GSU study: Welfare programs discourage work, marriage (section 8, house)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I view social programs the same way I view SSRIs and other anti-depressant drugs: they are good safety nets that sometimes people really need and they can help them get over humps in their lives. However, neither are appropriate for long-term use and the longer they are used, the harder they are to withdraw from.
I'm a big fan of Adam Carolla, who grew up on government assistance. His take is that when you are on assistance for a long time, it destroys you psychologically and you eventually reach a mental state where you actually become more or less mentally incapable of working a real job. It doesn't necessarily mean you are lazy to begin with, but relying on someone else to live is very emotionally debilitating. Another interesting take he has on it which sounds true to me is he often talks about now that he has money, he will loan it to friends who don't have a lot of money. After a while, instead of being appreciative of the loan, they begin to resent him for it. Instead of thinking he's a nice guy for helping them out, they begin asking why he has so much and they have so little. A lot of people have that view of the world, and it's a dangerous view to have. It's easy to see the people who were born lucky with big trust funds or whatever, but the truth is that most people who are successful are that way because of lot of hard work and making good decisions in life. Instead of admitting you aren't as disciplined or that maybe you've made some poor decisions, it's easy to start to think life isn't fair and the deck is stacked against you. Of course life isn't fair, but it's never too late to get disciplined and start making good decisions. Government assistance seems to make this harder to do instead of easier.
I don't really have an answer. You don't want to put a limit on things, because what's the alternative? Just letting people starve or become homeless? We decided as a society that we aren't going to do that. But there is a real problem of dependence that we need to figure out.
And of course, as well all know, blacks are lazier than whites.
Just kidding, that's a little bit of cqholt satire for this thread!!!!
The only thing I will say about race is that in a city like Atlanta, it may seem like more blacks are on government assistance than whites, but I don't know if that is true overall. There may be more whites on it than blacks because it is very common to see in predominantly white rural areas as well as predominantly black urban ones.
I view social programs the same way I view SSRIs and other anti-depressant drugs: they are good safety nets that sometimes people really need and they can help them get over humps in their lives. However, neither are appropriate for long-term use and the longer they are used, the harder they are to withdraw from.
I'm a big fan of Adam Carolla, who grew up on government assistance. His take is that when you are on assistance for a long time, it destroys you psychologically and you eventually reach a mental state where you actually become more or less mentally incapable of working a real job. It doesn't necessarily mean you are lazy to begin with, but relying on someone else to live is very emotionally debilitating. Another interesting take he has on it which sounds true to me is he often talks about now that he has money, he will loan it to friends who don't have a lot of money. After a while, instead of being appreciative of the loan, they begin to resent him for it. Instead of thinking he's a nice guy for helping them out, they begin asking why he has so much and they have so little. A lot of people have that view of the world, and it's a dangerous view to have. It's easy to see the people who were born lucky with big trust funds or whatever, but the truth is that most people who are successful are that way because of lot of hard work and making good decisions in life. Instead of admitting you aren't as disciplined or that maybe you've made some poor decisions, it's easy to start to think life isn't fair and the deck is stacked against you. Of course life isn't fair, but it's never too late to get disciplined and start making good decisions. Government assistance seems to make this harder to do instead of easier.
I don't really have an answer. You don't want to put a limit on things, because what's the alternative? Just letting people starve or become homeless? We decided as a society that we aren't going to do that. But there is a real problem of dependence that we need to figure out.
And of course, as well all know, blacks are lazier than whites.
Just kidding, that's a little bit of cqholt satire for this thread!!!!
The only thing I will say about race is that in a city like Atlanta, it may seem like more blacks are on government assistance than whites, but I don't know if that is true overall. There may be more whites on it than blacks because it is very common to see in predominantly white rural areas as well as predominantly black urban ones.
Great example about Adam Corolla, I had no idea what he came from. I think his examples hold truth in that some people become so down on themselves that they give up on ever getting a better life and just depend on gov't assistance to survive. Without gov't assistance, crime would be horrendous and not just in the city, but everywhere. Homelessness and hungry would be rampant, it would be like the Great Depression again. What is said is how America treats its mentally handicapped and homelessness compared to other industrialized nations.
...But, he rejected the thought of a minimum wage job, because it would only be an increase of $3/hr over what just getting a disability check would get him. Of course, in addition to not getting the money, he was not getting the job skills that would get him a better paying job.
The key word is underlined here...
So with that in mind, you know the minimum wage is $7.25, right?
So the disability check would pay that person $4.25 an hour, and working a minimum wage job would net $3 more an hour.
At $4.25 an hour, 40 hours a week, that's $170 a week... or $24.30 a day (7 days a week).
Over a year, that is $8,840.
Is that really living well? Is that person staying at 5 star hotels, driving luxury cars (plural), living in a mansion on that entitlement?
If that person is really disabled, and not faking it while getting paid for another job under the table, I'm glad he/she is not working a minimum wage job.
I don't want disabled people working minimum wage jobs, quite frankly.
And before anyone jumps on me for that previous statement, I have an immediate family member who is 100% disabled. And I am looking at it from 26 years of experience with this disabled person.
I know I wouldn't want the disabled person in my life (that I have known for a long time, 26 years) taking my order at McDonald's, or making change for me, or answering phones, or a multitude of other minimum wage jobs.
So if it cost me, a tax payer, almost $9,000 a year to be sure a "disabled" person wasn't providing me with services (which are sometimes the most demanding mentally and/or emotionally), I'm glad to pay it.
And as far as "getting experience" for this minimum wage job... what minimum wage job is the first hurdle to making it to the top, or at least "the good life"???
The days of "working the mail room" and eventually making your way all the way to the top of the company are virtually, if not completely, long over.
College degrees, and doctorates are leaps and bounds better than working the lowest of the low paying jobs to make it to the top, or even mid level. But on top of that, the people that *may* work their way up from the bottom are involved in cronyism or nepotism.
If I had a $1,000 to lay down on a bet that this guy isn't a friend or relative of a high ranking McD's employee, or have a higher education degree, and that's why he's still at minimum wage... I would.
So what "skills" would be attained by working a minimum wage job that would advance their "career" later... ESPECIALLY if the person is disabled?
The better idea would be, in my opinion, giving the person a disability check and then urge, demand, or under their own free will, VOLUNTEER somewhere, and get experience that doesn't cost paying consumers one cent, while possibly getting over their disability, whatever it may be, and learning new skills that *could* be applied to furthering their career.
The poster said that he got the check because he was OCD and had Asperger's Syndrome, but the stated reason that he would not work was because of the low pay. He is going to school for a degree in electrical engineering and wants extra money. Does he really have the skills to work? I don't know --just as I don't know that any poster is telling the truth. But he believes he has the skills to work, and refuses to, because essentially working is not enough of a "raise" over not working--which is consistent with the conclusion of the GSU study.
And, no I am not saying that the receiving disability is "living well." I am saying that the disability system is discouraging him from working, which is pretty much his own words. The man wants to work at a high paying job at some point, but is unwilling to get a low paying job now. The study says that the welfare system "works" the same way.
As far as what skills does someone get from a low paying job? I think the "low paying" part of the sentence is pretty much irrelevant. A person gets skills by working a job: Learning to show up for work on-time every day, grooming for a job, learning about how to get hired, what gets you fired, what you can and cannot say at work, how to get along with customers and co-workers, what a boss can and cannot expect from you. People make mistakes at work, and learn from them--it is probably better that you make those mistakes at a low-paying job that you do not hope to keep forever than a job that you hope to make into a career. You may think that these are simple things, but the are very important. Learning these skills is probably even more important to some children of welfare recipients, who may not have grown up with working parents, and the mildly disabled, who need to learn how to work with their disablilty in a work environment.
(I have PhD and have had many low wage jobs --washing dishes, working in a paint factory, grocery store etc. and, yes, they have helped me in my current job, and in life.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
The key word is underlined here...
So with that in mind, you know the minimum wage is $7.25, right?
So the disability check would pay that person $4.25 an hour, and working a minimum wage job would net $3 more an hour.
At $4.25 an hour, 40 hours a week, that's $170 a week... or $24.30 a day (7 days a week).
Over a year, that is $8,840.
Is that really living well? Is that person staying at 5 star hotels, driving luxury cars (plural), living in a mansion on that entitlement?
If that person is really disabled, and not faking it while getting paid for another job under the table, I'm glad he/she is not working a minimum wage job.
I don't want disabled people working minimum wage jobs, quite frankly.
And before anyone jumps on me for that previous statement, I have an immediate family member who is 100% disabled. And I am looking at it from 26 years of experience with this disabled person.
I know I wouldn't want the disabled person in my life (that I have known for a long time, 26 years) taking my order at McDonald's, or making change for me, or answering phones, or a multitude of other minimum wage jobs.
So if it cost me, a tax payer, almost $9,000 a year to be sure a "disabled" person wasn't providing me with services (which are sometimes the most demanding mentally and/or emotionally), I'm glad to pay it.
And as far as "getting experience" for this minimum wage job... what minimum wage job is the first hurdle to making it to the top, or at least "the good life"???
The days of "working the mail room" and eventually making your way all the way to the top of the company are virtually, if not completely, long over.
College degrees, and doctorates are leaps and bounds better than working the lowest of the low paying jobs to make it to the top, or even mid level. But on top of that, the people that *may* work their way up from the bottom are involved in cronyism or nepotism.
If I had a $1,000 to lay down on a bet that this guy isn't a friend or relative of a high ranking McD's employee, or have a higher education degree, and that's why he's still at minimum wage... I would.
So what "skills" would be attained by working a minimum wage job that would advance their "career" later... ESPECIALLY if the person is disabled?
The better idea would be, in my opinion, giving the person a disability check and then urge, demand, or under their own free will, VOLUNTEER somewhere, and get experience that doesn't cost paying consumers one cent, while possibly getting over their disability, whatever it may be, and learning new skills that *could* be applied to furthering their career.
The days of "working the mail room" and eventually making your way all the way to the top of the company are virtually, if not completely, long over.
College degrees, and doctorates are leaps and bounds better than working the lowest of the low paying jobs to make it to the top, or even mid level. But on top of that, the people that *may* work their way up from the bottom are involved in cronyism or nepotism.
If I had a $1,000 to lay down on a bet that this guy isn't a friend or relative of a high ranking McD's employee, or have a higher education degree, and that's why he's still at minimum wage... I would.
So what "skills" would be attained by working a minimum wage job that would advance their "career" later... ESPECIALLY if the person is disabled?
The better idea would be, in my opinion, giving the person a disability check and then urge, demand, or under their own free will, VOLUNTEER somewhere, and get experience that doesn't cost paying consumers one cent, while possibly getting over their disability, whatever it may be, and learning new skills that *could* be applied to furthering their career.
But those are just my thoughts.
I agree with you, but I also think you have to be a tad bit careful.
Most people still don't have college degrees, 'nor does our economy need everyone to have them.
Most people make above minimum wage as well...without degrees.
The problem I see is most minimum wage jobs these days don't have upward mobility career paths. You do learn skills, but they are typically limited to very basic logic or interpersonal skills, but not tangible training for higher paid positions.
If I met someone unable to pursue a degree, I would tell him to apprentice with an electrician or a welder for minimum wage for a few years long before I'd point them towards fast food or retail. (Btw, this is what is so bad about the fall of construction in recessions... its one of the best place for someone unskilled to go for skilled training on-the-job)
Now what fast food and retail -can- do is provide someone with semi-flexible hours and limited pay why they work on other outside endeavors (aka students needing a part time job). However, their ultimate skill sets are not being built in their jobs. General work ethic...perhaps? ...but not tangible skills people put on a resume and are expected to bring out in a lower-middle wage job.
I think the old mentality of the mail room workers was when you saw someone that worked better than others in an unskilled position, someone would mentor them to prepare them for something a touch better within the company.
The downside is they have to train, but the up-side is they don't have to take the risk finding a hard motivated worker before doing so.
Either way to the larger discussion...
I think the problem I often have with most opinions, especially when people present a case or case study to make a point...
Programs like disability exist for real reasons. There are some people out there who are truly disabled for life, because of risks that took working for someone. It is the premise for why we have mandated disability insurance. In the early 1900s with this was a huge problem.
We can make case studies all day long how the system is bad and abused and how the system helps, but the ultimate question should be (and often isn't brought up by either side).
How do we help people that need it, but encourage people to learn to move on.
I don't have hard answers, but ultimately I think it will be about making the right stipulations to receive certain types of welfare.
-Provide and mandate career counselors + career training for people who are on welfare past a certain deadline. We could even emphasize careers that are in demand and need some, but limited training. (something better than minimum wage, but obtainable w/o huge investment) In other words... if you're still on welfare past 6 months a case worker could analyze the situation and take considerations into disabilities and be able to say... you should feasibly to do a job like X, Y, or Z...probably not A or B and you don't have the skills for C or D. We can do career training for Y A or Z... and if not you lose welfare/disability.
Other ideas might be to mandate civic work. Find government jobs someone on welfare must do to earn their welfare check. These won't end up being jobs that are really that productive for the work output the gov't receives, but are targeted at getting people at of the house and doing something (and an incentive to go ahead and get that real job for $3/hr more.... you will work one way or another).
And we need to be mindful not to do mistakes from the past
-busing programs to jobs where people commute over an hour
-programs where people end up having a real found part-time job + a near full time gov't mandated job on top of that
But I also know that I don't want to blindly cut-back on current welfare programs, because there are people who depend on them when they fall into bad times, despite their best efforts. Sometimes, the effects of those bad times are even more ruinous than welfare. People might fall so deep into a hole, they can't get out anyways.
I would just like to point out that disability is not a handout, it's an insurance policy.
The main difference is disability is handled by social security. In order to receive it, you have to have paid into it. So you're really just filing a claim with your insurer. It's not overly easy to prove disability, so I've got to think that the great majority of people who are on it really need it. I'm sure there is a way to manipulate the system, but at least people on disability at one point paid premiums into the program and how much they receive is dependent to some degree upon how much they paid in.
In contrast, welfare is a handout. You can have never paid a dime into welfare and still draw from it. Unless you want to argue that everybody pays taxes, so technically we all pay into it, but you don't earn welfare credits the same way you earn SS credits, so the amount you receive is completely unrelated to however much or little you may have paid in.
I don't know if social security technically falls under the moniker of "government assistance", but just understand that disability and welfare run in fairly different ways and in many ways are not comparable.
I would just like to point out that disability is not a handout, it's an insurance policy.
That is assuming of course that the recipient is actually disabled. I've known a number of folks on disability who pretty much do as they please and don't have any indication whatsoever of being disabled. They travel, work in the yard, play ball with the kids, you name it.
Sadly, I have also known people who had terrible injuries and were turned down. What a crazy system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
