Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

outthere2:

The agreement I was referring to was that of your post #127 below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Individual
Then we agree that one is absent...
Your response:
Yes, we agree.

When you asked about the "absence of a full employment strategy" I assumed you would understand that the growing number of unemployed, and the underemployed, are the result of the absence of such a strategy, which in your response to my question also in your post #127 it appeared that we once again agreed as shown below.


Quote:
...and I presume intentionally so?
Your response:
Current economic policy is always intentional.

Am I correct in assuming that this,
"Yeah you know obsessed those politicians can get fighting for the votes of those poor people...

We are talking about the US government right? "
is your response to the same question? I presume you intended the word "obsessed" should have been preceded by the word "how" to make sense of the sentence?

Are you now enlightened by the response of LetLovinTakeHold, who appears to have had no problem at all understanding what I had posted?

 

Letlovin

I’ll ask you how do you make these people work, if you volunteer for something or do it for profit you are likely to be motivated to work, how do you force people to do the job if they have no such motivation?

As I’ve said why not push to create jobs with living wages that can allow people to have healthy and fulfilled (even possibly happy) lives? And conversely why not try and help people to get those jobs?

The kind of jobs you are suggesting you force these people to do doesn’t seem to be about helping them it seems to be about wanting to punish them.

To me your approach seems simplistic and prejudiced – ‘people are not working they must be lazy therefore we must force them to work on menial tasks which will teach them not to be lazy’

But are they lazy?

Why are they not working?
Are there jobs on offer paying a living wage, if not why not?
Do they have the qualifications for the jobs, can they be trained?
Are there jobs elsewhere and can they be relocated?
And so on and so on.

To me the obvious and rational thing to do is find out why they don’t have a job and fix it. You don’t seem to even want to fix it you just want to punish those you think are undeserving.

 

Letlovin

I ask again are there no street cleaners, sanitation department etc?

Well then wouldn’t it be rational to find out why not?

Maybe, you think maybe, - again wouldn’t the rational thing to do would be to actually find out? Again you seem to be running with your prejudices.

Also we have laws against such ‘fly tipping’ and other people or refuse collectors and street cleaners report such behaviour and local councils can warn people or even prosecute repeat offenders.

But that’s just the trash, what about the other things - Why is the graffiti not been dealt with? Are you saying that playgrounds are not maintained, if so why not?

These are usually manned by volunteers or charity workers, volunteers are there by choice and are motivated and usually have a understanding and sympathetic nature toward those they are helping – if the forced labourers were not already doing such work I think it unlikely they would have that nature and if they didn’t how would you force them to work on such things? As to charity workers that are being paid are you saying you’d replace them with your forced labourers?

 

Indie

Are you back in the US now or still living in that communist country in South East Asia (that is said to be Laos)?

In Laos the minimum wage works out at about 626,000 Lao kip a month which is just around $1,057 a year (wiki).

Again that is just a description of forced labour – if you need assistance to survive and you say that assistance will be removed if you don’t work on what you are told to work on then that is forced labour. Especially if that labour gives you little personal benefit beyond survival.

only thing free in life is the air we breathe – well actually in the modern world if we want good air to breath there are a number of regulations that need to be enforced and monitored so that it remains clean these have to be paid for normally thorough taxation. I’m happy to pay these taxes as I live in London where smog used to kill thousands up until the Clean Air Act 1956.

everything else is available to us as a result of the labor of someone else – I agree, the people working in a community should help to maintain that community hopefully in a way that it can be a place were everyone can have the hope of fulfilling their potential and so having a healthy and fulfilled life. The society we live in and the quality of life we can achieve are a result of the past and present contributions of the people in that community. For example the Clean Air Act and other environmental acts have vastly improved the quality of life of everyone. The public works and monitoring paid for by taxation over generations have made that possible.

However because of ‘pro-business’ policies over the last 30 odd years the air quality in London is one of the worst in Europe because other countries have been more vigorous than us.

which we in turn acquire through the exchange of our own labor in an amount we find acceptable, or do without – In what way - do without – I mean the clean air act etc you may feel are not needed but actually improves the quality of life of everyone.

To me your approach seems simplistic and prejudiced – ‘people are not working they must be lazy therefore we must force them to work on menial tasks which will punish them for being lazy’

But are they lazy?

Why are they not working?
Are there jobs on offer paying a living wage, if not why not?
Do they have the qualifications for the jobs, can they be trained?
Are there jobs elsewhere and can they be relocated?
And so on and so on.

To me the obvious and rational thing to do is find out why they don’t have a job and fix it. You don’t seem to even want to fix it you just want to punish those you think are undeserving.

As to personal responsibility you admit that a lot of disadvantage has nothing to do with personal responsibility but is often down to circumstances beyond an individual’s control.

Again you seem to be implying that all people seeking assistance are lazy scroungers who are only in that position because they are unwilling to work.

As to taxation as I’ve pointed out before you are not an anarchist, you still believe in taxation, you just want it fixed in such a way as to maximise the interests of a few rather that the whole community.

The quality of life of those taxed isn’t affected and might even be improved through the kind of redistribution aimed at making societies that were fairer and where everyone can have the hope of fulfilling their potential and so having a healthy and fulfilled life.

Ok – The person you are forcing to work losses there autonomy with little or no reward to them (or society).

You agree that governance is needed and you agree that taxation is needed to finance governance. I want good governance that tries to works in the best interests of everyone in the community. You don’t seem to care about good governance you just seem to want a system that favours the interests of wealth to the detriment of everyone else. Taxation can be structured to improve the quality of life of everyone or just a few, which is the more rational approach?

 

--------------------------
| Will Feed for Work |
--------------------------


Bal,

That's what you said, not me, but I do remain living in S.E. Asia.
Don't always believe everything you read on the Internet, or on the wiki.
Actually your figure is low by about 50% in relation to the current minimum wage in Laos.

By your description, everyone who is working is being forced and only those who receive benefits without necessity of work are free.

Contrary to the belief of many, neither our needs nor our wants magically appear out of nowhere, and become available only through the efforts of those who produce them, or as you might call them the slaves of society.

Did I bring up the clean air act? I thought we were talking about poverty.

I didn't say people not working are lazy, although I'm sure some of them probably are.

You ask "why are they not working?" - What motivates them to work when their needs and many of their wants can be met without need to work? And to top it off you claim that providing them with work is synonymous with slavery.

"Are there jobs paying a living wage?" - Yes, there are although you may have to work your way up to a wage greater than what you might start at.

"Do they have qualifications for jobs, can they be trained?" - Even those lacking any education at all are qualified for many jobs. Some can be trained for better paying jobs, but there are probably a small number who are incapable of being trained to do more than the most simple jobs.

"Are there jobs elsewhere and can they be relocated?" - Not only are there jobs elsewhere, but often that is a good or the best way to improve your employment opportunities.

I stated that we should make jobs available to those who need assistance as the means of providing temporary assistance which would be of value to both the provider and the recipient, not intending it to be a permanent employment solution, and not as a means of punishing anyone but instead giving them an opportunity to be a valued contributor to the society in which they live. Not only that, but many employers prefer to hire those who have a work record as opposed to those who have not worked for a long period of time.

Disadvantages are something we all have to deal with on occasion, both rich and poor.

I haven't implied that ALL people seeking assistance are lazy scroungers, and are unwilling to work, although I don't discount the possibility that there may be some who are.

And no, I'm not an anarchist, and I do accept that some taxes are necessary to run a government and provide the services that we as a society agree are needed, but... I do feel our tax dollars should be utilized and spent in the most efficient way possible.

Taking from one without their consent to give to another is not a precept in which I would find definitive of government of a free society.

You habitually espouse equality, and those who work in order to provide for their needs and wants have obviously given up their autonomy and by doing so are rewarded by the wages they earn and in turn benefit the society through their labors. While there is a very small number of persons who might be considered totally incapable of providing for their own support, those who are able but unemployed should be required to earn the support provided them by those who pay taxes as the means by which their support is being provided.

I only agree that a very minimal amount of government is needed, and that it should be most powerful at the local level, controlled more directly by the people in nearly every area where government is needed.

Communities are usually the most capable of addressing their problems in ways that produce solutions both efficiently and effectively.

Unlike you, I don't accept Federal taxation as a means of improving the quality of life of individuals, unlike building interstate highways, bridges, or providing military protection. Perhaps States or local communities might wish to create such tax funded programs with the consent of their inhabitants?

It always appears to be an argument over centralized versus decentralized government.

I tend to go with the latter.

 

Aww those poor rich people have to deal with "disadvantages"...

boo fucking hoo :biker:

 

Indie

So the minimum wage there is what around $2,100 or so and your retirement is a few thousand more than the US minimum wage of around $15,080.

Sorry that’s silly – many people enjoy the work they get payment for, people who take pride in their work get satisfaction from it whose work mates are their friends etc. Also people can decide on what work they want to do they can study certain subjects and train for certain careers and aim for them, and they can change direction, and go along other paths. A good job can be very rewarding. There can be bad jobs but to me they should be the best rewarded I mean in my opinion a speculator is less important than a sewage worker.

What you are proposing is that people who most likely through circumstances beyond their control should be forced to work on what seems to be menial work for not much reward for them or society.

 

Indie

Again this seems to be a revelation of you prejudiced attitudes – once more you seem to be claiming that anyone without work is a lazy scroungers who are only out of work so they can live the high life at the expense of others.

Again I’d point out that old self serving con game the argument of the deserving and undeserving – The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

 

Indie

Oh I don’t say you come out and say all the unemployed are lazy scroungers but you often seem to imply it.

That for example – the implication being that all these unemployed people are unemployed because they are lazy scroungers who are living the high life at others expense.

And as such they must be forced into menial work, because otherwise they’d never do any work at all.

So I asked ‘why are they not working?’ and your instant reply seems to be they’re all lazy scroungers.

You’re not trying to answering the question you are just going with your prejudices.

So I’ll ask again - "why are they not working?"

 

Indie

Actually you said that the air we breath is free and I was pointing out that taxes had and have to be used to kept it breathable. I was pointing out that taxes can be used to improve the quality of life for everyone. The benefits as you exemplified are often ignore or forgotten by those that don’t give it much thought.

 

Indie

And your evidence for this is?

So wouldn’t it be a better use of these people’s time and energy to train them rather than forcing them to do dead end menial tasks like picking up litter (as seems to be implied)?

I’ve posted this idea several times in these forums – the idea being that the unemployed can be offered a higher level of benefits to get education or training.

That would not only help the individuals but also society.

I agree but for many there can be difficulties in moving which assistance can help with – but you seem to be wanting to force people to report to forced labour each day (with the threat of losing their assistance), making it even harder for them to relocate

 

Indie

Why not bring about a situation where there are good decent paying jobs actual jobs not made up forced labour?

I mean you say temporary but if there are no real jobs then there are no real jobs the only way to make it temporary is to bring about a situation where there are good decent paying jobs.

And I’d ask again where are these forced labour jobs coming from?

You said they would be ‘doing public service community work’ but what is that? If it is work that isn’t already being done, why wasn’t it being done? If it was being done then was it being done by people that had been doing it for a living wage who would now find themselves been undercut and out of a job (where ironically they could be forced to do the same job at your forced labour wage).

And again I’d point out that this force labour idea would seem to be a gross manipulation of the concept you claim to hold dear that of the ‘free market’ – What you would be doing is flooding the market place with cheap labour subsidised by the state, which would have the effect of driving down all worker wage prices which would only favour the employers and their backers, so again you idea would seem only to favour the interests of the few rather than the majority.

OK someone, lets call X - through circumstance beyond their control losses their job and has to go on assistance for six months

Then they get a job interview –

Under your scheme – the employer would see that X had been forced to pick up litter for six months and knows that it was a forced labour scheme meaning the person has done little of worth in that time and might not even be a good worker.

Under an alternative scheme – the employer would see that X during a period of unemployment had volunteered for state sponsored training and had leant …(such and such)… something that would be useful to the employers business.

Which scheme do you think would be good for X, the employer and society in general?

 

Indie

We have been through this many times and as pointed out advantage can cushion someone from the adverse effects of such evens or situations.

So do I, I want good governance, but the problem is that doesn’t seem to be your objective you seem to want to change the system so that it favours wealth to the detriment of everyone else a charge you have denied but have been unable to refute in nearly 2 years of discussion.

But you do accept that some taxes are necessary to run a government and provide the services that we as a society agree are needed

To me rather than punishing them for unemployment they didn’t want why not try and bring about a situation where good jobs with good wages are available or at the very least try and help them with training to get such jobs?

 

Indie

I know but as we have discussed many times I think good governance is more important. Minimal doesn’t necessarily mean good. I mean a tyranny is a minimal government model but history has taught us it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good model.

I know that’s your view but we’ve been through this many times before and you still have not addressed my criticisms of it.

We’ve been through this many times before and as I’ve said many times this is an example of your either/or, black or white thinking – why not elements of both, why not a balance?

And again I’ll point out I’ve already given my criticisms of this argument but so far you have not addressed those criticisms, can you – oh and if you are thinking of the usual evasion tactics you use on these occasions – that you can’t remember what the criticisms are and/or that you claim you have addressed them (just not in a way I like) – I’ll reply now – if you can’t remember what they are after two years of discussing them then you must have the memoir retention of a cucumber and if you have addressed them then please point to where you have because you never have been able to produce any evidence in the past.

 

Bal,

I'm not aware of a minimum wage in Laos, but the people I know there, who are field workers, or simply perform odd jobs currently demand $5.50 or more per day, and don't work 40 hour weeks, but 7 day weeks. So they earn about $2000-$2200 per year and most everyone earns more on the side by raising and selling pigs, chickens, ducks, or vegetables around the house, and/or selling prepared food in front of their houses.

Maybe doing some menial work would motivate people to find jobs more enjoyable.

All I would claim is that persons who live off of society are not benefiting society, and the only solution to that is to help them find work as quickly as possible, not try to improve their lives in ways that reduce their desire or need to find employment.

You ask why are they not working? Which one of them are you inquiring about? There is no blanket answer to such a question without knowing each and every individual who is not working. I could only respond in reference to unique cases in which I am directly familiar with.

Clean air and water are another issue entirely. Individual persons or families who have needs which they are unable to meet due to lack of income require help in producing a revenue stream, which is achieved most rationally and economically related to society is for them to become active in ways which provide something of value for the society and produces an income for them. That is known a job, which may or may not be something enjoyable, but necessary. Many including myself have worked at jobs we may have detested, but only until more desirable employment became available.

Sorry, but if I wished to live in the ways you promote I would simply move into a commune with others who believed the same where we could share equally our meager and probably quite inadequate collective contributions.

 

This, this right here is the epitome of how people who preach for the freest of free markets don't have even a juvenile, let alone elementary, understanding of economics. There's no an economist who wouldn't agree it's not stimulating, even Austrians would agree that it is but argue either it's morally wrong or that while stimulating its allocating resources inefficiently. My god, even the great socialist oraganization known as Moody's, despite on one hand telling us to cut discretionary spending simultaneously listed SNAP as the most economically stimulating discretionary program

I mean it's literally the beginning of Economics 101 here. There are plenty of pragmatic economic reasons to argue against something like the SNAP program, but arguing it's not stimulative is just beyond asinine. Food stamps are given to poor people, poor people tend to spend all of their available financial reserves to pay for basic needs. Since it's not cash, it won't go towards paying down debt, it will go immediately into consumer goods spending, which is the backbone of the economy. The only thing more stimulating than the SNAP program is probably Social Security checks. Old people generally have low debt levels, and the much larger size on average of monthly SS checks vs SNAP benefits means any payments towards debt or utilities is more than made up for, providing a huge guaranteed consumer good stimulus. The most stimulative thing ever is probably old people on food stamps, which accounts for somewhere between 10-15% of the elderly depending on where you live, a number only set to rise as wages continue to stagnate, companies no long offer pensions, and almost 40% of Americans have nothing saved for retirement as the current generation spends decades paying off mountains of debt acquired in university, health care and ridiculous housing prices.

Also browsing though the last few pages, anyone who refers to welfare as some monolithic thing basically can't be taken seriously in an economic debate. First off, the actual cash welfare, TANF, has seen its numbers hugely drop since the "welfare reform" and now only has 4-5 million people on it. Also, you can only receive it if you have a child, there are work or job training requirements attached to it, and it has a lifetime limit of 4-5 years. This is in fact "welfare":


Also to add to this list I'm also including the gas tax since the gas tax is in theory supposed to cover the costs of all road related construction and maintenance, yet in most states average around 50%. This meaning the gas tax at its current level is much like the home mortgage deduction, just one massive subsidy for suburban sprawl and living, as the true cost of living in this suburban sprawl is not truly reflected.

 

Indie

So they earn about $2000-$2200 per year – and your retirement is a few thousand more than the US minimum wage of around $15,080.

And again you imply that the unemployed are lazy scroungers ‘living off society’ who have to be forced into employment, as pointed out above you don’t seem to want to help them into jobs you just seem to want to punish them for being unemployed.

Exactly but you seem happy to imply that they are all freeloaders who are only unemployed because they want to living off society.

In other words they need a job that pays enough that they don’t need any assistance, the problem as I’ve shown above is that you don’t seem to want to help them get such a job, you want to force them to work on menial jobs that will do little to help them or society.

Now can you actually address the criticisms of your views or not?

 

Yes bal, my retirement income is much greater than the income of most, but not all of my neighbors. So what?

No Bal, YOU imply that I am implying that THE unemployed are lazy scroungers living off of society, when what I have been trying to point out is that the unemployed would be much more beneficial to their societies if they were contributing to it and not just allowing government to take from their societies and redistribute wealth that would benefit them much more if they were receiving it in the form of wages for their productivity or services.

Some of them may very well be freeloaders content to allow government to provide their needs. Are you claiming with certainty that none are?

Yes Bal, they do need jobs that eliminates or even reduces the need for assistance. That's a start, and would go a great deal further toward reducing poverty than increasing their numbers while keeping them in government funded poverty. How successful have Federal government social programs been in reducing the number living in poverty in a way that results in employing those who participate in them? Are you saying that menial jobs should be left undone and are of no help or benefit to society? Are you implying that we should just allow trash to pile up in the streets as no one enjoys picking it up? How about jobs for the unemployed repairing government housing, or babysitting for those who could or would work but can't afford child care? Local communities are where many of the problems that Centralized Federal government only make worse, more costly, and complicated can begin to be solved in ways that not only could begin to reduce poverty, but also unite rather than divide people against one another.

If you ever present an honest criticism of my views it might be worth the time to address it.

 

Indie

You said - My annual retirement income is only a few thousand more than the minimum wage, and about four thousand below what you claim to be the poverty level for a family of four which I am.

But it isn’t four thousand below the poverty level for a family of four where you live – in fact that income is way above what you claim is the normal annual wage

You receive a few thousand above $15,080 while the locals get around $2000-$2200 per year. That’s roughly 7.5 times more than the local annual average wage the average wage in the US is around $40,000 7.5 times that would be say $300,000 I think you could live rather well in the US on that?

But saying that you where receiving “about four thousand below what you claim to be the poverty level” you seemed to be implying that was still a fair amount to live on and pay taxes on in the US (which was the point you seemed to be making), but you don’t live in the US you live somewhere were your retirement income is way, way above the normal local’s annual income.

Yes you may think that $15,080 is a great income and it would very much seem to be where you live but is it such a great income for the US?

 

Indie

As I’ve said to you many, many times ignoring a criticism does not make it go away but your inability to address it just would seem to indicate it has validity.

And as I pointed out to you many, many times if my criticisms are so weak or dishonest them that should make them much easier to address but the fact that you are totally unable to do so would a only seem to indicate they are not so weak or so dishonest but have validity.