Is Proverty in US "Too Comfortable"?

[Stark]

You work in Australia's welfare system, right? Do you have any insights?

Nah, that's Ando. I work in industry and commerical regulation, but we see the same need for claims and assessment. People just need to understand that there will always be a non-zero number of 'scammers' or 'cheats' or 'wrong outcomes' in any system, and that cost of enforcement needs to be matched to outcomes (especially in a welfare system, where the goal is to create opportunities and not create convicts). Risk assessment is hard enough when looking at whether breaches have occurred, what the outcome of those breaches could be, who has been harmed by the breach, and how much court action would cost etc etc in a relatively simple arrangement like my area (only a few things I deal with come under more than one act) and I can't imagine the nightmare for those doing the same thing in the welfare system, with their far more broad and complex legal basis and their much higher political visibility. This is why I think the only meaningful way to reduce waste (whether to 'scammers' and 'cheats' or incorrect payments or unintentional knock-on effects of multiple legislation) is to make the system as a whole simpler. How can you expect people to get the ideal utilisation (ie all entitlements easy to access but excessive payments difficult or impossible to access) when it takes a year to train a professional to understand the legislation behind it? Is it worth $200k in court costs and a six man team for nine months to enforce a breach of $25k over two years, especially when it's unlikely other offenders will ever hear about it and it will have only a very local effect? A simple system (especially a self-adjusting one like yours that won't require either stupid DnD lookup tables or patching over time to stay relevant or effective) makes enforcement cheaper and faster while also making it easier for people to get what they deserve and more difficult to get anything else, while pitching it at a level where people aren't discouraged or penalised from any economic activity by the punitive measures implemented with the intent of 'stopping' 'scammers' that really just hurt all users of the service equally.

[bobalot]

I think there is some merit to this concept. I've heard countless stories from friends who will be grocery shopping, see a lady tagging along with 3-4 kids buying lobster and steak and paying for it with government issued welfare debit cards. And heard stories about people on welfare feeding steak rather than dogfood to their dogs because they could buy steak with welfare money.

Anecdotal? Sure, but the fact that it happens indicates a problem with the system. It is rather infuriating when working people see people on welfare eating better than they do. And this is but one example of a way where money could be spent in a more productive manner.

Those personal anecdotes don't indicate shit.

[Stark]

There's a psychology to that kind of problem with welfare - he even admits its 'infuriating'. It makes him angry to imagine other people have non-terrible lives without doing whatever horrible shit he does for money. It makes him ANGRY, dammit! They have to be stopped, don't you SEE?!

In an AU context I've noticed that people tend to react this way around things they feel they may be or have been entitled to but either never took advantage of or didn't need it themselves. Thus, someone getting through uni on austudy and eating pot noodles every day then going out to clubs is hugely offensive to people who worked at a servo and percieve this as some kind of sucker choice compared to their perception of the 'welfare queen' lifestyle. I think it's almost that the system has cheated them personally, rather than other people cheating the system, that drives it. Like immigrants using public services; when asked if they'd rather the immigrants were crushed into poverty so they had to steal to pay a doctor for their sick child, they are abashed and say of course not. But they've been trained (most recently by good old Lazarus Howard) that they're queue jumping cheats so FUCK EM.

In his example, a poorly targeted or scoped welfare system may indeed provide money that can be spent on food for people and not dog food; after all, if you asked a rich person, they might say even owning a pet is a luxury poor people should do without, like toilet fresheners and spray olive oil. That this is a system problem with the way welfare is allocated or controlled, and not a problem with some kind of decision the welfare recipient has made, is irrelevant. It makes him ANGRY! Just hearing a baseless zero-evidence story about him makes him flushed with rage and possibly slam his fist on the table. The only answer is to GET THOSE WELFARE QUEENS WHOSE EXISTENCE HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO BACK!

[Surlethe]

Real fast, without responding to all the things I want to respond to, I want to jump in and say:

We shouldn't give any fucks about what people on welfare are doing. If John Q. GradStudent wants to eat pot noodles every day and then club all night, let him. As long as he's minimally provided for, as long as he has the option of not starving, not wasting his life, not living homeless, and as long as he's not trapped by a poorly designed system, I don't give a shit what he does with his time or his money, and neither should anyone else.

In the words of the immortal Ron Swanson,

[Stark]

That's right, and that what I figured your interest in simple and 'more free' welfare systems was. Indeed, attempts to control what people will do with their welfare (beyond obviously creating black markets) lead to the very things people get angry about, like people having to use 'food money' to buy actual food for their pets, because the controlling system has decreed they cannot spend it on pet food. It also requires the controlling legislation to be more complex and probably have a greater risk of become 'out of date' compared to the economic situation while making it harder to see what people should be doing and if they are doing it.

Risk assessment = it's not worth bothering about.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I know plenty of people who have jobs - good jobs - and do not own a computer.

I'm willing to bet most of them had those really good jobs before computers became so ubiquitous. Good luck applying for a job at a big box store or just about anywhere without an e-mail address these days.

You are correct there are other locations to access to the internet, such as libraries, but that just underlines how essential it has become these days.

As an example of this, the place I work at doesn't even have paper applications anymore, you apply online or not at all.

[PainRack]

What's even more sad is that in real terms, the requirement that employers provide health insurance to full-time employees is a job killer. Part-time/"contract" work is up by millions of jobs in the past five years, an acceleration of an earlier trend. Full-time employees cost proportionately more salary per utile than part-time workers, because of the benefits that - to employers - are actually costs. A single-payer health care system (and safety net/socialized retirement system that effectively covered everyone) would vastly decrease the current incentive employers have to not hire full-time unless they have to. No one is making this argument, because what passes for the left in America is largely retarded.

And of course, since this comrpromise was passed, the Republicans are harping immensely about how Obamacare is a job killing bill infinite.


Same like how they harp about the need to rein in Social Security because budget deficit, but when obama did it during the sequestration, OMG, Obama is killing seniors!

Given the amount of crash politics the Republicans and Bush seemed to have learnt from Singapore, do you think the Democrats would mind taking a short trip over here to pick up skills on how to politically massacre your opponents?

[Covenant]

I can chime in and say poverty is not comfortable. If my rent payments there tax deductible or something I'd be a bit better off, but the problem is less just money than job availability. I cannot easily get a second job that won't make my home life impossible or lose me my first job. When I worked for Comcast SportsNet, they refused to hire me even as part time, keeping me as "temporary" status indefinitely, which lasted about two years. Clearly I was full time or at least part time, but as others have said, they didn't want to pay for benefits. So I had no real reason to stay, and couldn't justify it when my fiancée got into grad school.

Now we're on a budget that restricts us to about 4 dollars for food, but I'm not sure if we apply for assistance. I manage on that because she's Italian and has no compunction against eating pasta for dinner each night, and I make our own pasta sauce. But if we didn't have family taking pity on us, or my notoriously skinflinty deal hunter disposition, this would be terrible.

Thankfully this is probably just a brief detour into poverty, not helped by the surprising food desert of the rolling Appalachian farmland. Milk costs 4 dollars a gallon, even sodas are twice what I'm used to paying in the Chicago suburbs. Vegetables at the Walmart cost more than Whole Foods and the closest real whole foods is over an hour away by car. There are other food options in the area but I was expecting Farmers Markets to have good deals and for this incredibly poverty stricken region to have low food prices, not ones substantially higher than a rich suburb. Being permanently poor here would be crushing.

[Elfdart]

There's a psychology to that kind of problem with welfare - he even admits its 'infuriating'. It makes him angry to imagine other people have non-terrible lives without doing whatever horrible shit he does for money. It makes him ANGRY, dammit! They have to be stopped, don't you SEE?!

In an AU context I've noticed that people tend to react this way around things they feel they may be or have been entitled to but either never took advantage of or didn't need it themselves. Thus, someone getting through uni on austudy and eating pot noodles every day then going out to clubs is hugely offensive to people who worked at a servo and percieve this as some kind of sucker choice compared to their perception of the 'welfare queen' lifestyle. I think it's almost that the system has cheated them personally, rather than other people cheating the system, that drives it. Like immigrants using public services; when asked if they'd rather the immigrants were crushed into poverty so they had to steal to pay a doctor for their sick child, they are abashed and say of course not. But they've been trained (most recently by good old Lazarus Howard) that they're queue jumping cheats so FUCK EM.

In his example, a poorly targeted or scoped welfare system may indeed provide money that can be spent on food for people and not dog food; after all, if you asked a rich person, they might say even owning a pet is a luxury poor people should do without, like toilet fresheners and spray olive oil. That this is a system problem with the way welfare is allocated or controlled, and not a problem with some kind of decision the welfare recipient has made, is irrelevant. It makes him ANGRY! Just hearing a baseless zero-evidence story about him makes him flushed with rage and possibly slam his fist on the table. The only answer is to GET THOSE WELFARE QUEENS WHOSE EXISTENCE HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO BACK!

That's part of it but another factor is that shit flows downhill. You'll notice few if any bulging neck veins from these same concern trolls of public finance over government subsidy of the rich and big business, nor will they clench their fists in fury over the money spent at the Pentagon for, among other things, David Petraeus' personal chef. In fact, their attitudes toward the rich, the garrison state and big business are very servile. But a single mom who has the gall to use her food stamp card to buy steak instead of chicken, fresh fruit instead of canned, or name brand cheese instead of generic is what raises hackles. The Teabagger is by nature the sort that grovels in front of his "betters" but can't wait to piss on those he considers beneath him.

You also shouldn't discount the role pure sadism plays. For the sick-minded, being cruel to the poor is a cheap thrill.

[Stark]

If there's a social perception or construction of what 'being poor' is, then if people exist outside that space, they may appear 'not poor' to others. Then others might think - hey, that guy on welfare, he's NOT POOR.

I've heard this shit. Xyz welfare person has ABC datapoint - whether its a mobile phone, a chocolate bar, a car less than five years old, a pack of cigarettes, etc. This thing is outside the perception of 'poor person' - for many of us constructed from old movies, hysterical news reporting and half-remembered anecdotes - and thus nobody having it can be seen as a 'poor person'. In this way, the person on welfare appears to be WELL OFF or DOING FINE or HAVING A GREAT TIME DRINKING THE WINE. Clearly, this is bad; welfare isn't so people can have a GOOD TIME! etc etc

[amigocabal]

It's basically total bullshit that also carries the interesting implication that the poor are obligated to be miserable and completely destitute. You see the same thing when people whine about poor people having iPhones or even laptops. You can even see it in this guy's opinion that people stay in poverty because we haven't made them miserable or desperate enough to want to escape. It conveniently ignores how many working people use welfare, food stamps, or other assistance, and negatively judges the poor for even the smallest "luxuries" like refrigerators or phones.

Should we not cheer when the poor are comfortable? If we define poverty as not having enough income and savings to avoid starving to death on the streets without outside financial assistance, and people fitting that definition have iPhones and laptops, then obviously there are very generous people around- good news during an era when heroes are needed.

(It would be ludicrous to have a definition of poverty that could theoretically encompass people who can afford six thousand square foot homes and Porsches- let alone iPhones.)

[Stark]

I don't think you know how relative value works. Anyway, phones are free, they're no more a luxury item than a pack of smokes or a hamburger.

[TheHammer]

I think there is some merit to this concept. I've heard countless stories from friends who will be grocery shopping, see a lady tagging along with 3-4 kids buying lobster and steak and paying for it with government issued welfare debit cards. And heard stories about people on welfare feeding steak rather than dogfood to their dogs because they could buy steak with welfare money.

Anecdotal? Sure, but the fact that it happens indicates a problem with the system.

No, it indicates your friends are full of shit, and if you take their rehash of one of Von Reagan's favorite zombie lies seriously, you're full of shit, too.

No, they're not full of shit. It happens. I'm well aware of no one finding Reagan's "wellfare queen driving a cadillac", but you most fucking definitely have documented instances of buying steak and lobster in the grocery story with government issued "food stamps" or whatever you want to call it. It's clear that this and other programs are certainly abused.

It is rather infuriating when working people see people on welfare eating better than they do. And this is but one example of a way where money could be spent in a more productive manner.

That's odd, since a number of "working people" are themselves drawing public assistance.

True enough - slumlord employers like Walmart are a big problem too, but lets save that discussion for later. And Let me clarify what I meant: Working and not on welfare.

The idea of providing absolute basic necessities to everyone isn't the worst idea in the world. I mean, sure its a form of Communism, but provide some baseline nutritional, housing, medical to every citizen would at least give them a platform to build upon.

Because you can't provide food, shelter, medicine etc without nationalizing the means of production. Are you really this stupid?

Substitute the word "socialism" where I said "communism". That was a better word for it.

You don't need to nationalize the means of production to accomplish this. You simply use tax money for it in the same manner we give food, shelter, and medical assistance to the poor now but you do so across the board.

[Terralthra]

I think there is some merit to this concept. I've heard countless stories from friends who will be grocery shopping, see a lady tagging along with 3-4 kids buying lobster and steak and paying for it with government issued welfare debit cards. And heard stories about people on welfare feeding steak rather than dogfood to their dogs because they could buy steak with welfare money.

Anecdotal? Sure, but the fact that it happens indicates a problem with the system.

No, it indicates your friends are full of shit, and if you take their rehash of one of Von Reagan's favorite zombie lies seriously, you're full of shit, too.

No, they're not full of shit. It happens. I'm well aware of no one finding Reagan's "wellfare queen driving a cadillac", but you most fucking definitely have documented instances of buying steak and lobster in the grocery story with government issued "food stamps" or whatever you want to call it. It's clear that this and other programs are certainly abused.

Yeah, they're being abused...and the dude went to jail for food stamp fraud, because he bought all that food to resell it.

Can you think of a good reason why someone on food stamps shouldn't be able to buy a steak once in a while, other than "poor people should have to eat shit food" (ie, punitive)?

[TheHammer]

Actually, I believe we established that through barter the $200 in food stamps a person recieves can be turned into almost anything from toilet paper to drugs and alcohol or whatever.

True, but then that leaves the problem of getting adequate food.

Frankly, I think it would make more sense to allow toilet paper, soap, deodorant, and other very basic hygiene products to be included in the "food stamp" purchases, or have a parallel program giving an allowance for those essentials as well, but then I also believe in such nonsense as a national health system.

Many states do have parallel programs of that nature. I have no problem with things like you mentioned. Its the abuse of these programs that is the problem.

I know plenty of people who have jobs - good jobs - and do not own a computer.

I'm willing to bet most of them had those really good jobs before computers became so ubiquitous. Good luck applying for a job at a big box store or just about anywhere without an e-mail address these days.

You are correct there are other locations to access to the internet, such as libraries, but that just underlines how essential it has become these days.

They are skilled blue collar jobs. I know that having an email address and access to a computer helps with job searches, but as noted there are places with free access to such things.

iPads are less functional than most laptops, and despite your assertion, no, they are not cheaper. If you are talking generational parity you can get several laptops brand new for around $300 versus $500 for a baseline (non-mini)Ipad. Even pre-owned or refurbished you're looking at around $300+ for a functional ipad. Google it.

Actually, I googled a couple for $199. If you don't insist on an Apple brand you can get them in the $100-150 range.

Ipad 1's maybe... How old of equipment are we talking? I'm aware you can get cheaper tablets out there, but they are essentially glorified hand held gaming devices with web browsing capability.

You can probably get this stuff even cheaper at some flea markets, but it's probably stolen.

A used/refurbished smartphone not only gives you phone, it gives you access to e-mail and the internet.

Again, its not the phone so much as it is the associated costs of a cell/data plan. The driving point is that it's not cheap

I believe an assistance program should be providing means for people to get off the assistance requirement. Job training, child care assistance so they can go to work or school, etc.

OK... so what about those who CAN'T get off assistance? Some people are just never going to be employed, not because they're paralyzed in a corner but because they're too dysfunctional mentally/socially.

I've skipped over your personal story because its not relevant to the discussion, but this last point I will address. Obviously those with mental issues preventing employment should still be cared for adequately. I know funding for such programs right now is shameful in most areas, but that's not what we are here to discuss.

As for the terminally lazy, as such a condition does make someone generally unfit for employment, they should be given no better than basic food, housing, medical needs. I'm talking MREs, a cot, and basic medical care.

[Terralthra]

iPads are less functional than most laptops, and despite your assertion, no, they are not cheaper. If you are talking generational parity you can get several laptops brand new for around $300 versus $500 for a baseline (non-mini)Ipad. Even pre-owned or refurbished you're looking at around $300+ for a functional ipad. Google it.

Actually, I googled a couple for $199. If you don't insist on an Apple brand you can get them in the $100-150 range.

Ipad 1's maybe... How old of equipment are we talking? I'm aware you can get cheaper tablets out there, but they are essentially glorified hand held gaming devices with web browsing capability.

A Nexus 7 (fairly high-spec Android tablet) is $199. Off-branded ones that still work fine can be head in the 7"-9" form factor for <$100, and can do everything an iPad can do.

[TheHammer]

No, they're not full of shit. It happens. I'm well aware of no one finding Reagan's "wellfare queen driving a cadillac", but you most fucking definitely have documented instances of buying steak and lobster in the grocery story with government issued "food stamps" or whatever you want to call it. It's clear that this and other programs are certainly abused.

Yeah, they're being abused...and the dude went to jail for food stamp fraud, because he bought all that food to resell it.

Can you think of a good reason why someone on food stamps shouldn't be able to buy a steak once in a while, other than "poor people should have to eat shit food" (ie, punitive)?

Yes the individual in the article was caught and prosecuted. However, there are numerous instances where that didn't happen as noted in the second linked article.

The argument isn't that poor people should have to eat shit food. It's that people on food stamps should not be eating better than people who aren't on them.

A Nexus 7 (fairly high-spec Android tablet) is $199. Off-branded ones that still work fine can be head in the 7"-9" form factor for <$100, and can do everything an iPad can do.

Your statement that an off branded sub $100 tablet can do "everything an iPad can do" is certainly debatable. One I'm happy to have if you've got a specific model in mind.

But where are we going with this? Seems like rather a red herring to the discussion at hand.

[Spoonist]

I'm actually with Surlethe on this one. Foodstamps is a pretty crappy system, better to give them actual money so that they can do with them as they see fit. Not only does it enable more freedom under the restrictions of wellfare, it also doesn't create more problems through second hand markets and the investigation & persecution of those second hand markets.
Back in the bad old days (30s and 40s) we used to have earmarked stuff like foodstamps, soupkitchens and similar stuff (some due to war restrictions, but most in place long before the war). With the hindsight of WWII and the fallout of black markets everywhere and war poverty for a large portion of the people all of that was abolished since they proved less effecient mostly due to the stuff that Simon mentions above. For the US not to have come to the same conclusions is sad, but the same could be said about places like the UK today.

I don't really see where TheHammer is going? 95-98% of people on foodstamps are definately not eating better than people who don't recieve them. Should all of those be punished further because some 2-5% are cheating the system?
That is a pretty crappy and indecent attitude.

[TheHammer]

I don't really see where TheHammer is going? 95-98% of people on foodstamps are definately not eating better than people who don't recieve them. Should all of those be punished further because some 2-5% are cheating the system?
That is a pretty crappy and indecent attitude.

The point is its part of a broken system. People just below the "poverty line", or the line at which they qualify for benefits at least, live better than people just above it. There is no way for someone to try and better their situation, unless they can better it by an order of magnitude. There is little in the way of job training to allow someone make that order of magnitude leap and there is no incentive for someone to scratch and claw their way past the poverty line just to find themselves in a worse situation. Elheru's story from earlier in this thread is an example of this. He would actually be better off making less money because then he would qualify for benefits beyond what he would actually be giving up.

[energiewende]

How much money would be saved if food stamps were halved for recipients who are clinically classified as obese?

[energiewende]

I don't really see where TheHammer is going? 95-98% of people on foodstamps are definately not eating better than people who don't recieve them. Should all of those be punished further because some 2-5% are cheating the system?
That is a pretty crappy and indecent attitude.

The point is its part of a broken system. People just below the "poverty line", or the line at which they qualify for benefits at least, live better than people just above it. There is no way for someone to try and better their situation, unless they can better it by an order of magnitude. There is little in the way of job training to allow someone make that order of magnitude leap and there is no incentive for someone to scratch and claw their way past the poverty line just to find themselves in a worse situation. Elheru's story from earlier in this thread is an example of this. He would actually be better off making less money because then he would qualify for benefits beyond what he would actually be giving up.

It's probably more like 2x not an order of magnitude, but it's definitely a real effect. The problem is what to do with the person whose intellectual faculties are such that he can never do better than a ~ minimum wage job? Welfare doesn't pay that much worse and you can't really argue with 365 days' paid vacation per year, but he isn't really an unavoidable hardship case the system is designed to help.

Personally I think the minimum wage machine is the best solution. It's worse than pretty much any real job without being cruel, pays real cash rather than coupons, and doesn't require expensive bureaucratic means testing and other oversight.

[Zaune]

You might try paying a minimum wage that's within shouting distance of the cost of living.

[energiewende]

People seemed to be able to live when wages were much lower than now, but assuming you mean increase it, that would increase unemployment further.

[Flagg]

How much money would be saved if food stamps were halved for recipients who are clinically classified as obese?

None, you brain dead waste of space. But I bet we'd save a ton of money if we gave obese people enough in food stamps to afford healthy food. You also realize most people that benefit from food stamps are kids, right?

[Terralthra]

It's probably more like 2x not an order of magnitude, but it's definitely a real effect. The problem is what to do with the person whose intellectual faculties are such that he can never do better than a ~ minimum wage job? Welfare doesn't pay that much worse and you can't really argue with 365 days' paid vacation per year, but he isn't really an unavoidable hardship case the system is designed to help.

Personally I think the minimum wage machine is the best solution. It's worse than pretty much any real job without being cruel, pays real cash rather than coupons, and doesn't require expensive bureaucratic means testing and other oversight.

Are you under the impression that a single male with no children can receive welfare? Because (at least in California), he can't.

FOR WHOM
Specific eligibility requirements take into account an applicant's citizenship, age, income, resources, assets and other factors. Generally, services are available to:

• Families that have a child(ren) in the home who has been deprived of parental support or care because of the absence, disability or death of either parent.
• Families with a child(ren) when both parents are in the home but the principal earner is unemployed.
• Needy caretaker relatives of a foster child(ren).

An individual with no children or family to support can get $200 or so of SNAP (food stamps) per month, some assistance with utilities (mostly in the form of subsidized lower-cost utilities, not cash assistance or transfer payments), and that's more or less it.