Welfare vs Economic Inequality

[Texashiker]

And "need" is not a useful or accurate description when the problem is largely self-created by people dropping out of school, having babies as teenagers, doing drugs, etc.

The problem has nothing to do with anything you listed.

There are plenty of people out there that barley finished high school, or dropped out, and went on to be very successful in life.

I worked with welders who made $75k - $100k a year, and never finished high school. But those people applied themselves. They learned a skill, worked on off-shore drilling rigs for weeks and months at a time. They did what it took to make money.

What you're missing is that without a motivating factor (like hunger), there are huge amounts of people who will sit on their ass and not do shit.

How do you motivate someone that does not want to be motivated?

Some people have no desire to contribute anything to society. Our prisons are full of such people.

 

[glenn1]

Right, because money to Politicians is simply not real. They can always deficit spend, and can always just blow money.

Do you guys really think that "civil rights leaders" who have the ability to stir up large voting demographics are going to sit by watching their constituency be kicked off the welfare rolls, or, made to actually contribute instead of sitting there collecting welfare??? F no. Those same leaders are going to be getting one on one facetime immediately (that the common man would never get) with Pols and making it known that what the Pols are considering is simply unacceptable. The consequences to going forward would be loss of that voting demographic, even strong active resistance against the Pols supporting such an effort come election time.

The Pols know this. The most important thing in a Pols world is not doing their job, not The People, but, is to get re-elected. It is for this reason that Pols in the numbers required are never going to do real social service reform. They'll play at it, make it look good for The Public while behind closed doors they'll be making sure the "civil rights leaders" are placated and know that nothing is really going to be done to kick their folks off the rolls or really make it any harder for them to buy Pepsi and Cheetos at the local gas station on the publics dime.

And the world turns.....

Chuck

Fuck the civil rights leaders and the demographics they represent. Politicians don't fear them since the people they represent are such monolithic voters for one party. What is Al Sharpton going to do if a politician cuts welfare, tell folks to vote Republican instead?

 

[chucky2]

Why should a worker expect a raise? To deal with inflation, and to improve the workers standard of living.

Yes, they should expect a raise like COLA. They should expect a bonus/profit sharing check if the company does good. They should hope for a raise if they've done a good job that year.

But saying worker productivity has increased over these x decades and then correllate that to worker income is really wrong IMO. That bulk of that productivity increase wasn't from anything the workers themselves did to increase productivity.

Chuck

 

[Texashiker]

But saying worker productivity has increased over these x decades and then correllate that to worker income is really wrong IMO. That bulk of that productivity increase wasn't from anything the workers themselves did to increase productivity.

Chuck

If the federal reserve can print money out of thin air, then give that money to the banks, I want a raise.

If people on wall street can get million dollar bonuses at the end of the year, I want a raise.

 

[blankslate]

The government has been talking about welfare-to-work programs for at least 25 years, and nothing has been done.

Do we know this? Perhaps people have tried to do things but I doubt there was much that could be done since as far as I recall the political climate in terms of parties viewing people in the other party as "enemies" rather than fellow citizens who hold a different viewpoint is almost as old as when welfare reform was proposed.

I asked the same question: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...2&postcount=13

Didn't see it I actually heard the question on a radio stream.

 

[glenn1]

How do you motivate someone that does not want to be motivated?

Some people have no desire to contribute anything to society. Our prisons are full of such people.

Send them to the OPs neighborhood so he can pay for their shit; welfare by one-way bus ticket. SF loves those homeless people, what's one more?

 

[chucky2]

Fuck the civil rights leaders and the demographics they represent. Politicians don't fear them since the people they represent are such monolithic voters for one party. What is Al Sharpton going to do if a politician cuts welfare, tell folks to vote Republican instead?

If Pols were actually held to spend only the tax dollars that are brought in, and, those tax dollars were actually chopped back to sane amounts, then you'd be right.

But, none of that is true.

And, because of that, no Pol that depends on those voting demographics, and, no Pol that wants a war with those voting demograhics, and, no Pol that wants any negativity against him/her from those voting demograhpics/TheSuperSaneAndUnbiasedMedia, is going to take any chance on costing theirself a vote come election time vs. proper social services.

The only Pols who would take this on in any real manner are Pols who have voter demographics that are just far to the side of proper social services and don't need to worry if Al, TheSuperSaneAndUnbiasedMedia, etc. go on a crusade against him/her. That, and people in Pol positions who aren't Pols and don't care if they get re-elected or not, who just want to do the right thing.

I'd submit these last two groups of Pol/people are massively outweighed by the former 3 groups Pols, and, because of that, and the no constraints in spending, the problems we have with social services will never, ever, be fixed.

Hey...it's what The People wanted/want, who are we The Minority to say different?

Chuck

 

[Farmer]

Welfare WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT TO FIND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT OR OTHERWISE BECOME A PRODUCTIVE ELEMENT OF SOCIETY within a reasonable amount of time is simply rewarding laziness.

For example, because the federal government will give you welfare for being a single mother, the amount of which SCALES WITH THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN YOU HAVE, you as a low income or unemployed mother, are encouraged to have as many children as possible. These children for the most part, grow up to be similarly unproductive and are in fact a huge factor in crime.

There was a Forbes article that said a single mother in France would make $100 more per month if she worked a minimum wage job versus just remaining on unemployment/welfare. A welfare system that does not reward contributing to the economy does not work.

I have had many working class individuals (some of whom hold 2 jobs to support their families, as opposed to relying on their neighbors) tell me that they are tired of seeing people on EBT/government welfare buy better food, wear nicer clothes, and drive more expensive cars than they can, simply because they qualify for EBT. This system is GROSSLY UNSUSTAINABLE.

 

[blankslate]

Yes, they should expect a raise like COLA. They should expect a bonus/profit sharing check if the company does good. They should hope for a raise if they've done a good job that year.

But saying worker productivity has increased over these x decades and then correllate that to worker income is really wrong IMO.

That bulk of that productivity increase wasn't from anything the workers themselves did to increase productivity.

Chuck

But that's the point. Companies made more money, in general, from the extra productivity.

Yet from the 70s to about 2008 the workers didn't see as much from that increased productivity as they did from the 40s to the 70s.

So the workers are required to invent tools, techniques, and technology (used to increase productivity) in order to see increased wages from learning how to apply those to increase their productivity?

If you apply that standard then almost no individual deserved increased wages (or salaries)... doesn't matter if they are a member of the board of a company, it's CEO, CFO or other officers as well as the average employee of the company.

 

[Texashiker]

Welfare WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT TO FIND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT OR OTHERWISE BECOME A PRODUCTIVE ELEMENT OF SOCIETY, is simply rewarding laziness.

You can require all you want.

Until the person is taught a work ethic and some kind of skill, nothing is going to change.

Education and motivation are the key factors to getting people off welfare.

 

[chucky2]

If the federal reserve can print money out of thin air, then give that money to the banks, I want a raise.

If people on wall street can get million dollar bonuses at the end of the year, I want a raise.

Yes, well, you aren't a large bank. Open a large bank and you'll get money. If you want million dollar bonuses, go get yourself a wall street job that pays those bonuses.

I never said the system was fair. I just said that people expecting raises because their productivity went up due to them using a computer rather than a ledger book really isn't a reason for them to get a raise. They aren't the reason for the productivity bump, the computer is.

 

[Texashiker]

I never said the system was fair. I just said that people expecting raises because their productivity went up due to them using a computer rather than a ledger book really isn't a reason for them to get a raise. They aren't the reason for the productivity bump, the computer is.

I want a raise because there is more money in the system now then when this thread was started.

 

[Farmer]

You can require all you want.

Until the person is taught a work ethic and some kind of skill, nothing is going to change.

Education and motivation are the key factors to getting people off welfare.

How about this for motivation: if you don't find a job, you'll be out on the streets with no food.

 

[Matt1970]

Well, I've heard the question asked "Is it better for an economy for 1 person to have a billion dollars or 1000 people who have a million dollars each?".

Maybe that question address some of the points you're getting at in your original post.

Here is a factoid I remember from an interview with the author of this book.

Anyway from the 40's to the early to mid 70s worker productivity almost doubled. And wages when adjusted for inflation increased by a similar amount

However, from the early to mid 70's to about 2008 worker productivity went up by about 60% (iirc) and yet the worker's wages only increased an average of 20%

When he started research for the book (which was initially going to focus mainly on the housing crises) the author found more and more interesting information and ended up writing about a much broader subject.

You're pretty much not going to get reasoned responses to your post rather than variations on talking points defending a person's P.o.V.

Hopefully you get lucky and that's not the case.

Those were different times back then. Higher labor rates could be offset by higher prices and we didn’t have to worry about much if any foreign competition in the retail market. 1970 is the first year we started running trade deficits and by the 2000’s our trade deficit is the better part of $1 Trillion. What manufacturing we do here has to be either heavily automated or not be in direct competition with the same product made overseas by countries than manipulate their currency and/or use slave labor.

Americans demand a clean safe work environment that is also friendly to the environment but we have no problem buying products made in countries that have none of that. Labor unions and big business alike warned us about this decades ago and now we are paying the price. Sure big business added to the problem but the all mighty purchasing dollar can dictate a hell of a lot more than a CEO can.

It really is simple, buy American, the rest will work itself out.

 

[Texashiker]

How about this for motivation: if you don't find a job, you'll be out on the streets with no food.

I have posted about this family I know in other threads, so I am going to use them as an example.

They have been on welfare for three generations - the grandmother, the adult child, and now an infant grandchild. Out of 5 kids, only one has a job.

They have no job training, no skills, no education past high school.

Telling them to go to work is a futile effort, as they have no idea what work is past minimum wage.

The grandmother used to work at a local fastfood place, the husband makes around $8 or $9 an hour.

 

[chucky2]

But that's the point. Companies made more money, in general, from the extra productivity.

Good. The company invested in the tech, and the company got the reward. What's the problem?

Yet from the 70s to about 2008 the workers didn't see as much from that increased productivity as they did from the 40s to the 70s.

I'd expect that. Far more tech from everyday jobs was applied during the 40s to 70s than from the 70s to 08. If you have an clerk who has a calculator in 1975 and it dies, and you give him a new calculater in 2000, what changed? The price of the calculator to the company. The clerk is still using a calculator. If you put in a new accounting, inventory, and ordering system in 2006, and replace most of your clerks using calculators with computers, and the remaining employees are manning the computers, you have even more efficient employees, but fewer of them.

So the workers are required to invent tools, techniques, and technology to increase productivity in order to see increased wages from learning how to apply those to increase their productivity?

If you apply that standard then almost no individual deserved increased wages (or salaries)... doesn't matter if they are a member of the board of a company, it's CEO, CFO or other officers as well as the average employee of the company.

Right, they don't. Other than everyone wanting 'higher wages' for largely doing the exact thing they were doing the year before, compounded year after year, there really isn't a need to increase wages. Everyone wants more money though. Everyone thinks they deserve more money though. So the companies throw their employees a (small) bone every year, to keep morale at acceptable levels.

A guy on an assembly line putting nut A on bolt B isn't anymore efficient than his grandpa doing the same thing. It's just his grandpa showed up each and every day instead of claiming he needed medical and sitting out for a few months collecting disability. No need to grant raises for that...

Chuck

 

[Farmer]

I have posted about this family I know in other threads, so I am going to use them as an example.

They have been on welfare for three generations - the grandmother, the adult child, and now an infant grandchild. Out of 5 kids, only one has a job.

They have no job training, no skills, no education past high school.

Telling them to go to work is a futile effort, as they have no idea what work is past minimum wage.

The grandmother used to work at a local fastfood place, the husband makes around $8 or $9 an hour.

If they cannot find a job to support their family, why did they find it necessary to have 5 children that they were obviously incapable of supporting? Don't you think that's a bit irresponsible?

If they work hard, good on them. There is no training required to be a fast food worker. Plenty of jobs that you can pick up as you go.

 

[chucky2]

What does irresponsible mean? How do I know to even ask that question if that question never pops into my mind or is forced upon me?

Answer that and you'll have your answers...

 

[Texashiker]

If they cannot find a job to support their family, why did they find it necessary to have 5 children that they were obviously incapable of supporting? Don't you think that's a bit irresponsible?

Yes, it is very irresponsible. People that know the family think they did it to keep the welfare coming in. They live on some land owned by a family member.

When one of the older children reach 18, the mom popped out another kid.

The second oldest child applied for SS disability when she turned 18 years old and was approved.

This is a extreme example of people playing the system, I hope stuff like this does not happen all the time.

 

[chucky2]

Yes, it is very irresponsible. People that know the family think they did it to keep the welfare coming in. They live on some land owned by a family member.

When one of the older children reach 18, the mom popped out another kid.

The second oldest child applied for SS disability when she turned 18 years old and was approved.

This is a extreme example of people playing the system, I hope stuff like this does not happen all the time.

Hahahahahahahaha, hahahhahahaha, hahahahahaha, infinitum....

 

[Texashiker]

Hahahahahahahaha, hahahhahahaha, hahahahahaha, infinitum....

And we wonder why social security is going broke?

 

[glenn1]

I have posted about this family I know in other threads, so I am going to use them as an example.

They have been on welfare for three generations - the grandmother, the adult child, and now an infant grandchild. Out of 5 kids, only one has a job.

They have no job training, no skills, no education past high school.

Telling them to go to work is a futile effort, as they have no idea what work is past minimum wage.

The grandmother used to work at a local fastfood place, the husband makes around $8 or $9 an hour.

I don't care if they work past minimum wage so long as they are working period, just stop giving them money for nothing. Hell, even the communists with their "to each according to their need" figured that out.

 

[lotus503]

If you end welfare tomorrow the American public is going to look for corporate America to fill the gap. By providing jobs, higher wages and benefits.

That's why there will be no end to welfare, because in addition to helping to recipient it helps the corps keep wages and employee costs low for higher profits at the government and tax payers expense.

 

[mikegg]

Yes, it is very irresponsible. People that know the family think they did it to keep the welfare coming in. They live on some land owned by a family member.

When one of the older children reach 18, the mom popped out another kid.

The second oldest child applied for SS disability when she turned 18 years old and was approved.

This is a extreme example of people playing the system, I hope stuff like this does not happen all the time.

And those people will have their luck run out soon. Hopefully.

 

[lotus503]

I don't care if they work past minimum wage so long as they are working period, just stop giving them money for nothing. Hell, even the communists with their "to each according to their need" figured that out.

this is assuming there are enough jobs to go around, and there isn't.

You could do some sort of publicly funded government works programs, but that's the socialism a lot hate around here.