Some Peple just need welfare

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Dynamic:
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.

A fair point. That being said, I'm a graduate student on a fair, but not overly generous fellowship. I can afford the rent on decent accomodation in a metro area with some of the highest rents in Europe.

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).

True. In this country alcohol abuse is the root cause of practically all our social ills and evils. WHile many people with comfortable homes and sizeable incomes do indeed have serious problems with substance abuse, continuing and serious substance abuse will jeopardise this.

 

[Tmy]

I getting the vibe that many of you imagine that welfare goes to these drunken street bumms. This is quite the generalization. Have any of you ever been exposed to the welfare system? How it works? Who gets what and how much??

For the most part here in the US (Massachusetts to be specific) if you see someone whos literally homeless, then chances are they are not on any welfare. (no place to mail the check ya know) Welfare is tough to get if you have no children. Even then it will most likely not last forever. Much like unemployment benefits.

Its not a kings ransome either. I wonder how some people even live off of it. Plus the welfare Department has all sorts of programs designed to ween people off welfare. After a while you'll get tossed unless you have specific reason you cant get a job.

Abuses? Sure. But technology has helped cut that down. For example food stamps are now on a type of personal credit card, so you cant sell your stamps.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

majority of welfare recipients in USA are single white mothers, and they tend to leave welfare within a year or three. or at least this is how it was when I was taking sociology.

 

[Frank Newgent]

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

I hope you're right. May Ireland come close to achieving full employment...

But don't forget to keep a hairy eyeball on those figures.

 

[shanek]

Re: 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?

Look at the graph again. A major downward trend in poverty was abruptly halted at the onset of the welfare state.

 

[shanek]

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

Thanks Shane. Some more questions though; what is the poverty rate an index of,

Read all about it here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor.

what was President Johnson's intervention

His "War on Poverty." Note in the graph that the free market was already doing a tremendous job of fixing that problem. Federal spending, as well as state and local spending, increased dramatically after Johnson's pronouncement. The result was the wild fluctuation you see in the graph.

and what kind of welfare provision was available before his intervention?

Free market solutions, such as charities and employer-led job drives.

Will do!

Wow! Someone who's actually going to do this instead of stamping his feet and demanding that I repeat everything all over again? How refreshing!

 

[shanek]

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

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.

Well, the money is taken out of the economy almost immediately. Since businesses at the end of every fiscal year examine the bottom line, the increase in taxation will have an effect at that time. It may, and usually will, have an effect earlier because businesses are going to try and predict their bottom line in advance and act accordingly, and they'll notice the new taxes.

How long it will take any government program to take effect is a different story. While government is very good at taxation, it can be very slow at implementing a new bureaucracy. So I don't really have an answer for you on that side.

 

[shanek]

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.

Understand that the free market is not going to just sit around and let a potential workforce just go to waste. The economy, though the business cycle, is going to target full production. Anything it has to innovate in order to do so, it will do.

You mentioned the cost of daycare...My ex worked in daycare, and I can tell you from her direct experience that the big reason daycare is so expensive is because of government intervention. She wanted to start her own daycare, and her target to charge parents was $60 per week per child. But as she did the research, it seemed that every bit of government legislation that was there "for the good of the kids" (even when there was no conceivable benefit) drove up costs. She concluded that there was no way to run a daycare with any amount of profits for less than $95 per week per child because of that. Not coincidentally, that was what the other daycars were charging at the time.

 

[shanek]

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?

Is that because their situation drove them to drink or their problem with alcohol led to that situation? (Not making a point here, just asking.)

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

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

Why? Especially given that charities do a much better job at this than government.

 

[Tmy]

How is a single mom with no skills going to grab a job were she can make enough to support her and a kid. Especailly of shes starting from scratch. Taco Bell pays that much?

 

[shanek]

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.

There's another argument for charities over government. Charities are much better at weeding out those who are just pulling a scam because they have an incentive to do so. Government has no such incentive.

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.

Well, then why is a trip to the DMV miserable and humiliating? This doesn't actually minimize abuse, as those who would abuse the system wouldn't care (and might even drive away legitimate recipients because of pride).

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.

There is a demand for low-priced housing, and inasmuch as it can be under government codes and regulations that drive up the price of housing, it can be provided for at a cheap price. Unfortunately, whenever someone sets that up, they're called a "slum lord" by the government who then siezes the property and makes sure it's fixed up so that it's impossible to rent out the property under the former low rates.

 

[Tmy]

There is a demand for low-priced housing, and inasmuch as it can be under government codes and regulations that drive up the price of housing, it can be provided for at a cheap price. Unfortunately, whenever someone sets that up, they're called a "slum lord" by the government who then siezes the property and makes sure it's fixed up so that it's impossible to rent out the property under the former low rates.

God forbid people have heat and running water.

Look around and youll fine these slum apartments still have high rents even if they are not up to codes.

 

[Dymanic]

Well, then why is a trip to the DMV miserable and humiliating?

LOL! Excellent point. Actually, the indignities inflicted on welfare recipients go beyond those experienced at the eligibility interviews, however. But I agree with you that deliberately humiliating potential recipients is a dubious strategy--but since when did government policies have anything to do with effectiveness?

I've always thought you could take a lot of the pressure off the low-cost housing market by providing some areas where free camping was permitted. Some of these people might actually prefer to live 'in a van down by the river'; somebody mentioned it--'outdoorsy types. The policy of bulldozing tent cities doesn't seem to me to solve anything. I know this sort of thing has been experimented with, but I wonder how it would work if we provided big areas--there's lots of BLM land sitting around doing nothing. I never quite got why homeless people always seem to stick to the cities anyway--seems like it would be a lot easier in the boondocks. Hmmm...ok, thinking this through here--safety in numbers maybe.

 

[JAR]

majority of welfare recipients in USA are single white mothers, and they tend to leave welfare within a year or three. or at least this is how it was when I was taking sociology.

Maybe you didn't mean to imply something by this, but this statistic doesn't mean that a white woman is more likely to be on welfare than a black woman. There are about 7 times as many white people in the US as there are black people. Due to this, it is a good idea to check the percentage of people of each ethnic group on welfare before you jump to the conclusion that whites are more likely to be on welfare.

If you didn't mean to imply that whites are more likely to be on welfare, I'm sorry for accusing you.

 

[shanek]

God forbid people have heat and running water.

1) Who says they didn't, and 2) So you'd rather them be homeless?

 

[shanek]

LOL! Excellent point. Actually, the indignities inflicted on welfare recipients go beyond those experienced at the eligibility interviews, however. But I agree with you that deliberately humiliating potential recipients is a dubious strategy--but since when did government policies have anything to do with effectiveness?

I have to admit, you got me there...

I've always thought you could take a lot of the pressure off the low-cost housing market by providing some areas where free camping was permitted. Some of these people might actually prefer to live 'in a van down by the river'; somebody mentioned it--'outdoorsy types. The policy of bulldozing tent cities doesn't seem to me to solve anything.

Agreed. And again, notice that the solution here isn't for the government to do something, but to stop doing something.

 

[jj]

Everybody can work in some way or other.

Really, even the completely disassociated mentally ill?


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.

Capable people should have to work, or find other ways to support themselves.

Your claim that all people are capable is trivially refuted.

 

[Graham]

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?

Granted but whilst cheap and nasty housing is no longer available, cheap beer is very available and extremely nasty.

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.

I suppose you're right, I never had any trouble finding casual work myself and that's relatively recently too.

I note, however, that you say "helped me pay my way through college". Could you have lived solely on those wages including rent/mortgage payments?

Graham

 

[Graham]

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

Well, the money is taken out of the economy almost immediately. Since businesses at the end of every fiscal year examine the bottom line, the increase in taxation will have an effect at that time. It may, and usually will, have an effect earlier because businesses are going to try and predict their bottom line in advance and act accordingly, and they'll notice the new taxes.

How long it will take any government program to take effect is a different story. While government is very good at taxation, it can be very slow at implementing a new bureaucracy. So I don't really have an answer for you on that side.

Actually, looking at the graph again, the timescale is actually mch shorter than I had taken it for at first glance.

As you say, the "war on Poverty" is followed almost immediately (< 5 years) by the levelling off of the downtrend in poverty.

Do you think that the program could have had that much effect, that fast? If I have time late ron, I think I'll look up the details of this "War on Poverty" but I suspect,given the usual progress of government programs, that in five years, the "War on Poverty" was only just beginning.

If I may ask another question as well, if poverty was reducing so dramatically already, why did Johnson decide to start a war anyway?

Graham