Wal-Mart Plans to End Extra Pay for Sunday Shifts

And here's why unions are bad, right Riversider?

"General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, in advance of next year’s labor contract negotiations, are exploring with the United Auto Workers changes that could give workers a bigger piece of growing profits."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/carmakers-uaw-said-to-study-expanding-profit-sharing-before-contact-talks.html

THE MONEY IS GOING TO THE WRONG PEOPLE!

It's only a matter of time before G.M. admits that all those factories it's building in China will export cars back home. Your bail out dollars at work.

Step 1

HONG KONG - General Motors Corp said on Thursday it will export a low-end car it developed for China to Latin America, becoming the first international brand to use its China operations to tap growth in emerging markets.

Shanghai GM, a venture between GM and China's SAIC Motor Corp, started to export Chevrolet New Sail autos on Thursday to Chile, the company said in a statement.

Rolled out in January in China, the New Sail, which comes under GM's Chevrolet brand, was priced as low as 56,800 yuan ($8,446.10), competing with domestic names like Geely Automobile Holdings and Chery Automobile, which have developed a reputation for making cheap cars for price-sensitive buyers.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2010-10/21/content_11442030.htm

You mean COMMUNIST China? You're supporting Communism, & a centrally-planned economy? That keeps its currency artificially low in a beggar-thy-neighbor mercantilist economic policy?

FOR SHAME, Riversider! Loitering with the enemy. I suppose in WWII you would have been playing cricket in Vichy France, or running the bulls right behind Francisco F., el caudillo....

Where's HUAC when you need them?

La Falange.

We build iphones w/ 7000% profit margins, sell to china. China buys our recycled salad shooter, sends us back 500HP GT500 after polluting their bodies, water, soil and air....

Riversider.... thats' the AMERICAN way.

"Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise"

"Some 42.9 million people collected food stamps last month, up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/08/food-stamp-rolls-continue-to-rise/

New York as of 9/10 - 2,895,995 on food stamps, 13.3% rise from Sept 09, representing 14.8% of the state's population. Trickle down, baby!

It is true that the federal government subsidizes low-wage Communist companies like Wal*Mart through food stamps, earned-income credits, medicaid, and the like.

And the Waltons get richer and richer.

Guess LICC doesn't work on Sundays.

The Waltons are the most cheap ass rich people in the world. For donations to charity, they rank all they way at the bottom. I have more respect for Mexican drug cartels.

> THE MONEY IS GOING TO THE WRONG PEOPLE!

Government money (and ownership of the company) going to the folks who helped bring down the company with greedy contracts? Yup, the wrong people *are* getting it

Thats like the robber getting severance pay after he's caught.

From the article steve posted:

Wal-Mart’s move reflects a change in workplace reality, said Craig Rowley, a vice president of the retail practice at the consulting firm Hay Group in Dallas. According to an annual survey conducted by Hay, only 20 percent of retailers still offer any sort of Sunday premium, Rowley said in an interview today.

“It’s a declining practice,” he said. “When retailers first started opening their stores on Sundays, it was common to have the premium because they were asking employees to do something they never had to do before. But today, working retail requires that you work weekends -- it’s part of the job.” . . .

The retailer has also switched to making incentive payments to hourly employees on a quarterly basis instead of an annual one, and plans to increase the dollar amount in the bonus pool, Rossiter said. The company’s headcount in the U.S. has stayed stable at about 1.4 million since January 2008, according to regulatory filings.

But steve thinks Walmart should pay its employees more than employees at other comparable stores just because it is the liberal thing to do and because the founders are wealthy. Which steve for some reason must think is unfair that they made a lot of money on a business they founded.

steve the clown strikes again.

If it's "clownish" not to want people paid subsistence wages or to be enslaved - or to have huge international corporations subsidized by the taxpayers - then clownish I am, and proud to be.

Walmart has just assured that the figure of 20% of retailers who offer a Sunday premium will go to practically nil because they will be forced to follow the behemoth. That is the inherent evil of capitalism that Marx pointed out; when you concentrate the economic power in the hands of very few without any countervailing force, they will do what selfish beasts do: consume everything in their path. Enjoy those Chinese-manufactured, grey-market Walmart goods.

And before you label me a "Marxist," one can acknowledge the theoretical work of a great mind without wanting a collectivist state that locks us peasants.

steve the proud clown thinks that being paid market wages plus 401(k) matching and bonuses for working a cash register is enslavement.

"Market wages"? It sets the market wages.

“It amounts to a huge wage cut,” said Warren. “Wal-Mart has been underperforming financially relative to its competitors and needs to find quick ways to shore up profits.”

"Store labor is Wal-Mart’s biggest cost, U.S. stores chief Bill Simon said in November. A month before that, Wal-Mart said it plans to end profit-sharing contributions next year, replacing them with matches to employee 401(k) retirement plans to bring down benefits costs."

“The company is obsessive about labor costs, not just to save money in the coming quarter but to encourage turnover, which also keeps wages low,” Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara said in an e-mail message.

LICC proudly avails himself of the "freedom to contract" argument used to justify the child labor & working conditions of the early 20th century.

Tea Party, Unite!

I want LICcomm to acknowledge that Wal*Mart deliberatly controls workers' hours so as to make them eligible for food stamps and Medicaid, and that it could instead choose to make them full-time employees who earn enough to buy food, and who are provided health insurance and all those other good things Wal*Mart provides its hard-working, loyal, red-blooded American employees.

Even though those employees are dirty Republicans.

Let's hear it, LICcomm.

steve the proud clown really thinks that Walmart "sets" market wages for all retail employees in this country???? Wow.

This huge wage cut is how much- $8 a week or so?

steve is a proponent of the China centrally planned economy model- that sure has been great for labor wages.

New York City has no Walmarts steve. How much do register workers in retail stores in NY make? According to steve, Walmart is setting those wages too.

Thanks for foolishly losing another argument steve.

Are you saying there are no Wal*Marts in Long Island City? I thought that's what Long Island City is all about.

Oh, and very nice of you to make fun of the meager salaries of Wal*Mart shop-girls. Maybe the $8 a week is the difference between food on their families' tables or not.

Just kidding: there'll still be food on their tables, because you'll be buying food stamps for them!

> "Market wages"? It sets the market wages.

Steve, econ 101 (again) for you. It can't set a market wage, it can offer a wage. The market wage is set when it finds (enough) people to accept it.

SWE - you need to take more accounting and economics courses. Labor is the largest cost in retail. In order for other stores to match WalMart's price, they must undercut their labor costs.

For a lot of these people, SWE, with little education and few opportunities, Walmart is all there is.

And Walmart is relying on that.

Sears used to pay very good wages, health benefits, retirement, etc. Walmart ended all of that. It's a fast race to the bottom: a country with workers who can't afford to buy products is one doomed to poverty.

Chinese central planning is what RS was proposing, LICCdope. My position is merely that the decimation of unions and the elimination of trade barriers, along with Chinese manipulation of their currency with no countervailing tariffs, is destroying this country.

Making the Waltons and the Kochs very wealthy, but destroying the economic base of the country.

Why aren't Riversider and somewhereelse advoacting that Wal Mart employees make more money? Do you beleive that we should continue subsidizing Wal Mart workers through Medicaid?

Why would anyone in their right mind work for Wal Mart? It's more profitable to go on welfare and then get a job off the books. That's what I would do. I would sell counterfeit crap in the street before I worked at Wal Mart.

I don't go to Walmart specifically for this reason. I'd rather spend more money at Tarjay or elsewhere, and I consider myself to be a value shopper.

Just not into exploiting workers like LICCdope is.

I didn't make fun of anyone's wages.

Notice steve couldn't answer my questions.

steve=another lost argument

LICcomm: "This huge wage cut is how much- $8 a week or so?"

nose is longer than a telephone wire

"Notice steve couldn't answer my questions."

None of your questions dignifies an answer. To some people, LICC, $8 is a lot of money; for Walmart employees, it is more than their net hourly pay after taxes.

You're a creep.

According to payscale, the national median hourly wage for Target cashiers is $8.13, For retail sales associates, $8.52, pharmacy technicians, $11.22. According to steve, Walmart is setting these wages for Target.

steve=lost argument, again

alan, you are clueless. I didn't make fun of anything. Walmart was paying an extra $1 an hour for working on Sunday. Now it won't (for new employees only, existing employees still get it). So, this "huge" wage cut that steve uses as a call to socialism is- $8 a week.

"SWE - you need to take more accounting and economics courses. Labor is the largest cost in retail. In order for other stores to match WalMart's price, they must undercut their labor costs."

Steve, none of the points you are now trying to make fix your initial mistake.

You were simply miles off on your understanding of market rate.

Econ 101 for you!

"It's more profitable to go on welfare and then get a job off the books. That's what I would do. I would sell counterfeit crap in the street before I worked at Wal Mart. "

I hear the benefits are fantastic. Free food and lodging at Rikers.

And "that's what I would do" from alpo is about as strong a case as you can make against something...

"You were simply miles off on your understanding of market rate."

Not at all. I happen to know quite a bit more about Walmart's strategy than you do.

"steve=lost argument, again"

How is that, LICC? Did you not see what Walmart did to Sears and K-Mart and Caldor & most other discount chains?

There are basically just 3 major chains right now: Walmart, Target, and Macy's. There used to be lots of competition for Walmart, but as soon as they reduced everybody's wage to just above the minimum, everyone else had to follow suit.

You are a true fool, LICCdope.

steve's comments are so dumb it is hard to even know where to begin.

There is not one Walmart in all of New York City. Yet he thinks Walmart has controlled the wages of all NYC retail workers. Wow.

"Yet he thinks Walmart has controlled the wages of all NYC retail workers.

In fact, LICCdope, I think that Walmart controls your narrow little mind.

Nay - I'm sure of it!

Steve, still waiting for an answer to my question. It's been what, weeks now?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/23887-nyc-better-to-rent-than-buy?last_page=true

LIC is the canaruy in the mine for the about to be foreclosed manhatanites.... .yeah betyches

I'm still waiting for you to show me the properties you want me to answer for, O Mighty BJW2103, Arbitrator of All Things.

stevejhx, you posted the following quote above: “Wal-Mart has been underperforming financially relative to its competitors and needs to find quick ways to shore up profits.”

Why do you think they are underperforming financially relative to its competitors and how do you propose they address that?

Actually, Alpie, most rich people aren't conservative at all. Just the Waltons, the Kochs, and the wannabes.

That quote also doesn't support your idea that they set the market rate, assuming your definition of the term.

steve commonly contradicts himself.

Really Pres, now you are trying idiotic classless insults too?

I'm curious LICC, where do you stand on the estate tax? And after you tell me, please tell me whether you intend to inherit or pass along an estate worth $5 million or more.

Back in the bad old days, stores in the South were required to be closed on Sundays. This practice came to an end generally in the 70's and early 80's when more progressive views came to the South. So it all seemed to work out, we reap what we sow.

Now stores are required to be closedon Sunday only in Bergen County, New Jersey.
It has nothing to do with progressive views, and everything to do with more profit, btw.

silly boy, look at the vote count by the legislatures in the states that made these changes.

i'm not from the south but we did have a piggly wiggly where i grew up. maybe my memory is clouded, but i don't recall it being closed on sundays during the 70's.

"I'm still waiting for you to show me the properties you want me to answer for, O Mighty BJW2103, Arbitrator of All Things."

Steve, master evader of all questions that put your vaunted theories in serious doubt, I believe because you refuse to actually try to understand the question, we had agreed to use your current apartment. So, answer.

I've always said that if I could buy my current apartment for what it costs me to rent it, out of pocket, that I would. I've answered that dozens of times, bjw. What more do you want?

I'm in favor of a reasonable estate tax tailored in a way that it doesn't cause hardship to pass on a family business. I think it is better for tax revenue to come from the dead rather than overly burden people who are working and producing. But I don't think the rate should be so high that people are unable to direct where their assets go in inheritance because the government is getting most of it.

"What more do you want?"

I've asked you over and over again to define at what point the carrying costs would be too much and you'd choose to rent instead. Again, if rent is $3600 and carrying costs start at $3600, at which point do you say stop? $4000? More?

Carrying costs cannot be materially greater than rent, out of pocket. I've always said that. If rent is $3,600 and carrying costs are $3,605, that's not material. If carrying costs, on the other hand, are $3,900, then we're starting to talk material here, and it would take a more careful analysis. For my current place, no I wouldn't pay $3,900 in carrying costs.

LICCdope, I guarantee you won't have to pay estate tax when you inherit Grandma's old Tupperware.

Now steve is insulting my grandmother.

steve, just because you are a bitter, nasty old man, you don't need to insult other people's families.

Steve didn't make fun of anyone's wages.

I'm in favor of free windfalls being taxed as income received by the recipient ... because that's what it is. If that's at the top rate of 55%, great -- the recipient can enjoy the remaining 45+% of his unearned windfall.

"For my current place, no I wouldn't pay $3,900 in carrying costs."

Wow, you finally answered - thanks. So you're placing about an 8% premium on owning it seems. Interesting. Thanks again.

No, bjw, I did no such a thing. Not 8%, not 4%, not 0%.

I said I would pay $3,605, but not $3,900. Would I pay $3,700? I don't know - it depends on market conditions, but probably not. I could just as easily rent a different place for $3,600 a month that I wouldn't buy for $3,000.

As I've always maintained, it's not that simple a decision. So don't go quoting a nonexistent "8% premium" on owning that I've never said, just because you overpaid for your apartment in Brooklyn.

It happens that I have a very nice apartment and a very good rental deal. Down the block Archstone wants $4,900 for a comparable apartment. They're all empty, but that's what their asking price is.

And no, I didn't "finally answer" - look back on threads for weeks & I've always said the same thing.

The fact is, you couldn't buy my apartment under normal market conditions for $3,600 - the cost would be about twice that. Therefore, I've assigned no premium whatsoever; just discounts (to this market, though maybe not another).

"So don't go quoting a nonexistent "8% premium" on owning that I've never said, just because you overpaid for your apartment in Brooklyn."

First of all, can we dispense with the tired insult of "sorry you overpaid for your apartment," especially when you don't have a clue about it (hint: you're wrong)? Thanks. As for the premium, I guess I assumed that you were actually answering my question (foolish on my part obviously) when you said $3900 was too rich and that's about where you would say "stop." But now you seem to have answered when you basically say you wouldn't pay a penny more (give or take a few bucks). That's your real answer then - you place no real premium on ownership vs renting. To you, they are perfect substitutes. I think you'll find that many people disagree with you.

"The fact is, you couldn't buy my apartment under normal market conditions for $3,600 - the cost would be about twice that."

I don't care what your apartment would sell for (it's not on the market anyway, right?) - for the last time, that wasn't the point of the question. It's certainly not worth twice the rent in carrying costs, but even if that were the sales price, one pricey sale is just one pricey sale. No one here is contending that that should be the premium for ownership.

I think steve is moving into greyed out category soon.

bj, youre all about questions

why dont you clue us in as to the deets on your williamsburg purchase?

since you didn't overpay, and since we don't have a clue, shed a little light pls

There is no way steve's dumpy rental would cost $7200 per month to own. This is more of steve stubbornly sticking to his mistaken-ridden rent/buy analysis.

Condos in New York cost much more than condos in Long Island City, LICcomm, and no matter the market always will.

Lost again, tho I do read all this stuff - steve, now every apartment purchase or rent is a case-by-case basis? That would sort of blur the edges off the immutable law of economics that carrying costs should be equal to market rent. Well, within a small margin.... well, but whether I would buy it, or pay a little more to buy than to rent, that all depends..... can you see how "it all depends" is the case for all purchasers, including those who you think overpay?

Wbottom, I was persistent to holding Steve to answer the question. He's obviously a bit annoyed with that, but I was kept entertained by the constant evasion. But anyway, what details do you want? My monthly carrying costs are ~$3,300. I could rent the place for over $3,500 not counting the parking spot (which is included in my carrying costs). It's a 2/2.

LICC, when was the last time you were in my "dumpy rental" to opine about it?

Nunce, I think.

bjw, some people might put a premium on ownership rather than renting. Most don't. It should cost less as it's higher risk.

lowery - I've always distinguished between micro and macroeconomics. Macro is - yes, LICCdope, get this - a composite of a series of micro-decisions. Supply and demand curves are averages, not absolutes.

"bjw, some people might put a premium on ownership rather than renting. Most don't. It should cost less as it's higher risk."

Most don't? Prove it. The market, as out of whack as it's been over the past few years, proves very much to the contrary, unfortunately. And if it "should" cost less, why are you willing to pay even $5 MORE to own? You're terribly inconsistent on this, which is why I kept bothering you to answer.

Another idiom from steve's world of the stupid- it should cost less to own than rent on day 1 because owning has "higher risk".

Ridiculous.

steve the joke of streeteasy strikes again.

just the simple stuff:
cc/taxes
amt paid & date/estimated current value

include a comp also if you feel like it

youve offered that you can rent for 3500--parking's probably worth about 200

Wbottom, cc/taxes run about $830/mo. There is an abatement in there of course, but unabated taxes would run about $400 more. I don't feel comfortable posting amount paid, but closed in late 08. I'm not sure about parking, but I would use $150 to be conservative.

"The market, as out of whack as it's been over the past few years, proves very much to the contrary, unfortunately."

Really? See the thread about housing losing $1.7 trillion in value in the last year, with NYC leading the pack.

"Prove it."

I already have a million times, with a million different papers and formulas and examples over the course of the last 350 years. That you wish to delude yourself otherwise is nothing I have control over.

"Really? See the thread about housing losing $1.7 trillion in value in the last year, with NYC leading the pack."

Not sure what that proves anything other than a pretty nice correction has occurred. That's great, but it does nothing to prove your claim that most people don't put any premium on ownership. My point was that with the prices properties are still currently trading at, what you're saying doesn't really seem to be holding water. Your formulas and theories are great and all, and obviously real estate cycles can move slowly, but I don't think any of it conclusively tells us that people actually put a premium on renting (which is essentially what you're claiming, since it's less risky).

I will never understand why people are so against wal-mart. The people who work there are happy to have a job. And if they aren't happy, they can quit. As for the quant little store-owners who go out of business as a result of Wal-mart - so be it. Why would I want to pay $10 for something just to support some quant idea of a small merchant when I can get the same thing at Wal-mart for $5. Wal-mart pays what the market dictates. If the wages at Wal-mart were really so low, nobody would work there and Wal-mart would be forced to pay more. Guess wait - when a Wal-mart opens, people line up to work there.

If you don't like Wal-mart, don't shop there and don't work there. But please save the rest of us from your silly arguments and stories of quant little stores going out of business.

the issue with walmart has gone way past the stores they have put out of business. they have contributed mightily to our national love affair with cheap stuff from china although you are certainly correct that they didn't have to force people to buy all this stuff.

but, neither do cocaine dealers.

Walmart = cocaine dealers? Arms dealer perhaps, but drug dealers???

Definitely drug dealers ... it's been creating shopoholics at the low end -- people who buy stuff just to buy stuff, just because it's cheap, and then maybe later they'll find a use for it. The best example is all the portable gazebo-like crap that people now set up at the beach, and then don't really use. Whole ugly shantytowns ruining the vistas for no reason other than people are happy to use the junk (pun intended) that they haven't found a use for yet.

Of course, real purchasers of real drugs usually find a use right away, so there's more utility in a drug dealer than in Wal*Mart.

downtown1234, Wal*Mart doesn't just put quaint little stores out of business. It destroys entire small towns in a single swoop, causing mass abandonment of their downtown, a blight that soon enough spreads to the entire town.

Next topic: Obesity by Wal*Mart. Not the toilet water.

Yes, it's all Walmart's fault. People should not need to take responsibility for what they buy, eat, etc...

if you are in a consumer product business, walmart generally is responsible for at least 35% of your sales. they have the china price, which is what they can buy your product for direct from china. either you meet or beat that price or you're not getting their business.

try doing business without them.

guess how you meet that price.

And it goes beyond that. Wal*Mart dictates to all the major manufacturers how to package their goods. As in larger and larger and larger. And add to that the insidious "bite size" products that have people eating junk like their eating cereal directly out of the box, with no stopping until it's way too late.

They're a major contributor to the super-size nation phenomenon.

"Why would I want to pay $10 for something just to support some quant idea of a small merchant when I can get the same thing at Wal-mart for $5."

Wal Mart's low pruices are subsidized by the govt. If Wal Mart had to pay health insurance premiums instead of sticking their workers on Medicaid, that $5 item would be $10 or more.

How many hours can you work n a sunday?
8...maybe 10?
OK let's say 8 and youre a hungry Walmart employee and you work every sunday.
Walmart cus you a buck/hr.
Now your gross month pay just got decreased by $32.
After taxes...your out $25.43/mo.
Sam figures that you can live without $6.35 a week.

Chip away, chip away, chip away.

They're a major contributor to the super-size nation phenomenon.

What do you think you can afford to buy to eat at the pay?
Pasta
Rice
Potatoes
Fast food
High fructose corn syrup
organic produce (just kidding)

"Wal Mart's low pruices are subsidized by the govt. If Wal Mart had to pay health insurance premiums instead of sticking their workers on Medicaid, that $5 item would be $10 or more."

Do you honestly think that the little stores Wal-mart allegedly put out of business gave health insurance?

Regardless of the answer, my response is to get rid of Medicaid. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own lives. It's one thing if people need a little help when things are rough but for people to be on Medicaid for their entire lives...it's crazy. At a certain point if a person is unwilling or unable to support themselves (absent perhaps severe handicap) then it is not the job of government to look after the person. Some people just have to be written off. Harsh but true, IMHO.

don't use a a euphemism. tell us what you are really saying.

One other thing - if you are going to be a successful duck hunter, you must go where the ducks are.

Wal-mart sells what people want to buy. You can't fault Wal-mart for selling what people want to buy. Unless you are prepared to outlaw the cheap stuff Wal-mart sells (and stop everybody from selling it), which would be completely insane, I see no reason to condemn Wal-mart for making it available.

you're making my original point.

if you're going to be a successful drug dealer, sell cocaine.

you can't fault a cocaine dealer for supplying cocaine addicts.

you can try to outlaw it but that clearly hasn't worked.

why condemn a cocaine dealer for making it available for cocaine addicts.

except, downtown1234, in a quite civil manner we allow people to be treated in emergency rooms in states of extreme duress without health insurance. and the numbers of people taking advantage of such services is skyrocketing because people have lost their jobs (and health care).

we could let them die. would be a lesson to the people who don't take responsibility for themselves despite the fact that they can't get a job without health care. nobody wants a job without health care. they take it because they have no other choice.

and i don't think wal mart got rid of the "little stores." it got rid of the larger grocery chains, and now it may get rid of the BestBuys, but the jury is out on that.

the time to not shop at wal mart was about ten years ago. it still is, but it won't have nearly the impact.

My point is that we need to start turning away people at hospitals. I had a relative in the hospital last year. Literally in the bed next to her was some crazy homeless guy. At Columbia Presperterian, one of the finest hospitals in the country, they are treating some nutty homeless person (and he was really nutty) who clearly didn't have and never will have insurance. Why are we wasting money on idiots like him. The guy should have never been allowed in the door let alone been able to receive treatment.

who is going to turn these people away?

based on what?

would you volunteer to be the one turning them away?

if not, you should go away.

1234: Given what health insurance and/or health care costs in this country (even worse in NY), how would low income earners, no matter how hard they work, afford access to health care? Leaving aside the homeless and illegal alliens, are you proposing that low income people just get sick and die (someone call Allan Grayson...).

i would be happy to turn away buyerbuyer.

personally.

And if Wal-Mart gets rid of the Best Buys and other stores, that is life. Despite my defense of Wal-Mart, I rarely shop there (I really support their right to come into a community; it doesn't mean I would patronize it). I will sometimes go and buy commodity stuff at Wal-Mart - laundry soap, trash bags, toilet paper, soda, etc. - things I don't need any help with. However, I would never buy a TV, clothes, even a vacuum cleaner there. I would much rather pay a little more and get better service and have a nicer experience. However, there are people out there who only care about price. If there are more people who care about price and not enough people like me to support a more full-service store, then that is life. Whatever the market will bear. I wouldn't buy groceries there either - I'm willing to pay more for better quality. However, not everybody feels that way and those who are price sensitive should not have somebody like me taking away their option.

My point being that your suggestion doesn't address the health care problem in this country, even in the improbable event that it were adopted.

downtown, i can't believe your ignorance.

insanity is a medical condition, often appearing with depression, unemployment, alcohol abuse, etc. it is a very common causes of uninsured hospital admission. without treatment it can lead to violent behavior. and your great aunt edna may become both indigent and crazy.

so downtonw wants mentally disturbed people to wander all over the streets. Well, what could possibly go wrong there?

BuyerBuyer - It's harsh, but that is the reality. Now, if somebody is down on their luck and needs some help for a limited period of time, I'm willing to have the government provide some very temporary relief. However, there are people who will never be able to support themselves and take care of themselves and it is my opinion that government and society must simply right them off. So, the answer to your question, is - "Yes, in some cases". It will never happen but it doesn't mean I don't think it should be that way.