At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the other myriad programs) is $10/hr. Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr. Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your face. (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled).
I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts. My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out.
Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The Detroit News). The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies from state to state, I remember that number as being about average.
More bullshit. You don't know what anyones motives are. To ascribe your motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.
But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black
I don't claim to know the motives. I am examining empirical evidence. As
Sure you do: "economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs. going to work". It seems to me that you are claiming their motives are econmic, is there some other way we should read that sentence?
You got me there :-)
It takes an awful lot to prove a causal relationship, empirical evidence notwithstanding. You haven't made your case, as far as I am concerned (not that you need to convince me), there are a myriad of other factors involved. I have no doubt that given two (or three) poor choices, most will choose the lesser evil and that *may* mean choosing welfare over working, but I seriously doubt that this is anything but a small minority of the cases of people who are actually using the system.
You suggest that what ought to be done is give less welfare. If your thesis is correct, I suggest that better paying jobs is the real answer (assuming you agree that minimum wage is too little for most to live on). Shrinking welfare payouts may serve to get people off welfare but it won't make it any easier to live on low wages. We DO have a duty to help our neighbours, do we not? Or has greed taken over entirely?
I don't mind helping my neighbors. Of course, they live next door and I know them! The problem is that the welfare creates a system where behaviour that is generally bad for society is subsidized. The incentives are all wrong. And no, I don't think the minimum wage should be increased either. Increasing the minimum wage at a time when you are pushing people off of welfare is the wrong action, because it decreases the number of jobs available. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon@ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl