sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
I'm about to go to bed, but I found this article on the topic of welfare:
(It's old, but on a topic that's still important)
http://www.zompist.com/welfare.html
highlights:
Bob Dole thinks things used to be better in this country. When you hear that, bear the above chart in mind. What time exactly would he like to move back to? Perhaps 1950, when the poverty rate was three times higher, the middle class had half the income it does today, and schools and public facilities were racially segregated?
Everybody has an opinion about welfare; few of those opinions are based on any actual acquaintance with the poor. Even academic writers have often had no idea of such basic facts as what percentage of a welfare family's income comes from the government.
One source of trustworthy data is Kathryn Edins' interviews with fifty Cook County welfare mothers in 1988-90. Here's a basic summary of where their money comes from and where it goes.
The most important thing to note is that government aid (here, AFDC plus welfare) covers only about 58% of income. Welfare isn't enough to live on. The rest comes from relatives and friends, resident boyfriends, jobs, and (for some respondents) drug dealing or prostitution. (Only 10% of the respondents availed themselves of the latter opportunity, despite the fact that it was by far the most lucrative work available, paying $40 an hour, compared to $5 for regular jobs and $3 for cash-basis jobs like babysitting.)
Technically, the extra income should have been reported to AFDC, which would have reduced benefits accordingly. It should be obvious why the income is not reported: honesty would leave a family with too little to live on. Caseworkers are generally aware of the unreported income, but are human enough not to press the issue. Their superiors, not to mention prominent economists, are left with the impression that welfare recipients live on nothing but welfare.
Where does the money go? Rent and utilities make up 28% of expenses; food another 26%; the remainder goes for clothing, laundry, household supplies, transportation, furniture, appliances, and the occasional treat.
All the families have a TV. This fact sometimes offends their betters, who are concerned to inflict Puritan morality on other people. Televisions are pretty cheap as entertainment, however; and these families are by no means well off. They aren't driving Cadillacs; only 22% have a car at all. Most live in bad apartments (leaky roofs, cockroaches, plaster falling off the walls, heat and hot water frequently out of order) in bad neighborhoods. A quarter of them have no telephone.
Bottom line: Getting rid of the safety net won't help the poor-- it'll just produce more poor people. We used to have no safety net: things weren't better, but worse, with a third of the population living in povery, and families ruined by the loss of a job, serious illness, old age, or a bank failure.
Why would anyone want to go back to those days? We may get some answer by looking at the evident goal of Dole, Newt, & Co.: the economy of a typical Third World country. (Chile is one of their favorites.) The vast majority of such a country is poor and continually gets poorer; but a tiny minority prospers fantastically. The jet set of Santiago or Lima or São Paulo lives far better than the American middle class, doesn't have to worry about obnoxious labor unions, food safety, or environmental regulations, has the government to themselves, and can set it up so that any significant new wealth created accrues to themselves. (An example: here, any gold you discover under your land is yours. In much of Latin America, it belongs to the state.)
The appeal for the rich is obvious. What baffles me is why they get support from so much of the middle class.
(It's old, but on a topic that's still important)
http://www.zompist.com/welfare.html
highlights:
Bob Dole thinks things used to be better in this country. When you hear that, bear the above chart in mind. What time exactly would he like to move back to? Perhaps 1950, when the poverty rate was three times higher, the middle class had half the income it does today, and schools and public facilities were racially segregated?
Everybody has an opinion about welfare; few of those opinions are based on any actual acquaintance with the poor. Even academic writers have often had no idea of such basic facts as what percentage of a welfare family's income comes from the government.
One source of trustworthy data is Kathryn Edins' interviews with fifty Cook County welfare mothers in 1988-90. Here's a basic summary of where their money comes from and where it goes.
The most important thing to note is that government aid (here, AFDC plus welfare) covers only about 58% of income. Welfare isn't enough to live on. The rest comes from relatives and friends, resident boyfriends, jobs, and (for some respondents) drug dealing or prostitution. (Only 10% of the respondents availed themselves of the latter opportunity, despite the fact that it was by far the most lucrative work available, paying $40 an hour, compared to $5 for regular jobs and $3 for cash-basis jobs like babysitting.)
Technically, the extra income should have been reported to AFDC, which would have reduced benefits accordingly. It should be obvious why the income is not reported: honesty would leave a family with too little to live on. Caseworkers are generally aware of the unreported income, but are human enough not to press the issue. Their superiors, not to mention prominent economists, are left with the impression that welfare recipients live on nothing but welfare.
Where does the money go? Rent and utilities make up 28% of expenses; food another 26%; the remainder goes for clothing, laundry, household supplies, transportation, furniture, appliances, and the occasional treat.
All the families have a TV. This fact sometimes offends their betters, who are concerned to inflict Puritan morality on other people. Televisions are pretty cheap as entertainment, however; and these families are by no means well off. They aren't driving Cadillacs; only 22% have a car at all. Most live in bad apartments (leaky roofs, cockroaches, plaster falling off the walls, heat and hot water frequently out of order) in bad neighborhoods. A quarter of them have no telephone.
Bottom line: Getting rid of the safety net won't help the poor-- it'll just produce more poor people. We used to have no safety net: things weren't better, but worse, with a third of the population living in povery, and families ruined by the loss of a job, serious illness, old age, or a bank failure.
Why would anyone want to go back to those days? We may get some answer by looking at the evident goal of Dole, Newt, & Co.: the economy of a typical Third World country. (Chile is one of their favorites.) The vast majority of such a country is poor and continually gets poorer; but a tiny minority prospers fantastically. The jet set of Santiago or Lima or São Paulo lives far better than the American middle class, doesn't have to worry about obnoxious labor unions, food safety, or environmental regulations, has the government to themselves, and can set it up so that any significant new wealth created accrues to themselves. (An example: here, any gold you discover under your land is yours. In much of Latin America, it belongs to the state.)
The appeal for the rich is obvious. What baffles me is why they get support from so much of the middle class.
