At 4:06 PM -0500 11/27/96, Clay Olbon II wrote:

At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> wrote:

...

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.

I can confirm the gist of Clay's point: I saw a table listing "effective hourly welfare pay" for the 50 states and D.C. This was in the "San Jose Mercury News," at least 8-10 months ago (and presumably elsewhere, as it was a major story). I used it in one of my articles, and gave the reference then (sorry, not handy, and my own welfare rate does not pay me enough to spend hours sifting through past articles for something so minor, an old cite, that is). The interesting thing was that New York had an effective welfare pay rate of $14 an hour, and New York City was more than that (due to higher benefits and higher taxes dragging down the income of actual workers). By "effective" the idea is to add up direct welfare benefits, food stamps, WIC payments, AFDC payments, and then correct for the various tax treatments (e.g., some or all of these benefits are untaxed). A worker would have to be earning $14 an hour, or about $30 K a year, to get the same amount of effective take home pay that a welfare recipient with two children receives. Given that the worker has to get up at, say, 6 a.m., get on a bus or train or in a car to get to work, put up with hassles, and, basically, _work_, the welfare alternative looks pretty good. Which is of course the problem so-called democratic societies are having--increasing numbers of layabouts, slackers, and leeches. The "list relevance" of this is this: crypto provides means of hiding income, or arbitraging income sources and regulations, and of basically undermining the welfare state. Many of my tradtionally libertarian friends dispute my beliefs, but I believe income disparities will grow with time, not decrease. The top tier of fiction writers, for example, can easily earn several million dollars or more a year, while the second tier sees their stuff remaindered and the third tier never makes it into print. Ditto for programmers and others. With the "force multiplication" seen in modern economies, there are vast riches to be had for the best few percent in any field, and much less for the drones. Those with no skills to hire out face the prospect of zero income, with not even there physical labor in demand. I basically see no hope for the bottom 30% of the population, and less and less hope for the bottom 70%. Fortunately, my ethical system is such that I see this as just the nature of things, evolution in action. Crypto anarchy will do a more efficient job of culling than many imagine. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."