Some Peple just need welfare

[shanek]

I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.

In certain countries, begging is more of a profession for some. But I am not talking about those people, just the ones that really don't seem capable of looking after themselves. They wear rags given to them by charities, which are often filthy and soiled.

Should we expect them to work, or be capable of doing anything. If they are not, then how should be provide for them.

Ever heard of charity? Charities are much better at taking care of the poor than government.

And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.

Except for the people running the programs...

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Except for the people running the programs...

If I'm reading this correctly, some 242,464 people were employed in the US Public Welfare system in 2001 at state level, at a total wageroll of $708,166,430, plus another 9,000-odd at federal level costing $49,500,000 or so.

That's a lot of people who would be unemployed if there was no welfare system!

edited because I forgot for a moment that the US is not the entire world

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

That's a lot of people who would be unemployed if there was no welfare system!

How do you know? People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

How do you know? People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity.

I'd be interested in any evidence you have to back up this claim.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.

My favorite begging sign ever was one I saw around the neck of an old floater in Mexico City. Translated, it said: "I am not drunk. I'm crazy. Give me some goddamned money!"

 

[Dymanic]

Once upon a time you looked so fine
Threw the bums a dime in your prime
Didn't you?

Being seen helping those less fortunate has always been a popular way of gaining status. Demonstrating contempt for those less fortunate also seems directed toward this end. When one is having a tough time, it's nice to have someone to look down on.

But things may be a bit more complicated than that.

Giving money (let's say) to someone in desperate need can be a rewarding experience regardless of the purity of one's motivation for doing so. Those of us with means give lots of money to the poor, but the fact that we don't have a choice in the matter tends to take away the potential for the associated warm fuzzies, replacing it with resentment. The government takes our money whether we like it or not, and gives it away to people we never meet, after doing a questionable job of assessing the legitimacy of their need. We don't even get credit for the status points.

I loved this story, and I hope it's true:
I think it was an article in National Geographic. About the city of Calcutta, and a street lined with goldsmith's shops. Thousands of people live in the streets in that city, and those who live on this particular street 'earn a living' by panning in the gutter for flecks of gold which were swept out of the shops. What's important to understand is that the amount of gold which gets swept out of those shops tends to be rather more than it would be if the streets were not filled with hungry people (goldsmithing ordinarily involves the loss of very little--if any--gold). Apparently, in India, ostentatious charitable displays are considered somewhat tacky.

Everybody can work in some way or other.

That depends a lot on what you mean by 'work'. Not everybody who has a job actually works (I wonder how many of the contributions to this thread will be made by people who are at work?).

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Graham
That's a lot of people who would be unemployed if there was no welfare system!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know? People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity.

A little too quick with the rhetoric there

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the people who administer the welfare system. They would be unemployed if there was no welfare system.

You say: "People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity". I assume you have statistics to back this up but are your statistics based ona comparison between people who getting help from charities and people getting welfare at some given moment or a comparison between one society where people are being helped by a welfare system and another where they re being helped by charities?

It seems to me that, if it is the former case, the statistics might be skewed by the fact that people who want to get work would prefer to go to charities for help when they're really stuck than the state because of the stigma they, as industrious people, attach to being on welfare. Thus people on welfare are less likely to get a job because of the type of people they are, rather than because they're on welfare. Maybe if there was no welfare they would just sponge off the charities instead.

Obviously that would be difficult to prove but it is a possibility, no?

Graham

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

I'd be interested in any evidence you have to back up this claim.

Well, check out this graph, made from data from the US Census Bureau:

Poverty was on a sharp decline until the government stepped in with welfare to fix the problem of poverty.

Also check out my previous posts using statistics from Giving, USA to show that the poor would be better off if we ending welfare and cut taxes accordingly.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the people who administer the welfare system. They would be unemployed if there was no welfare system.

Oh, so they're completely unable of getting jobs elsewhere? We should keep one of the most expensive government programs afloat just to give jobs to administrators? Are you really saying that?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Surely this graph shows poverty continued to fall after welfare was introduced, eventually levelling out until it climbed again during the Reagan years when welfare was severely cut?

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Oh, so they're completely unable of getting jobs elsewhere? We should keep one of the most expensive government programs afloat just to give jobs to administrators? Are you really saying that?

Just admit that you missed the point and we'll say no more about it, there's no need to get snippy.

No I wasn't really saying that because that's stupid. Diogenes made a smart-arsed remark and I pointed out that, actually, there was some truth to it, that's all.

Would you care to adress my other point (the one where I asked about your statistics)?

Thanks,

Graham

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Well, check out this graph, made from data from the US Census Bureau:

Poverty was on a sharp decline until the government stepped in with welfare to fix the problem of poverty.

Thanks Shane. Some more questions though; what is the poverty rate an index of, what was President Johnson's intervention and what kind of welfare provision was available before his intervention?

Also check out my previous posts using statistics from Giving, USA to show that the poor would be better off if we ending welfare and cut taxes accordingly.

Will do!
Cheers
Billy

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

*snipped image*

Surely this graph shows poverty continued to fall after welfare was introduced, eventually levelling out until it climbed again during the Reagan years when welfare was severely cut?

How long does it take for an innovation to filter through to the bottom line? That seems very relevant to any discussion of the effects of Johnson's "War on Welfare", based on this graph.

 

[Tmy]

many people on welfare get there because of bad situations. For example their husband-boyfriend leaves. So now you have mom and small kids. Its easy to say "go get a job" but in reality how is she supposed to work and watch te kids at the same time. Daycare? The cost of daycare will most likely add up to more than her paycheck.

This is more of your situation rather than someone sitting at home saying 'O gee I dont want to work".

You want to focus on a true money eating scam, try disabilty abuse.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
Are homeless people simply being priced out of the market?

No, IMO they're drinking themselves out of it. When wsa the last time you saw a homeless person without a bottle or can of something close to hand?

Similarly with jobs. Before Unions and PAYE and PRSI (or whatever taxes/social insurance etc you have in your respective countries) before it became a huge chore to hire/fire someone even for the most menial of tasks, there was a lot more casual work available. It was poorly paid and conditions were for the most part awful but it was an alternative to begging. What do you do nowadays if you're not capable of holding down a regular job?

Right now in this country the unemployment rate is below 5%. For the past number of years we've been having problems with labour shortages. Take it from me, there was an abundance of casual factory and construction work available, which helped me pay my way through college. Wages were good to excellent, and conditions more than tolerable. Even now my father, a construction contractor, is having a hard time to find anyone to mix cement for him.

On a related note here is an example of what happens when governments put their minds to solving pressing social problems. Britains National Health Service now has more administrative staff than hospital beds.

 

[The One called Neo]

Everybody can work in some way or other.

Welfare is only neccesary to ensure that those struggling to find work have a kind of safety net to protect them in the interim.

If people refuse to work they should be forced to. Plain and simple. No spongers please.

They should be forced to work with at least a minimal reasonable wage? Forced to work at something which at least minimally suits their abilities and dispositions? Ok, that's fine. I am in complete agreement.

 

[The One called Neo]

If they can beg they, can pick up trash on the street or some other menial job no one really wants to do. If working people can be forced to do community service as part of punishment for getting caught breaking laws, why can't bums do community service of some kind in order to get a welfare check.

Because that would be incredibly unethical. If they do work that no-one else wants to do they should at least get paid for it more than a welfare check represents. Indeed, from an ethical perspective they should get vastly more.

 

[The One called Neo]

Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Ever heard of charity? Charities are much better at taking care of the poor than government.

And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.

It ought to be the responsibility of government, not charities.

 

[Dymanic]

You want to focus on a true money eating scam, try disabilty abuse.

I think you've put your finger right on it. It's abuse of the system that is the problem. Most people wouldn't have any problem with helping those who really need it; it's the idea that they are being forced to help those who are actually capable of being self-sufficient that grates. To help minimize abuse by fakers, the system is designed to be as humiliating as possible for the recipients. The idea seems to be to make welfare such an undesireable alternative that all but the truly desperate will be driven away. I think a lot of the individuals you see out there begging (as well as many who practice crime) do that because they see it as less degrading than welfare. It is interesting to note that while begging is coming to be treated as criminal in many places, in some cultures it is traditionally considered a legitimate--even respectable-- profession. A beggar provides a valuable service in providing others with the opportunity to practice compassion.

Are homeless people simply being priced out of the market?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, IMO they're drinking themselves out of it. When wsa the last time you saw a homeless person without a bottle or can of something close to hand?...

...Right now in this country the unemployment rate is below 5%.

Remember that it is not the job market specifically that we are talking about here; it's the housing market. Being employed is not an absolute guarantee of being able to afford (or find) a place to live. Here in California, many owners of rental properties are using credit references as a means of screening prospective tenants.

I agree that substance abuse is closely tied to homelessness, but it is unclear to what extent it is cause versus effect--I think in many cases, it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle; besides, many people who do have jobs and homes also have substance abuse problems--maybe even bigger ones ('cause they can afford it).