Study: Welfare pays more than minimum wage in most states R
cutz
Posts: 11,844
cutz
Posts: 11,844
cutz
Posts: 11,844
Comments
It is in our nature to find the path of least resistance. Once a person sinks into this cycle- it will be devastating to said person when the well goes dry.
Democrats I'm willing to bet will see that maybe raising the minimum wage to an actual living wage and making it possible to actually work and support yourself and have access to health care.
And libertarians are saying "let them all starve."
:fp:
Except it turns out to be complete BS
The Cato Institute is out with an update to their 1995 study which purports to show that, in most states, welfare pays better than work.
They add up benefits available through eight programs to a low-income woman with two children, and find total benefit values well in excess of full-time minimum wage work, or even, in some states, middle-skill work.
The study is called "The Welfare-Versus-Work Tradeoff," and it's meant to show why people don't get off welfare. And it's B.S., for three reasons.
1. Very few people actually qualify for all eight of the programs Cato looks at. Particularly, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (cash welfare) and housing assistance can provide some very expensive benefits. But fewer than two million households get TANF and only about four million get housing assistance. It is much more typical for a welfare beneficiary to be getting SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid (health insurance), but no assistance with housing or cash. So, the typical welfare benefit is much lower than Cato makes out, making staying on welfare less appealing.
2. Welfare benefits for single adults are much less generous than those for women with children.
3. Not all benefits are lost when a welfare recipient starts working. SNAP benefits phase out gradually with rising income. People who go back to work don't necessarily lose health benefits, either. Some get new health benefits through work. The children of low-income uninsured workers qualify for the Children's Health Insurance Program in most states. In some states, low-income working adults even qualify for Medicaid. So, going back to work doesn't mean nearly the loss of benefits that Cato implies.
That said, poverty traps are real. This is the phenomenon of people losing benefits as they earn more income of their own. It's a problem that welfare programs need to be designed around, and there are two ways of mitigating it.
One is to make benefits more generous by extending their phaseout ranges, so people don't lose as many benefits as they earn more income. That costs money. The other is to reduce benefits. That reduces the standard of living for the most vulnerable people in America.
It's easier to make an argument for the latter approach when you have an economy that creates broad prosperity and makes it easy for people to find living-wage jobs if they are willing to work.
We don't have that economy.
This is the problem that conservatives and libertarians refuse to grapple with: If you're unwilling to support policies that promote macroeconomic stability, such as counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies, you're only making a more generous welfare state more morally necessary.
Meanwhile, Democrats have implemented a reform that actually does help to address the poverty trap issue. The Affordable Care Act, when it's implemented next year, will make it possible for people on Medicaid to go back to work without fearing loss of health insurance. It will turn what benefit cliffs exist in the Medicaid program into a gradual slope, so nobody will have to fear that an extra dollar of income will make them uninsured.
That is, the Affordable Care Act will do this except in Republican-led states that are rejecting the Medicaid expansion. In those states, the welfare-versus-work tradeoff will be more tilted toward welfare, and a cliff in Medicaid benefits will still be providing a disincentive to take a job.
That's because conservatives and libertarians don't really care about the poverty trap, much as they may talk about it — they just hate spending money on the poor.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/does-wel ... z2cmdqYhRb
Don't like working a minimum wage job? Go to school.
Can't afford school? Well maybe if the government didn't insure the loans the schools would keep the costs low.
It's an endless debt cycle that gets compounded with the destruction of the dollar.
Can you come talk to my garden? Cua that amount of pure bullshit would make my tomatoes grow like you wouldn't believe.
If a student loan could be capped at $10K a year, I believe you would see a lot of schools offering classes at $10K a year.
And how can you say b.s. that welfare doesn't link to a lack of incentive to work?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Sorry, I'm too busy taking drama classes so I can comprehend your posts.
considering you don't know the difference between a "textbook" and a "children's story book," maybe 3rd grade would be more your speed? :?
Do the math yourself. Someone working two minimum wage jobs will barely make enough to make ends meet. Are they lazy?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
It's Econ 101.
The destruction of the dollar through endless printing of more dollars is the problem.
Oh is that it?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I looked into that, however Understanding PoD Drama is a prerequisite to 3rd grade. Let me get through this first, it's a tough one.
I made minimum wage for several years. Granted I had someone provide a roof over my head, but the experiance payed dividends in helping me get a good internship. (where i worked for free ... actually, now that i think about it i was paying to work there considering it was part of my courses :? )
When our government works to close unions and destroy manufacturing jobs I would say that it has gotten harder and harder to many to get something other than a minimum wage job. One purpose of a union is to make sure the company that makes billions takes care of its workers. That isn't happening anymore.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Read Barbara Ehrenreich's excellent and courageous book Nickle and Dimed and you may find yourself recanting your first statement here. As research for her book, Ehrenreich stashed all her savings and went out and tried to live on minimum wage jobs. Even just living alone she had to work two jobs and just barely scraped by and her life was miserable during that time. If she had gotten sick or injured the whole experiment would have collapsed. The book really is a solid answer to those who believe minimum wage is sufficient income.
And, as parents are forced to work their asses off in two jobs... begrudgingly and without the time to do so... they neglect their children who are left to their own devices. Consequently, we read of the exploits of these children killing joggers and WWII vets as they grow unattended to.
It takes exceptional luck to reverse one's fortunes they are born to. I'm not making any excuses for anyone... but I could only imagine the moment when one realizes their future is their present.
You want to talk propaganda? How about the 'American Dream'? Now there's some propaganda.
Where should it be set?
On the other hand, Twinkie workers continuing to strike as the plant is shutting down is nuts. That's a case where a union didn't work.
Anyway, if you start at minimum wage and work hard, you won't be working for minimum wage for very long. You will start making more or you build experiance and take that to someone who will pay you more. It's a big turn-off for employers when they see you have not worked in years. Showing that you have been activily working opens doors.
I think the point that Unsung is trying to make is that a minimum wage increase will be null and void after the price adjustment that follows from more dollars being forced into the system.
the dollars come from businesses, either they eat the costs or adjust their prices. There is more money in flow because people will most likely spend it. more money to be had, more demand on products, prices go up. hidden inflation in food is much more likely to happen in this scenario. A company puts 14ozs of cereal in a box instead of 16. The reason they do this is the cost of corn goes up (demand) and the cost of employee wages goes up (legislation).
It is a vicious circle unfortunately. The more you raise the minimum wage, the more things will cost those on minimum wage. Unless you perpetually raise it (impossible to maintain), or do your best to control inflation (impossible because no one really wants to be responsible in Washington)...which one do you think is more likely to be done? the answer is neither so we really are pretty fucked.
No minimum wage and raising the minimum wage are a way to combat the same problem, Cost of living) some just don't want to see it that way. If you are against a minimum wage it must be because you hate the poor, and if you are for raising the minimum wage it must be because you are a bleeding heart socialist hell bent on ruining America.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
and if wishes were real, Rand Paul wouldn't have to wear that silly chia thing on his head.
The dollar DOESN'T have the value that it did and trying to wax poetic about why that is while people are unable to survive working a full time job AND a part time job... well that's kind like debating wether a person would be drowning if the water level wasn't so high as they die in front of you.
I realize that most libertarians are free of things like empathy, emotions, responsibility to anyone but their own fucking selves... but in the end... the dollar is where it is and while CEO salaries have soared into the 8-figure range for huge companies, those same companies have kept the minimum wage where it is regardless of inflation and people are now literally going hungry even if they have full time jobs.
Why does the money have to be forced into the system devaluing the dollar? Why can't it be diverted from existing pools by restructuring current spending practices as well as tax laws that benefit the uber rich?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Call me a buffoon... but what are you trying to say here, mike?
Both of you stop it now. :nono: :nono:
Whether you should have one in the first place is another story. I'm torn.
Aww come on.
This was getting to be pretty funny!