Re: wealth and property rights
At 10:54 AM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
This is provably bullshit. Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs. going to work. Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
I don't know how much people get on welfare in your country but I suspect that it is even less than in this country (Canada). Anyone who truly believes that people make the `economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs. going to work' has, in my opinion, no &^%* idea what they are talking about. Just try to *live* on a welfare wage for a few months to see how silly this thought is. While there may well be a few `welfare-moms' (which is not necessarily a bad thing, taking care of children is an investment for society), the vast majority of people on welfare (at least here) would *much* rather get a decent job and work for their money. There are, perhaps, a few people who would rather not work for minimum wage (who find it impossible to feed their family on that) but I suspect that those folks are few and far between.
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 $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled).
More bullshit. You don't know what anyones motives are. To ascribe your motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.
But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black
I don't claim to know the motives. I am examining empirical evidence. As the welfare benefit increases, more go on welfare, as it decreases, less go on welfare. Someone is making economic decisions, consciously or unconsciously. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon@ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the other myriad programs) is $10/hr. Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr. Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your face. (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several $$ 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.
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?
the welfare benefit increases, more go on welfare, as it decreases, less go on welfare. Someone is making economic decisions, consciously or unconsciously.
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 repeat, however, I do not know enough about your system and I am going to just shut up about it now. cheers, kinch
Dave Kinchlea 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.
[snip] Sorry for the extra mail, but I couldn't resist. At age 12, in a family of 7, my father lost his salaried job at Goodyear corporate HQ, and we went on welfare for awhile. I can tell you for a fact that both then and now, welfare is worth *more* than $10/hour, if you have a family. We not only got lots of food free from the govt. food warehouse, but they took care of the other annoyances to some extent. Some help was county welfare, some federal. Then, when my father didn't go back to the gravy job, my mother got a good job with (you guessed it) the county welfare dept., got a good supervisor position, and has retired with a nice pension. Today I'm a well-paid computer programmer, and yet once again I'm on the receiving end of welfare benefits (you would not believe how many there are) in a round-about way, which I can't explain for obvious reasons. Problem is, even though I can see billions going to people who don't need the money, I can't think of a solution that could be evaluated as *fair* by the people who pay for the system. To suggest that we could support people only when they *really* need the help would be to suggest what, bread lines, maybe, instead of a check in the mailbox every so often?
participants (3)
-
Clay Olbon II -
Dale Thorn -
Dave Kinchlea