Is poverty voluntary?

[realibrad]

Yeah I suggest you actually read the report, you are wrong on every count.

And yes, most people are on assistance for less than four months at a time, however they are on it for less than five years total.
No matter how you cut it, rudeguys claim, "society has made welfare a lifetime source of easy income", is false.

Here is some of the data I could find.

These 2 graphs are from 1999, but so is your paper so it seemed more relevant.

http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/310548.html

And there is this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/welfare052799.htm

Antipoverty advocates, however, point to evidence that many former welfare recipients are struggling to make ends meet. The GAO report shows that many of the jobs they obtain are short-lived, the majority are low-paying and between 19 percent and 30 percent of the people who leave welfare find it necessary to return to the rolls.

Now, the paper you linked to was about dependency. That is why in the very first sentence it says "The welfare indicators act of 1994 requires the department of health and human services to prepare annual reports to congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence."

It does not look at long term return rates. If you think it does, please show me where. I have linked relevant data from the time that your paper was made. So how was what I said wrong?

 

[werepossum]

Yes, dignified work. You know, work where you aren't actively being exploited by your employer and earn an honest wage for an honest day's work. Since you also come from a rural area, I'd think that is something you would understand. The jobs you listed still typically fall under that umbrella, provided they were paid a fair wage for doing them. Hell, I've done some of them myself. Perhaps they didn't use that particular qualifier, but I do believe that it was implied.

An honest wage is what someone offers to have the work done and someone else is willing to take, period. Minimum wage isn't about dignity or honesty, it's about having work pay more than non-work, because in any system with safety nets the market doesn't guarantee that a particular job pays more than the dole.

Yeah, the better phrasing is whether people are willing to do what's required to remain out of poverty than voluntarily choosing it. Things like stay in school and get a diploma rather than dropping out, not having kids out of wedlock as a teen, not dealing drugs or joining a criminal gang, being wiling to move to another area for a job opportunity, willingness to start in a low/menial position and work your way up over time, etc.

Even just doing the first three of those will pretty much assure you don't live in deep poverty; depending on your aptitude, soft skills, and some luck you may never reach the upper class or even beyond low middle class/working poor, but you won't be destitute either.

Agreed, and well said.

That said, it's to our benefit to provide ways for people who have royally fucked all three to climb out of poverty if they have the desire.

He knows; he just doesn't think about what he says. He doesn't know the difference between dignity and childish egotistical pride.

Look at the bright side - I'm probably just another voice in your head, so no need to kill me.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you fucking shitting me right now? My report is from 1999? How the fuck do you figure that when the data set goes to 2012! You clearly didn't even bother reading the report!

The report, btw, was taken directly from the health and human services website! You know, the federal agency that the 1994 act requires to provide statistics about assistance programs!

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators-rtc/index.cfm

Thanks for wasting my fucking time!

Here is some of the data I could find.

These 2 graphs are from 1999, but so is your paper so it seemed more relevant.

http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/310548.html

And there is this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/welfare052799.htm




Now, the paper you linked to was about dependency. That is why in the very first sentence it says "The welfare indicators act of 1994 requires the department of health and human services to prepare annual reports to congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence."

It does not look at long term return rates. If you think it does, please show me where. I have linked relevant data from the time that your paper was made. So how was what I said wrong?

 

[realibrad]

Are you fucking shitting me right now? My report is from 1999? How the fuck do you figure that when the data set goes to 2012! You clearly didn't even bother reading the report!

The report, btw, was taken directly from the health and human services website! You know, the federal agency that the 1994 act requires to provide statistics about assistance programs!

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators-rtc/index.cfm

Thanks for wasting my fucking time!

Fair enough, Ill find more recent data. That being said, where do you see it countering my point that many people leave and come back?

Edit*
So, looking through, it seems like most of the research on "welfare cycling" stopped around early 2000's.

 

[ivwshane]

Fair enough, Ill find more recent data. That being said, where do you see it countering my point that many people leave and come back?

You don't need to find more recent data, I already provided that, straight from the source!

 

[HeXen]

If every poor to middle class adult suddenly figured out their own niche to potentially be millionaires, America would fall quickly.

 

[JMapleton]

Becoming rich is largely a matter of luck.

You just threw away all of your credibility with such an ignorant statement.

 

[HeXen]

You just threw away all of your credibility with such an ignorant statement.

I would say becoming rich is about opportunity as apposed to luck but you could say that having such opportunities is lucky, so I don't totally disagree with him. There are a lot of people that did all the right things in life that should have made them rich but didn't due to the fact that life happens.
For example, not every great musician gets the opportunities needed that could potentially make them wealthy no matter how hard they try.

 

[realibrad]

You don't need to find more recent data, I already provided that, straight from the source!

So where does your data show that welfare cycling is not a frequent thing. Direct me to the spot in the paper that makes everything I said wrong?

 

[ivwshane]

So where does your data show that welfare cycling is not a frequent thing. Direct me to the spot in the paper that makes everything I said wrong?

I did, it starts at page 51 and continues. I'm not sure what more you want from me, I found the data, I linked to the report, I read the report, I specified page numbers. If you are really interested in the truth then you will need to do some work on your own.

 

[Moonbeam]

Look at the bright side - I'm probably just another voice in your head, so no need to kill me.

Not hardly. You breezed in here spouting inanities about the lack of a need for dignity of work and now you're gonna limp out, unless you want to amend what you said so you don't sound completely crazy. Unless you have some moral baseline below which you think no human being should sink then you're not really human, much less sub par to tell me anything about not seeing others as real.

 

[werepossum]

Not hardly. You breezed in here spouting inanities about the lack of a need for dignity of work and now you're gonna limp out, unless you want to amend what you said so you don't sound completely crazy. Unless you have some moral baseline below which you think no human being should sink then you're not really human, much less sub par to tell me anything about not seeing others as real.

lol Feel free to add dignity to the list of things you feel the world owes you.

 

[rudeguy]

So where does your data show that welfare cycling is not a frequent thing. Direct me to the spot in the paper that makes everything I said wrong?

Don't fall for the shell game.

The question to ask is how many of the people on welfare actually go back to work vs how many go on Social Security. How many of them no longer receive any government benefits (AKA: welfare) vs how many of them become self supporting.

The honest truth is we have 50% of the people in this country on government assistance (welfare). That is even though the media tells us the economy is booming and the job market is on fire. Well if the economy is so good and there are so many jobs, why are half the people in the country on welfare?

 

[fskimospy]

Don't fall for the shell game.

The question to ask is how many of the people on welfare actually go back to work vs how many go on Social Security. How many of them no longer receive any government benefits (AKA: welfare) vs how many of them become self supporting.

The honest truth is we have 50% of the people in this country on government assistance (welfare). That is even though the media tells us the economy is booming and the job market is on fire. Well if the economy is so good and there are so many jobs, why are half the people in the country on welfare?

Why are you trying to conflate social security, which is a program people have paid into for their whole lives, and welfare? They are totally different things. Counting those two populations together and then talking about the state of the job market is silliness.

 

[rudeguy]

Why are you trying to conflate social security, which is a program people have paid into for their whole lives, and welfare? They are totally different things. Counting those two populations together and then talking about the state of the job market is silliness.

Ahh shit. I meant to put SSDI. My fault on that one man!

I'm still a quart low on coffee.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol Feel free to add dignity to the list of things you feel the world owes you.

Thank you.... Already taken care of:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Want to continue to explain why you haven't the dignity to know that the requirement for dignity isn't self evident, that the end of the stick of this argument you took is the one with shit all over it?

 

[realibrad]

I did, it starts at page 51 and continues. I'm not sure what more you want from me, I found the data, I linked to the report, I read the report, I specified page numbers. If you are really interested in the truth then you will need to do some work on your own.

OK, so I looked over the data from page 51-63. Page 64 starts into the number of people considered to be in poverty.

So, the data you seem to think supports what you claimed is from 51-63 it would seem.

Page 51 is about length of spell. It does not say anything about people returning, just the avg number of months people were on welfare in consecutive months.

Page 52 is about food stamps in the same format with data up to 2011 but is also about the consecutive months people were on it. It does not say anything about people returning.

Page 53 is about "welfare spell duration with no labor force attachment". This is also about consecutive months, and does not say anything about people returning.

Page 54 is the same thing as page 53 but with more complete data. It has nothing to do with people returning to welfare.

Page 55 starts to get interesting. Up until now, nothing has addressed my earlier claim about people returning. The data here though is about mothers so not a great representation of everyone.

Page 56 breaks down the data on mothers. It appears that from 1999-2008 (2008 being the most recent data) 71.5% of mothers received some welfare for 1-2 years. 20.5% received some welfare for 3-5 years. 6.9% received some welfare for 6-8 years. This is starting to support my claim that people return.

Page 57 is about events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells for mothers. This addresses another claim I made but the group is only limited to single mothers.

30.3% left because of higher earnings. Your claim was that this is the typical reason people left.
"Forty-six percent of welfare exits during the 2004-2006 time period were not associated with any of the events listed above within the same period observed." This would prove wrong your claim, as 46% is larger than 30.3%

Page 58 is a further break down of page 57 and it again supports my claim.

Page 59 is about events that led to the entry of welfare programs

Page 60 is a break down of page 59.

Page 61 is blank.

Page 62 is about "predictors and risk factors associated with welfare receipt"
Everything else has nothing to do with your or my claim.

So, where do you think you see the data that shows I was wrong in the report?

I am pretty sure the answer is that there is not. You likely found a report that you did not fully understand. The relevant data was not all that relevant as it mainly dealt with mothers, and not all persons on welfare, but the data that was there supported my claim.

So...?

 

[Exophase]

I highly disagree.

Regardless of poverty, what is preventing you from
1) Going to School
2) Getting good grades (studying)
3) Going to College (based on scholarships from doing well in college - or just take out a loan if needed)
4) Having a successful career

Where in ANY of that does poverty play a factor? Outside of having a place to lay your head for the night? NONE. Poverty plays ZERO part in that. If you need something, chances are the school has no problem supplying you with it (Free meals, library/place to study, technology/computers/books to study).

It's HABITS. Bad habits. And poverty may be a common pool of people prone to bad habits, but it certainly isn't the overall cause.

It's much harder to concentrate on school and get good grades if you come from a broken impoverished family where your parents (or more and more likely, parent) themselves were miserable and constantly distracted by trying to make ends meet. If they didn't have the time and energy to instill some level of discipline in you and you don't happen to be especially gifted focusing on studying and good grades is going to seem like an impossibility. And the more you fall behind the more hopeless it'll feel.

I lacked structure and discipline while being raised by my mother and fell very behind in elementary and especially middle school where I finally stopped going and failed everything. I was able to turn that around (nothing below A- in high school, college, or grad school) but only because I was shipped off to schools with much more rigid structure (which my mother could afford only through an inheritance from my grandmother). If I didn't have that I don't know what would have happened to me. I might have still been able to be successful making apps w/o an education and career, but even then I don't know if I'd have the focus and confidence to get that far because for a long time I didn't even think I would be able to see any kind of useful project through to the end, something that didn't change until I was in college.

Going to college won't necessarily help you very much either. If you pick the wrong degree (even one that looks hot at the time) you could be saddled with little increased job opportunities and much increased debt. If your family is knee deep in poverty you may feel more compelled to take whatever menial job you can get after graduating high school (or before, and at the expense of) to help them out rather than abandoning them on a crapshoot.

 

[glenn1]

That said, it's to our benefit to provide ways for people who have royally fucked all three to climb out of poverty if they have the desire.

So what do we do with people who don't have the desire and are content to either game the system or accept the standard of living that public welfare affords them? To make it on a more relatable scale, do we allow our slacker stoner children to continue living in our basement at 40 years old or kick them out and force them to make their own way?

Or to put it another way, what does society owe the poor after the social safety net meets their basic existential needs like food, shelter, and essential medical care? The answer from the left seems to be "more than that" and use wealth disparities to justify doing more.

 

[werepossum]

Thank you.... Already taken care of:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Want to continue to explain why you haven't the dignity to know that the requirement for dignity isn't self evident, that the end of the stick of this argument you took is the one with shit all over it?

The pursuit of happiness. NOT happiness. NOT dignity. Just a chance to earn it.

Nobody owes you a damned thing. Government has not become abusive just because we don't all buy you a pony.

So what do we do with people who don't have the desire and are content to either game the system or accept the standard of living that public welfare affords them? To make it on a more relatable scale, do we allow our slacker stoner children to continue living in our basement at 40 years old or kick them out and force them to make their own way?

Or to put it another way, what does society owe the poor after the social safety net meets their basic existential needs like food, shelter, and essential medical care? The answer from the left seems to be "more than that" and use wealth disparities to justify doing more.

We pretty much kick out our male slacker stoner children. It's a bit more complicated for women - we don't really have the stomach to do the same, and anyway they can simply doff off children to get meals and shelter from us. Personally I'd say basic existential needs, but also opportunity - as long as they are willing to work at it.

 

[Moonbeam]

The pursuit of happiness. NOT happiness. NOT dignity. Just a chance to earn it.

Nobody owes you a damned thing. Government has not become abusive just because we don't all buy you a pony.

Oh boy, you just go right ahead and get in the way of my dignity and see if I don't later and abolish you. My rights including the right to dignity are inalienable, they aren't owed to me. They are mine as part of my being. And not only that, but they are reciprocal. I owe you your dignity just as I have mine. I can't take your dignity without losing my own. That is why your position is inherently worthless. You can't have it and have any dignity. Congratulations on confessing your own lack of self worth.

 

[Moonbeam]

We pretty much kick out our male slacker stoner children. It's a bit more complicated for women - we don't really have the stomach to do the same, and anyway they can simply doff off children to get meals and shelter from us. Personally I'd say basic existential needs, but also opportunity - as long as they are willing to work at it.

Please pay no attention to this bull shit. I think your question as to what to do deserves its own thread but it has come up over and over again and I'm rather tired of having to give a better answer over and over again. The fact is that people don't want an answer because their egos are wrapped up in their stupid solutions.

 

[ivwshane]

Congrats on doing the bare minimum amount of reading! Rather than waste my time even more. I'll just post a recent article and a recent census report that debunks your claims. But feel free to link to a paper from 1999.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/who-gets-stuck-collecting-government-benefits-000077

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf

Which of course is also backed up by the other report that I linked to that you selectively read.

OK, so I looked over the data from page 51-63. Page 64 starts into the number of people considered to be in poverty.

So, the data you seem to think supports what you claimed is from 51-63 it would seem.

Page 51 is about length of spell. It does not say anything about people returning, just the avg number of months people were on welfare in consecutive months.

Page 52 is about food stamps in the same format with data up to 2011 but is also about the consecutive months people were on it. It does not say anything about people returning.

Page 53 is about "welfare spell duration with no labor force attachment". This is also about consecutive months, and does not say anything about people returning.

Page 54 is the same thing as page 53 but with more complete data. It has nothing to do with people returning to welfare.

Page 55 starts to get interesting. Up until now, nothing has addressed my earlier claim about people returning. The data here though is about mothers so not a great representation of everyone.

Page 56 breaks down the data on mothers. It appears that from 1999-2008 (2008 being the most recent data) 71.5% of mothers received some welfare for 1-2 years. 20.5% received some welfare for 3-5 years. 6.9% received some welfare for 6-8 years. This is starting to support my claim that people return.

Page 57 is about events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells for mothers. This addresses another claim I made but the group is only limited to single mothers.

30.3% left because of higher earnings. Your claim was that this is the typical reason people left.
"Forty-six percent of welfare exits during the 2004-2006 time period were not associated with any of the events listed above within the same period observed." This would prove wrong your claim, as 46% is larger than 30.3%

Page 58 is a further break down of page 57 and it again supports my claim.

Page 59 is about events that led to the entry of welfare programs

Page 60 is a break down of page 59.

Page 61 is blank.

Page 62 is about "predictors and risk factors associated with welfare receipt"
Everything else has nothing to do with your or my claim.

So, where do you think you see the data that shows I was wrong in the report?

I am pretty sure the answer is that there is not. You likely found a report that you did not fully understand. The relevant data was not all that relevant as it mainly dealt with mothers, and not all persons on welfare, but the data that was there supported my claim.

So...?

 

[realibrad]

Congrats on doing the bare minimum amount of reading! Rather than waste my time even more. I'll just post a recent article and a recent census report that debunks your claims. But feel free to link to a paper from 1999.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/who-gets-stuck-collecting-government-benefits-000077

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf

Which of course is also backed up by the other report that I linked to that you selectively read.

I am now going over the 2 new links you just provided, but what is the other link that I supposedly ignored? I went back through your posts and I see only the 1 link. Can you show me what other link I missed?

 

[realibrad]

Congrats on doing the bare minimum amount of reading! Rather than waste my time even more. I'll just post a recent article and a recent census report that debunks your claims. But feel free to link to a paper from 1999.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/who-gets-stuck-collecting-government-benefits-000077

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf

Which of course is also backed up by the other report that I linked to that you selectively read.

Well, thank you for finding data that I had been looking for.

Figure 3 shows the accumulated
(not necessarily consecutive)
months of participation in major
means-tested assistance programs
for people who received
the specified benefit type in 1 or
more months over the 48-month
observation period. Of people who
participated in one or more major
means-tested assistance programs
between January 2009 and December
2012, a higher percentage of
people participated between 37
and 48 months (43.0 percent) than
participated between 1 and 12
months (31.2 percent), between 13
and 24 months (13.9 percent), and
between 25 and 36 months (11.9
percent).

The data is on page 4. It clearly shows that if you look at the 48 month period in a nonconsecutive way, you see the very thing I said. While the average consecutive months may have been 1-4, people go back on after leaving. So...thanks for providing the data I had been looking for. You were a great help in proving my claim.