- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
It's catastrophic, though, if one earns a little bit too much money and loses ones' benefits eligibility; access to support services that enable independent living and keep care costs down is heavily predicated on SSI/SSDI. Losing this is not only a cruel break for the individual, but also devastating to their family and caregivers, and far, far more expensive for the taxpayer in the long run.Good Will also pays those people below minimum wage.
I mean, he'd be making more than what he makes right now, but as a liberal I must protest the underpayment of these workers, regardless of their mental faculties.
Equal work deserves equal pay.
Goodwill (and similar programs) cannot and should not start paying their workers more in the absence of sweeping structural reform at both the state and federal level. It would be hideously irresponsible.
And people who would be otherwise employable will not infrequently take Goodwill-type jobs so they can do something productive with their time without jeopardizing benefits eligibility. It's a structural problem that makes it nearly impossible for hard-working people to get ahead and gives the lazy an excuse to be lazier.Yeah, but it's not equal work. It's a semi-charity job. Those folks are otherwise unemployable.
Not picking a fight with you guys; I think we're all pretty much on the same page with this stuff. Frankly, I'm pretty keen on the idea of Sweets taking a Goodwill-type job; at the very least, it might give him fresh material for the cringe comedy act that is his life. If nothing else, he can caper for our collective amusement.
Jonathan M. Sweet