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.
Although I lean a little toward the right, this article did not irritate nor inflame; I found it to be rather informational with regard to social safety nets and their cost to all taxpayers -- including the low wage employees.
With their readership largely being not of the bottom 80% of the population, Forbes' editors are probably unaware of who's on welfare and for how long. The Urban Institute has a very nice summary: http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html:.
Without context, the Forbes and AEI articles leave a reader with the impression that-- to use Vermont as an example-- 7,900 families move here to live year-to-year on $41,000 per year. But it's not the case.
As the man says in the UI report, "A complete picture of time on welfare requires an understanding of two seemingly contradictory facts: the majority of families who ever use welfare do so for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of the current caseload will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time."
He also goes on to say that we have to distinguish between total numbers and current caseload numbers, otherwise we will be confused by the knowledge that 90% of the current caseload will be on for more than 2 years and 75% for more than 5. When you have people on for only a few months, they show up in the annual numbers, but when you have people on for years, they show up in the monthly caseload numbers.
Assuming a bare majority of the 7,900 go off welfare within a year, the extended welfare cohort is only 3,900.
Of those, 10% (390) are going to be on for less than two years, which leaves 3,510. Another 14% (546)will be on for less than 5 years, and the remainder (2,964) will be on for more than five years. If of course the "majority is greater than 51%, these numbers will be even smaller. I have not been able to locate that data.
But as you can see, suddenly the bogeyman of 7,900 permanent welfare freeloaders shrinks to one-quarter of the original claim.
In addition to that, if we consider how much it costs to live in Vermont (livable wage), even $41,000 is barely treading water for many households: livable wage tables (Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Vermont show that a single parent with from one to three children needs from $38,000 to $58,000 to live here; a two-parent family with similar numbers of kids needs from $28,000 to $42,000. And of course neither Forbes nor AEI sought to educate its readers about household size or what in what form these welfare payments arrive; e.g., fuel assistance for the elderly, insulation services for landlords, and so forth.
So, it is very easy for a reader to either develop a harmful prejudice or to have one strengthened when full information is lacking. And the question is, how does a reader monitor that?
With their readership largely being not of the bottom 80% of the population, Forbes' editors are probably unaware of who's on welfare and for how long. The Urban Institute has a very nice summary: http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html:.
Without context, the Forbes and AEI articles leave a reader with the impression that-- to use Vermont as an example-- 7,900 families move here to live year-to-year on $41,000 per year. But it's not the case.
As the man says in the UI report, "A complete picture of time on welfare requires an understanding of two seemingly contradictory facts: the majority of families who ever use welfare do so for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of the current caseload will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time."
He also goes on to say that we have to distinguish between total numbers and current caseload numbers, otherwise we will be confused by the knowledge that 90% of the current caseload will be on for more than 2 years and 75% for more than 5. When you have people on for only a few months, they show up in the annual numbers, but when you have people on for years, they show up in the monthly caseload numbers.
Assuming a bare majority of the 7,900 go off welfare within a year, the extended welfare cohort is only 3,900.
Of those, 10% (390) are going to be on for less than two years, which leaves 3,510. Another 14% (546)will be on for less than 5 years, and the remainder (2,964) will be on for more than five years. If of course the "majority is greater than 51%, these numbers will be even smaller. I have not been able to locate that data.
But as you can see, suddenly the bogeyman of 7,900 permanent welfare freeloaders shrinks to one-quarter of the original claim.
In addition to that, if we consider how much it costs to live in Vermont (livable wage), even $41,000 is barely treading water for many households: livable wage tables (Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Vermont show that a single parent with from one to three children needs from $38,000 to $58,000 to live here; a two-parent family with similar numbers of kids needs from $28,000 to $42,000. And of course neither Forbes nor AEI sought to educate its readers about household size or what in what form these welfare payments arrive; e.g., fuel assistance for the elderly, insulation services for landlords, and so forth.
So, it is very easy for a reader to either develop a harmful prejudice or to have one strengthened when full information is lacking. And the question is, how does a reader monitor that?
I'm not really sure how the readership of Forbes relates to the accuracy or inaccuracy of what they publish, but I can assure you that I am well into the bottom 80 percent, and I peruse the publication now and then. But then, I'm an independently thinking person who understands the value in getting information from a wide variety of sources from a range of ideology. Oh, and I actually care about the issues and all those who have stake in the policy. Those whose thinking is limited to a more hardly defined end of the political spectrum probably wouldn't see the value because they already know what they believe, and the facts won't get in the way of that. That would also apply to people who are more interested in how they define them self politically than they are in how effective the given policies are.
I'd also point out that all states on the indices are subject to the same methodology. Vermont remains high on each list when compared to 49 other states using the same methodology.
Lastly, you say it's expensive to live in Vermont. What are some of the reasons you think it might be so expensive? It's certainly not due to gentrification and/or development. It's certainly not because Vermont offers the amenities of world class living. So why do you think it might be so expensive?
Ah! Politisite AND the Center for Immigration Studies. Now I understand. . .
As I said in previous posts, I neither limit my sources of information, nor would I engage in the fallacy of logic that involves denigrating information based solely on the source. I'll leave that to narrow minds who rely heavily on red herrings in pathetic attempts to defend the indefensible. But I do think it's interesting that you're dismissing that source as well as completely ignoring the text of my post. I also think it's humorous that you apparently consider conservative leaning sources as being unworthy of any attention, yet your first link was to CNS. You do realize that CNS is a decidedly conservative source affiliated with Brent Bozell and Media Research Group, right? But then in one sentence you imply that something published by CIS is not even worthy of examination based solely on the fact that it's from CIS? Really? Does this pass for intellectual honesty in your world? I wouldn't even call it intellectual, regardless of how honest it may be.
You've decided that welfare is a good thing. You're not interested in the facts surrounding what welfare does to the state or what long term welfare does to people on it, your only interest is in feeling good about yourself and defending policies that you've already determined are good, even when the facts don't support that conclusion. The welfare policies and ensuing taxation of Vermont are doing nothing for the economy of the state, a state you've already pointed out is far too expensive, nor are the policies doing anything for the working class people of Vermont. And they are certainly not doing anything to lower the highest drug addiction and suicide rates in the country. Yes, it's such a HEALTHY state. Skip down the yellow brick road to Vermont....but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. You're a collectivist who thinks others should pay for you to sit around your house watching TV while you look for the PERFECT job.....I get it. Just don't try to cloak it as "compassion" for the needy, cause that ain't what it is.
There is a Soros on the board of CNS-- I forget whether it's George's son or nephew. Maybe that explains why Bozell hasn't demonized him the way Fox News has.
Anyway, I did a little research into how expensive it is to live in Vermont with that livable wage table, and then I looked for the cheapest (America , which happens to be Kentucky.
So, monthly livable wage in Kentucky for a family of mom, dad & 2 kids is $2979. As compared to the cost for the same family in Vermont, $3198. (Monthly taxes, by the way, are $410 and $457 respectively.)
That $219 difference might not be enough to make people want to move to Kentucky if they look at the quality of life difference between the two states. The Children's Defense Fund has data for both states (Research Library. Out of the dozens of stats, I just picked several which I feel are representative:
Low birthweight babies become 18% of the school population, but 50% of its failure to completes. They are also 95% of the 19-24 prison population. LBW standing for Vermont, 9th from the top. For Kentucky, 8th from the bottom. (By the way, the WIC program is the best in the nation for preventing LBW babies, but it's "welfare.")
One can hardly dispute the need for money for food, clothing and shelter for a child. The percentage of Vermont kids on TANF, 3.4%; for Kentucky kids, 4.8%, a difference of 140%.
Percentage of Vermont kids unable to read at grade level, 58.7%; Kentucky kids, 64.5%. A difference of 110%.
They have an equal percentage of kids who don't graduate high school-- 4.3%
Education spending: Vermont, $16,006; Kentucky, $8,957. A difference of 179%
I have no idea what percentages go off to college or complete college, wind up as criminals, are adopted, fostered, abused, etc., but the data are there if anyone's interested in moving to the cheapest state in the Union and saving that $219. So, Vermont being perhaps "the most expensive" state to live in might be nevertheless attractive for a whole army of reasons besides those given by CDF.
There is a Soros on the board of CNS-- I forget whether it's George's son or nephew. Maybe that explains why Bozell hasn't demonized him the way Fox News has.
Anyway, I did a little research into how expensive it is to live in Vermont with that livable wage table, and then I looked for the cheapest (America , which happens to be Kentucky.
So, monthly livable wage in Kentucky for a family of mom, dad & 2 kids is $2979. As compared to the cost for the same family in Vermont, $3198. (Monthly taxes, by the way, are $410 and $457 respectively.)
That $219 difference might not be enough to make people want to move to Kentucky if they look at the quality of life difference between the two states. The Children's Defense Fund has data for both states (Research Library. Out of the dozens of stats, I just picked several which I feel are representative:
Low birthweight babies become 18% of the school population, but 50% of its failure to completes. They are also 95% of the 19-24 prison population. LBW standing for Vermont, 9th from the top. For Kentucky, 8th from the bottom. (By the way, the WIC program is the best in the nation for preventing LBW babies, but it's "welfare.")
One can hardly dispute the need for money for food, clothing and shelter for a child. The percentage of Vermont kids on TANF, 3.4%; for Kentucky kids, 4.8%, a difference of 140%.
Percentage of Vermont kids unable to read at grade level, 58.7%; Kentucky kids, 64.5%. A difference of 110%.
They have an equal percentage of kids who don't graduate high school-- 4.3%
Education spending: Vermont, $16,006; Kentucky, $8,957. A difference of 179%
I have no idea what percentages go off to college or complete college, wind up as criminals, are adopted, fostered, abused, etc., but the data are there if anyone's interested in moving to the cheapest state in the Union and saving that $219. So, Vermont being perhaps "the most expensive" state to live in might be nevertheless attractive for a whole army of reasons besides those given by CDF.
You feel like looking at Kentucky, I don't. I FEEL like staying on Vermont. Aside from the NUMEROUS methodological inconsistencies in your "analysis" including that Vermont's income tax rate is more than double that of Kentucky, along with a higher property tax, the fact that even in your own assessment, high school graduates are at the same level, and # of those who can't read is not vastly different, and we already know from other state comparisons that money infused into educational systems is not correlative to quality of education---which I think is at least partially demonstrable in the weak educational gains you note over Kentucky. And did I mention that Vermont is among the highest DRUG ADDICTION and SUICIDE rates in the nation? I would also aruge that your "living wage" assessment is questionable. I queried one alternate source looking at single households and the livable wage required in Vermont is more than 2 dollars an hour more based on state-to-state comparison, and the family figures are similarly different which refutes your claim dramatically. And that doesn't even account for the fact that to be truly accurate, you would have to compare SMA to SMA rather than state to state.
It's certainly not hard to see how the monied families in Vermont maintain their comfortable lives, and it's not hard to see how they provide enough to keep even the poor in a social class which is -slightly- higher than poor southern states like Kentucky but, big deal, tell that to the working class people of the state. Your livable wage comparisons are not
My reply was done with 4-5 minutes of analysis, because that's all your red herring is worth.
Aside from the fact that your "analysis" is about as unscientific and methodologically unbalanced as it gets, if the best argument you can make for Vermont is to compare it to some of the worst in the south, you MAY be grasping at straws.
But thanks for once again demonstrating that extreme leftists (along with their counterparts to the extreme right) will do and say ANYTHING to defend their indefensible positions. The hypocrisy, fallacies of logic, and intellectual backpedaling you've engaged in on this thread have been amusing, to say the least.
Your statements were that: 1) Vermont is an expensive state to live in and 2) Vermont taxes are very high.
I produced data that put context to those statements. That data provides the reader with an opportunity to compare point by point some of the differences in quality of life between the two, e.g., the output of education dollars vs. the return thereon, or pediatric rates of death by firearms.
I was not implying that you should leave the state, but there might be others who would, on the basis of such information, choose to do so.
There is a very strong argument to be made for encouraging the young to leave Vermont. They get to compare. Those who come back do so because they know what they like.
Your statements were that: 1) Vermont is an expensive state to live in and 2) Vermont taxes are very high.
I produced data that put context to those statements. That data provides the reader with an opportunity to compare point by point some of the differences in quality of life between the two, e.g., the output of education dollars vs. the return thereon, or pediatric rates of death by firearms.
I was not implying that you should leave the state, but there might be others who would, on the basis of such information, choose to do so.
There is a very strong argument to be made for encouraging the young to leave Vermont. They get to compare. Those who come back do so because they know what they like.
Actually YOU invoked the costs of living in Vermont in your reply to me. I simply asked why you believe it's so expensive. You randomly chose Kentucky, didn't account for NUMEROUS variables, and then posted some babble based on your uncontrolled analysis. Some of which may, or may not apply. Either way, prima facie you haven';t demonstrated any comparability or correlation.
Then you said "Ah! Politisite AND the Center for Immigration Studies. Now I understand. . ." without a substantive explanation or anything empirical to support to it.
Then, since you didn't provide a sound explanation as to why those sources were invalid I assumed you did not "like" conservative news sources (because you just don't "like" them I guess?) and when I pointed out that you also quoted a conservative news sources you glazed over it, as you have done with dozens of the points I've made.
Apparently it's easier for you to create red herrings and straw man arguments than it is to keep your replies within the nexis of the original point. I stand by my original posts. We don't know why Vermont had an influx of 300 plus residents, nor do we know what their motivations are.
I would also reiterate that having large amounts of people on public assistance does not speak to a well managed state government, nor does it promote personal responsibility and self reliance in people both of which build essential self esteem and self esteem relates to drug addiction and suicide.
While I do believe in programs for the disabled and elderly, I think it's clear that the programs are not limited to those groups. And since jobs are not all that easy to come by given the poorly managed economy it becomes cyclical and the more you encourage people to have more children than they can afford to raise, the cycle will continue thereby causing higher taxes, a lousy economic condition, and more people on public assistance. Hard working people shouldn't be responsible for paying for your leisurely job search nor should they continue to bear the burden of paying for other people's children.
VT??? I just was in NH a year ago, ....visiting, researched plenty of real estate and other costs in both states...one word: HIGH....property taxes, heating costs, electricity rates.....good luck on that one, from what I gather, there are much more people leaving VT, then moving in...by miles. Gorgeous state though, if it weren't for the HIGH property taxes and all the other HIGH utility costs, I would be there...right near Burlington.
VT??? I just was in NH a year ago, ....visiting, researched plenty of real estate and other costs in both states...one word: HIGH....property taxes, heating costs, electricity rates.....good luck on that one, from what I gather, there are much more people leaving VT, then moving in...by miles. Gorgeous state though, if it weren't for the HIGH property taxes and all the other HIGH utility costs, I would be there...right near Burlington.
High taxes and cost of living, in my opinion, is the reason why young people beginning to make a living and a life should not live in those states. It would be better to maximize your income capability in other cities and states and if possible save money to get property in VT or NH and come during the good weather months. In today's economic environment, if you are not a top-earner in these states, you might struggle and not be saving the most you could for yourself and your family. Both are beautiful states but unfortunately that beauty doesn't pay for the bills at the end of the day .
Well, I arrived in Vermont as a single parent and got a job paying $31,000 (adjusted 2014 dollars), which was just barely livable wage for that size and kind of family, was able to build our home on some cheap land and eventually get a better job which made it possible for the kid to go to college, all the while enjoying life in a "very expensive state." Never occurred to me that Vermont was too expensive to live in.
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.
.
