe someone compared paying for education to paying for freeloaders..just wow.

8/20/2007 10:11:02 AM

i like the intent of this idea. there are a few concerns i would have. but mostly this seems like a good idea. one of my concerns would be that since the labor laws in this state are so pro-business and anti-worker, that a business owner of a low-skill workplace could worsen conditions for workers with the knowledge that if they quit, the worker would lose their benefits.

i think much like other programs, there should be some window of maintaining benefits between jobs (a couple months or something). that or the city should have good employment programs for people who are serious about trying to find a job.

8/20/2007 10:14:29 AM

sarijoul, I doubt this policy will effect someone who has lost ONE job. They are talking about repeat offenders. Most people put up with shit at work bc you have responsibilities, and you have to provide. The article implies that they just quit bc they know they can sit at home and no one would bother them...until now.

"They're walking away from jobs without concern, because they know the Housing Authority will take care of them. That's not the intent of the program."

8/20/2007 11:10:20 AM

i understand the intent of the program, but there are unintended consequences sometimes.

8/20/2007 11:17:40 AM

Quote :

"^ STFU bitch. my taxes subsidized 75% of your education at a State University. you fucking welfare queen."

Apples to oranges. A college graduate will return to the work force and be, in the end, a net gain on the economy for the investment. This is why we have education in the first place. An able bodied adult being subsidized for neither being productive nor trying to be productive with no forseeable improvement in the situation, is a net loss.

8/20/2007 11:20:44 AM

Quote :

" but there are unintended consequences sometimes."

Should nothing ever be done for fear of unintended consequences?

8/20/2007 11:34:24 AM

did you read my other post? i just said to put some fail-safes in there. that's all. and they're just concerns. i didn't say that this program wouldn't be an improvement. in fact, i said the opposite.

8/20/2007 11:35:21 AM

I read them. Between the two posts, I got the impression that you thought that it was a good idea but you would be reticent to implement it because of unintended consequences.

8/20/2007 11:42:54 AM

Quote :

"David0603: Obviously your post is meant to be sarcastic, but doesn't the article say that exact thing is happening? For any college educated person this isn't a "sweet deal" but for some lazy high school dropout it is."

My point was that it's not a sweet deal. Yes, it happens, but NO, it is not a sweet deal--even to "some lazy high school dropout."

And until you can acknowledge the issue in a more honest light, your opinion doesn't mean much.

8/20/2007 2:50:26 PM

Of course, "more honest light" means from your point of view.

8/20/2007 2:51:32 PM

A more honest light? What does that mean? If it isn't a "sweet deal" then why are these people quitting in order to live rent free?

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ^ Ahahahaha, that's great.]

8/20/2007 2:52:43 PM

^^^ Are you suggesting that the people who are quiting their jobs to ride on the housing subsistance are choosing what they view as a crappy life over a better one?

Remember just because you don't think that living in a hole in the wall run down place drinking booze all day and getting wasted isn't a great life (albeit awfully reminicent of dorm life) doesn't mean that other people don't think it's a great life compared to actually working.

8/20/2007 4:47:47 PM

Quote :

"a business owner of a low-skill workplace could worsen conditions for workers with the knowledge that if they quit, the worker would lose their benefits."

Quote :

"i understand the intent of the program, but there are unintended consequences sometimes"

Or it could motivate the worker to find a better job and ween themselves from public housing. Sometimes being uncomfortable is the best motivation out there.

8/20/2007 5:33:43 PM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Of course, "more honest light" means from your point of view."

No. It means "more honest light."

Quote :

"David0603: A more honest light? What does that mean? If it isn't a "sweet deal" then why are these people quitting in order to live rent free?"

What does that mean?!? What is so confusing to you about honesty?

You could argue that it's a sweeter deal than the alternative (working a shit job where you still don't make ends meet), but it's not a sweet deal. Very few people sit around and dream of the day that they can be broke and live rent-free in a shithole. And they certainly don't sit back over a meal of sugar water and ketchup soup to laugh about all the taxpayers subsidizing their miserable existence. They're getting shafted, too...more so than you...that's why you didn't jump at my offer to join their ranks.

And again you need to acknowledge their plight if you want to discuss this problem. Skyrocketing housing costs combined with stagnant wages leaves some people out, marginalizes them to the point that they're invisible. And the only time they show back up on the radar is when they give up and quit their jobs and say that enough is enough--then we get all outraged! But before when they were serving you your super cheap burger (subsidized for you by the lower wages of the poor, by the way), you didn't give two shits about them.

You can pay more for your burger, give them a chance to live a decent life with some dignity, or you can continue to pay more taxes in a pathetic attempt to reconcile the problem like we do now.

Something tells me you prefer the current circumstances: cheap burgers and a chance to self-righteously bitch about poor people and taxes...

And that's my word, bitches.

8/20/2007 5:44:52 PM

Quote :

"Or it could motivate the worker to find a better job and ween themselves from public housing. Sometimes being uncomfortable is the best motivation out there. "

oh i totally agree. that's why i think there should be a window if someone does want to find a new job.

8/20/2007 5:46:53 PM

Quote :

"What is so confusing to you about honesty?"

The word itself is not very confusing, however the context in which you used it is.

Quote :

"You could argue that it's a sweeter deal than the alternative (working a shit job where you still don't make ends meet)"

Who said anything about shit jobs where you don't make ends meet? You can't just throw out random assumptions like that.

Quote :

"they certainly don't sit back over a meal of sugar water and ketchup soup to laugh about all the taxpayers subsidizing their miserable existence"

There you go making assumptions again. I seriously doubt this is the case, unless they spent all their food money on drugs.

Quote :

"They're getting shafted, too...more so than you"

I didn't get lucky to get where I am. It took hard work and discipline. Let me pull out my violin and play a few notes.

Quote :

"Skyrocketing housing costs combined with stagnant wages leaves some people out"

Why does everyone assume they should be able to buy a house?

Quote :

"And the only time they show back up on the radar is when they give up and quit their jobs and say that enough is enough--then we get all outraged!"

I believe they should suck it up and keep working at their "shit jobs" if they are living on my dime.

Quote :

"You can pay more for your burger, give them a chance to live a decent life with some dignity, or you can continue to pay more taxes in a pathetic attempt to reconcile the problem like we do now. Something tells me you prefer the current circumstances: cheap burgers and a chance to self-righteously bitch about poor people and taxes..."

I'm perfectly content with them making minimum wage.

8/20/2007 5:56:24 PM

Does anyone actually know someone who works hard, has a little bit of sense, and has been making minimum wage on the long term? I mean, I know former junkies and high school dropouts who are making $10-$15 an hour and none of them are the next Will Hunting.

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 6:08 PM. Reason : s]

8/20/2007 6:08:23 PM

^^Nobody assumes they should be able to buy a house. It's expensive to rent, too.

And they're not living on your dime.

YOU'RE LIVING ON THEIR DIME.

Every time you buy something cheap (just about everything we buy nowadays), the working poor are subsidizing YOUR way of life. It's tough to stomach, I know, but it's the truth. And you're all upset because a few of them have said, "Fuck this shit. I'm tired. I'm not getting anywhere. I quit." But that's the price we have to pay as a society for all the cheap shit we consume so rabidly.

We're making out like bandits in this scheme, David0603, but there will always be classless people like you who just don't fucking get it.

^We need people to stock our shelves, serve us our food, and clean our homes. So your point about having some sense and not working a minimum wage job is moot.

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 6:12 PM. Reason : sss]

8/20/2007 6:11:00 PM

^^Not many people actually make minimum wage:

Quote :

"Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2002 According to Current Population Survery estimates for 2002, some 72.7 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.6 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, about 570,000 were reported earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.6 million were reported with wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for these low-wage workers. The following are some highlights from the 2002 data. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and slightly more than one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, 10 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. However, among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 5 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.) About 4 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 2 percent of men. (See table 1.) The proportion of hourly-paid workers receiving $5.15 or less was about 3 percent for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. For whites and Hispanics, women were more likely than men to be low-wage earners. (See table 1.) Never-married workers, who also tend to be quite young, are more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than persons who are married. (See table 8.) The likelihood of a worker being paid the minimum wage or less is inversely related to the level of education attained. Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, a little over 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum or less, compared with less than 2 percent for those who had obtained a college degree. (See table 6.) Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were much more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent). About 1 in 10 workers putting in fewer than 15 hours per week earned the minimum or less. (See table 1 and table 9.) By occupational group, the proportion of hourly-paid workers whose earnings were reported at or below $5.15 ranged from a low of less than 1 percent for persons employed in managerial and professional specialty jobs and in precision production, craft, and repair positions, to a high of about 10 percent for those in service jobs. Roughly two-thirds of all low-wage workers in 2002 were in service-type occupations, mostly in food service jobs. (See table 4.) Among industry groups, the proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was highest in retail trade (about 8 percent), agriculture (about 2 percent), and services (also about 2 percent). About three-fifths of all low-wage workers were employed in retail trade, and nearly one-fourth worked in services. It should be recognized that for many working in these two industries, tips and commissions might supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.) Among the four broad geographic regions, the West had the lowest proportion of hourly workers with earnings at or below $5.15 (about 2 percent), while the South had the highest (about 4 percent). For a number of States, the proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage exceeded the national average; in many other States, the proportion was much lower. Some States have minimum wage laws establishing minimum wage standards that exceed the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. (See table 2 and table 3.) The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979, when data first began to be collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)"

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm

In other words, if you want to work you can do better than minimum wage.

Quote :

""Fuck this shit. I'm tired. I'm not getting anywhere. I quit.""

That implies that everyone was trying in the first place, which isn't true.

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2007 6:12:59 PM

Quote :

"We need people to stock our shelves, serve us our food, and clean our homes. So your point about having some sense and not working a minimum wage job is moot."

Minimum wage jobs are nothing more than a stepping stone for people who are serious about doing something with their lives. Apparently you and a lot of the people in housing projects missed out on the fact that a minimum wage job, while shitty, does help pay the bills until you find something better.

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 6:35 PM. Reason : s]

8/20/2007 6:25:09 PM

^I realize that not many people make minimum wage. And this isn't just about minimum wage; it's about non-livable wages--much higher than minimum wage.

And I don't believe that these jobs should be viewed as "stepping stones." They are legitimate jobs where a person should make enough money to live decently. The guy at Burger King is more important to your life than the guy who sells you your fancy car, but for some reason, car salesmen make more than fast food workers. If the fast food worker doesn't do his job right, you could be sick for a week--your children could DIE. They matter in our world; they are important, valuable people...but we pay them jack shit and call their jobs "stepping stones" all because we want extremely cheap food 24 hours a day. They subsidize our way of life, and you imply that they're stupid for not recognizing that their job is a "stepping stone."

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM. Reason : sss]

8/20/2007 6:38:27 PM

^A big chunk of the reason why those sorts of jobs bring in so little money is because those sorts of jobs do not require a high amount of skill, training, or education. Compare garbage collectors and doctors, for instance. Garbage collection is a pretty damn important service, and without it civilization as we know it would not be possible (or at best would really really suck). Yet how much time does it take to train somebody to pick up garbage? All you have to do is be able to lift objects of various weight and you're set. Now granted that garbage collectors have to be willing to wad through other people's filth, so it's not like people are lining up for miles to get into the business, but we're not exactly in a shortage of people who can be garbage collectors. That's why they don't make that much; supply of labor is ridiculously plentiful. Who cares if a single garbage man quits? He can easily be replaced. Strikes aside, we're in no danger of running out of garbage collectors any time soon.

Now let's look at doctors, another very important occupation. To be a COMPETENT doctor requires many years of specialized schooling, lots of practice, and many long hours. Not many people can afford to pay for the sort of education that would be necessary, and not a whole lot of people want to be put on call for days at a time. There's also much higher personal risk; doctors can inadvertently become exposed to their patients' disease, for instance. And the difference between a healthy person coming out of the OR and a death or lawsuit is a single mistake. So not only is the barrier to entry very costly for people who want to become doctors, it's also a constant struggle to want to stay in that field. The supply of labor is much less, therefore market forces dictate that doctors should be offered some serious monetary compensation in order to keep them attracted to the field.

8/20/2007 7:20:42 PM

Quote :

"And the only time they show back up on the radar is when they give up and quit their jobs and say that enough is enough--then we get all outraged!"

We don't get outraged because they quit, we get outraged because they quit and expect us to keep paying them.

Quote :

"But before when they were serving you your super cheap burger (subsidized for you by the lower wages of the poor, by the way), you didn't give two shits about them. "

Actualy, I did give a shit about them. About $7 worth of shit, hence I was eating at the fast food restraunt as opposed to making my own damn meal and not paying them any money. Yes, their low wage means I eat cheaper, but guess what, my eating cheaper means they have a wage in the first place.

Quote :

"Every time you buy something cheap (just about everything we buy nowadays), the working poor are subsidizing YOUR way of life."

$20 says the working poor buy more cheap stuff than any other class.

Quote :

" And you're all upset because a few of them have said, "Fuck this shit. I'm tired. I'm not getting anywhere. I quit.""

No, I'm getting all upset because a bunch of them have quit and are expecting MY wages to pay their wages when they haven't done shit for me. Remember, when they are working at BurgerJoint, they are providing me a service, and in return I am providing them money. When they stop working, they are no longer providing me a service, why should I continue providing them money? Just so that they don't break the law? Fuck that.

Quote :

"We need people to stock our shelves, serve us our food, and clean our homes. So your point about having some sense and not working a minimum wage job is moot. "

No, really we don't. We can make our own food, and clean our own homes, and quite honestly, the grocery store owner can stock his own damn shelves. But we don't like to do these things so we offer to pay people to do them for us. The fact that someone hasn't asked for better pay for that service is not anyone's fault but their own.

Quote :

"I realize that not many people make minimum wage. And this isn't just about minimum wage; it's about non-livable wages--much higher than minimum wage. "

We've been over this before, minimum wage is a livable wage, it just sucks.

Quote :

"The guy at Burger King is more important to your life than the guy who sells you your fancy car, but for some reason, car salesmen make more than fast food workers."

The car salesman sells a higher margin product. He also sells only a few a month compared to hundreds of thousands of burgers. Also, if the guy at burger king wanted to make more money doing the same thing, he could sell his own burgers instead of relying on someone else to provide the materials for him.

8/20/2007 7:45:08 PM

spk is joking guys. Has to be.

8/20/2007 8:49:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe that these jobs should be viewed as "stepping stones." They are legitimate jobs where a person should make enough money to live decently."

You are saying someone with little or no skills should be paid enough money to live decently? What the fuck sense does that make?

8/20/2007 10:48:55 PM

BridgetSPK, what policy change are you proposing? Are you once again advocating a higher minimum wage?

Implementing a minimum wage is akin to proclaiming "Tis better one family starve to death in the street than ten be forced by circumstance to shop at WalMart."

Wages are what they are for a reason: it is at this wage that everyone can find employment. Force it up or down and the market will not clear; leaving some workers unemployed and destitute. If you think it is hard feeding a family on $14k a year, try doing it on $0k a year.

If, instead, you are advocating an increase to the EITC, or the elimination of lower tax brackets, I'm sure everyone here would agree with you. But sacrificing the lives of the few to secure the comfort of the majority is immoral.

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 11:50 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/20/2007 11:47:34 PM

^See, I feel like we're already sacrificing the lives of a few to secure the comfort of the majority.

And you know I never think my shit through to policy implications.

And you also know that I don't know how I feel about this idea that raising minimum wage causes unemployment. Conservatives always say that, but I need more evidence than economic theory. When Clinton raised it, unemployment did not go up, but you insist that in a way it did cause if he hadn't raised minimum wage, unemployment would have gone down. I can't just take your word. And the shit I saw peddled in the one economics class I took really undermined a lot of the trust I'd have for an economist.

So, hell yeah, raise minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. We can help small businesses pay the new wages. And giant corporations should be able to figure out a way to keep all their employees and pay them the new wage--they should start by taking money from the bloated higher-ups and give it to the employees.

8/21/2007 2:52:49 PM

What incentive do I have to help small businesses?

8/21/2007 3:04:46 PM

There's an idea that small businesses are inherently good. Some limited government advocates initially hoped the American economy would consist of a collection of small businesses and farmers.

As it is now, your taxes already go to help small businesses, same way they go to help large corporations.

8/21/2007 3:12:50 PM

What is so inherently good about them?

8/21/2007 3:25:48 PM