Is Proverty in US "Too Comfortable"?

[Elheru Aran]

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.

Without getting into the 'raising minimum wage increases unemployment' argument, I should note that when wages were 'much lower', the dollar had correspondingly better buying power. You could get a Coca-Cola brand for 25 cents from a vending machine in the early '90s. Now it's 75 cents-- but the minimum wage isn't *that* much greater (something like $7.50? now versus, what, $4 back then?). The price has increased 200x, but the minimum wage hasn't. (I'm pulling the minimum wage numbers out of my ass, mind you-- I was a kid back then, but I'm fairly sure it was at around $4)

Here's an interesting page; not sure how accurate it is but it lists minimum wages from 1955-2012 with their value in 1996 dollars for comparison. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

Now, that aside, I'm not sure my living condition would necessarily be improved with less income, mostly because Georgia is a massive pain in the arse to get any kind of social benefits... and I for one certainly don't want to have less income as it's hard enough for us to make it as it is.

[Spoonist]

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.

Yes? But that was not what you were saying. You were specifically riled up about there being people on food stamps who could/would/might eat "better" than those who didn't recieve them.
So the point is still stands. Regardless of a crappy system its not the fault of the beneficiaries that the system is crappy. So you'd do something more broken which is ranting about the 2-5% as some sort of legitimate grieviance. That is very petty of you.

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

Huh? Which reality did you just step in from?
You are missing a lot of data to even consider such a thing. Plus you gotta be pretty low on empathy altogether to even consider most of your suggestions.
1-cheap food is usually more fattening than expensive, this is because the cheap stuff consists of transfats and sugar. Its also because making 'real' food takes an investment in utensils and time. Something which you at minimum wage in the US, you simply don't have.
2-poor people in western society is more likely to be fat than the better off.
3-your scheme would produce more of the same, less foodstamps=fatter food, ie cheap sodas and transfat burgers.
4-starving fat people without access to health care will lead to health related deaths of malnutrition - but maybe that is the cost saving you were looking for?
5-if you were a beancounter wanting to lower such costs you would be incetivized to lower the threshold for clinically obese.

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.

That is even more uninformed than your last zinger.
1-ever heard of inflation, check out what that actually means.
2-nope, increased wellfare does not increase unemployment, if that was the case austerity would work like a charm.
3-nope, increased minimum pay does not increase unemployment (if done right), all the societies that increased the living standard of their poor saw an increased economic growth, you can see that in effect today in the growing economies. An economy is not a zero sum game. The more people who can participate productively the more the nations economy grows.
4-ever heard of the average life expectancy? Do you really want a society that want to go back to a day where that was much much lower?
5-same for births where the child or mother dies or have seriuos complications. Malnutrition based on a non-variable diet will have that effect.
6-you can feed 100 poor indians/africans on minimum wage, does that in any shape or form become an argument to lower the minimum wage? If not, then please note what that does to your argument.
7-the costs for the nation for poverty is big, minimum pay only works for the private industry because that form of labour is subsidized by the gov. That cost is taken from taxing the working lower to middle class. Want to guess what happens when the living costs keep increasing but the minimum pay doesnt?

[Broomstick]

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.

Oh, sure - I used to be middle class on my current income, but that was back when gas was $0.50 a gallon, steak was $2/pound, my phone bill was all of $10/month, and so forth.

People could live on much lower wages because the cost of living was much lower.

[Broomstick]

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.

He can't anywhere in the US - the rules changed in 1996. A lot of people still have heard, though.

[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.

He can't anywhere in the US - the rules changed in 1996. A lot of people still have heard, though.

Well, that isn't entirely true. For example, in California, each county administers a program called General Assistance, which can give cash grants to needy individuals; however, GA comes with the expectation of Workfare community service. It's also time-limited to only 2 years.

Programs based on the TANF federal block grants are also time-limited to 5 years, regardless of which state you receive benefits through. And even single parents receiving TANF are expected to spend 32-36 hours per week in job-related activities (training, looking for work, etc.).

[NoXion]

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.

That does nothing to address the underlying problems as to why there aren't enough jobs. Actual proper jobs, not this bullshit make-work you're proposing.

As for the minimum wage machine itself, why would anyone with at least a couple of braincells to rub together ever bother turning the handle? As opposed to a simpler solution, like smashing it open and pouring the contents into a rucksack, as a big fat middle finger to the kind of quasi-fascist cunt who draws their ideas on social and economic policy from artworks, the message of which said cunt is probably greatly misunderstanding.

[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.

Yes? But that was not what you were saying. You were specifically riled up about there being people on food stamps who could/would/might eat "better" than those who didn't recieve them.
So the point is still stands. Regardless of a crappy system its not the fault of the beneficiaries that the system is crappy. So you'd do something more broken which is ranting about the 2-5% as some sort of legitimate grieviance. That is very petty of you.

What point is that exactly? Where did I say anyone should be "punished"? I'm specifically ranting about the aspect of the system where it is more beneficial to remain on public aid rather than to claw your way off of it.

Quite frankly, you're a fucking idiot if you can't see why I'd have a problem with that.

[Spoonist]

What point is that exactly? Where did I say anyone should be "punished"?

*sigh* This was already explained to you by others. But I will try to see if I can clarify it again.
This is what you said:

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.

and then

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.

The problem with that is that as long as the system is if you have X qulifications < Y income, you can recieve Z amount of foodstamps.
Then if person A has X and person B has X+1$, then A will recieve foodstamps and B will not and as long as those foodstamps are >1$ there will be people on foodstamps eating better than people without. Regardless of wether one or both of them are working.

This is aggravated by it being specificly foodstamps that can't be used for something else by its terms.
Person B again doesn't qualify but have an income of X, person C qualifies but C's income+foodstamps<X. So in absolutes C has less to spend than B, however because foodstamps are earmarked C cannot distribute his income as B can. This means that in reality that B on average will spend less on food than C, because part of C's income can only be spend on food. So C will eat "better" than B but be poorer in absolutes.

So if you are really advocating that people on foodstamps shouldn't be able to eat better than those without then you shouldn't be bitching about the outlier 2-5% or some random examples of cheaters. Instead you should be bitching about it being foodstamps at all, instead of cash.
But since you are not it is clear that you think that people in the upper criteria on average should get less foodstamps and that the system should be more regulated. That means that fewer will recieve foodstamps and more of the budget will be spent on regulating them than handing them out.
That is clearly punishing people on foodstamps.

[TheHammer]

What point is that exactly? Where did I say anyone should be "punished"?

*sigh* This was already explained to you by others. But I will try to see if I can clarify it again.
This is what you said:

*golf clap* I see, so you'll open with an insult in an attempt to make yourself immediately superior before you've even bothered to make an argument. Very weak debating tactic. You're the one being explained to in this scenario. I'll even use your convulted "Person B, Person C" scenario so that hopefully you'll get it this time.

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.

and then

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.

The problem with that is that as long as the system is if you have X qulifications < Y income, you can recieve Z amount of foodstamps.
Then if person A has X and person B has X+1$, then A will recieve foodstamps and B will not and as long as those foodstamps are >1$ there will be people on foodstamps eating better than people without. Regardless of wether one or both of them are working.

And thusly you have identified the problem. Finally, I've gotten through!

This is aggravated by it being specificly foodstamps that can't be used for something else by its terms.
Person B again doesn't qualify but have an income of X, person C qualifies but C's income+foodstamps<X. So in absolutes C has less to spend than B, however because foodstamps are earmarked C cannot distribute his income as B can. This means that in reality that B on average will spend less on food than C, because part of C's income can only be spend on food. So C will eat "better" than B but be poorer in absolutes.

As you appear to be understanding, the problem is that just above the poverty line person B's income is less than person C's income+foodstamps. Person C can only spend foodstamp money on food, but person B's food budget is smaller than C's by financial neccessity, not because they lack the desire to eat better/more often. Further, you ignore the fact that food stamps are not taxed, meaning person B's buying power is even further marginalized. For Person C to aspire to be Person B, they would have to make enough to overcome the gap of lost benefits while accounting for increased taxes (payroll as well as income).

Do you understand now? The system is broken if it makes Person C look at the prospect of becoming person B and says "Fuck that shit". Person B and person C would LOVE to be person D, the guy well above the poverty line, but there aren't any real programs that help Persons B & C to do that. Could Person C claw their way to being a person B under the current system? In many cases, absolutely. But why again why would they want to?

So if you are really advocating that people on foodstamps shouldn't be able to eat better than those without then you shouldn't be bitching about the outlier 2-5% or some random examples of cheaters. Instead you should be bitching about it being foodstamps at all, instead of cash.
But since you are not it is clear that you think that people in the upper criteria on average should get less foodstamps and that the system should be more regulated. That means that fewer will recieve foodstamps and more of the budget will be spent on regulating them than handing them out.
That is clearly punishing people on foodstamps.

Did you pull that 2-5% out of your ass? How about you cite something if you're going to use a statistic. People recieving a benefit from the government aren't being "punished". Its the people NOT recieving this benefit that are being "punished" if you will. Sure, if they make enough money they really don't care because the benefits are inconsequential to them. But for the folks in between, the person B's, its a bitter fucking pill to swallow. But rather than look at it logically, and ways to improve the system which is what the article is really about, you get knee jerk reactions such as yours that "How dare you propose we punish the poor!".

And I should be clear. I'm not a conservative. Perhaps you think the word "reform" is a code word for "cut" which is what many conservatives use it as. When I speak of reform, I'm talking a re-allocation of resources to give people incentives to try to become person B, and programs that give them the tools to have a chance to become person D.

Whatever happened to Person A anyway?

[Broomstick]

Hammer, you're not considering the time and aggravation of the periodic re-applications for foodstamps that is undergone every 6 months. Speaking from experience, it's roughly equivalent to doing one's taxes, plus there is a scheduled interview (which may require you to take time off work which for people at that income level means loss of that pay), any required chasing of documentation, and so forth. It's aggravating enough that people receiving only marginal amounts of foodstamps, the $50 or less per month amount in general, will often forgo benefits to avoid the rigamarole of wading through the paperwork. The return for one's time spent on the program paperwork/qualifications is too small to bother with, particularly when there are ample food panties and soup kitchens in most areas. So there will, in reality and actual practice, be few persons B whose income + foodstamps results in a higher food budget than person C with qualifying income + $1 (or whatever)

The exceptions will most likely be the disabled, who have ample time to spend on such things. And frankly, considering how much suck being disabled is, I'm not going to bitch about that "advantage" for them.

[loomer]

Hammer, quick question, but have you ever lived on welfare?

[TheHammer]

Hammer, you're not considering the time and aggravation of the periodic re-applications for foodstamps that is undergone every 6 months. Speaking from experience, it's roughly equivalent to doing one's taxes, plus there is a scheduled interview (which may require you to take time off work which for people at that income level means loss of that pay), any required chasing of documentation, and so forth. It's aggravating enough that people receiving only marginal amounts of foodstamps, the $50 or less per month amount in general, will often forgo benefits to avoid the rigamarole of wading through the paperwork. The return for one's time spent on the program paperwork/qualifications is too small to bother with, particularly when there are ample food panties and soup kitchens in most areas. So there will, in reality and actual practice, be few persons B whose income + foodstamps results in a higher food budget than person C with qualifying income + $1 (or whatever)

The exceptions will most likely be the disabled, who have ample time to spend on such things. And frankly, considering how much suck being disabled is, I'm not going to bitch about that "advantage" for them.

You've got it backwards Person C was better off than Person B... making X income - Y expenses... Lets just drop the whole person A, B, and C thing and cut to the chase...

Broom, I believe the process of applying for food stamps varies from state to state, but doesn't affect my overall point: That persons on welfare are often times better off then persons just past the "cut off", and that in and of itself serves as a dis-incentive to get off welfare. Foodstamps is only one aspect, there are also subsidized housing and other programs to take into account. Which means only two factors would really influence a person to get off welfare 1) Pride, or 2) An opportunity to bypass the "no mans land" between the point where you lose benefits, and where you are making enough money that you really don't miss those benefits.

I'd like to see welfare benefits for food and housing be provided across the board to anyone who wanted them, but to be such that no one would want them unless they really needed them in order to prevent the system from being abused. The most basic of food and housing, while providing programs for training to allow people to better themselves rather than to simply perpetuate the welfare cycle. Now that you have that baseline survival safety net, you provide financial incentives when certain milestones are met, such as finding employment and maintaining it for 6 months or a year, completing a training program, etc. In short, you reward able bodied and able minded people for bettering themselves, so that eventually they work their way out of the system.

Disability benefits are a separate issue entirely from this discussion and I don't want to lump them in.

Hammer, quick question, but have you ever lived on welfare?

I think I may have recieved some benefits as a baby and grew up in a household that was in that "in-between" state for a while... But what relevence does that have to the discussion?

[energiewende]

That does nothing to address the underlying problems as to why there aren't enough jobs. Actual proper jobs, not this bullshit make-work you're proposing.

Nor then does welfare which pays people to do nothing at all. Supposing we could eliminate involuntary unemployment then we could also eliminate welfare, except for the permanently completely disabled. However since we cant the question is which system is most effective at relieving involuntary unemployment with the fewest possible undesireable side-effects.

As for the minimum wage machine itself, why would anyone with at least a couple of braincells to rub together ever bother turning the handle? As opposed to a simpler solution, like smashing it open and pouring the contents into a rucksack, as a big fat middle finger to the kind of quasi-fascist cunt who draws their ideas on social and economic policy from artworks, the message of which said cunt is probably greatly misunderstanding.

Art, or design?

[Terralthra]

You missed the point of his pointing out that you missed his point, too. That being that the minimum wage design was a piece of design/art intended to point out that minimum wage is too low.

Turning the crank on the side releases one penny every 4.97 seconds, for a total of $7.25 per hour. This corresponds to minimum wage for a person in New York.

This piece is brilliant on multiple levels, particularly as social commentary. Without a doubt, most people who started operating the machine for fun would quickly grow disheartened and stop when realizing just how little they’re earning by turning this mindless crank. A person would then conceivably realize that this is what nearly two million people in the United States do every day…at much harder jobs than turning a crank. This turns the piece into a simple, yet effective argument for raising the minimum wage.

[energiewende]

That is the opinion of some blogger, not the designer. But as we well know, even artists don't know what their art is about or else why would universities have critical theory departments?

[Terralthra]

Feel free to respond to my earlier points regarding who can receive welfare and what is required of them. Your views regarding "365 days per year vacation" are what I'm particularly interested in, since you skipped responding to the posts in which I reply to those.

[energiewende]

Your post wasn't very interesting because my point was never that this system should only apply to people without dependents, or that it shouldn't (in principle) increase the amount of welfare received by people without dependents.

[Terralthra]

Ah, so, when faced with evidence that your views on who can receive welfare and what is expected from them in return are completely wrong, you don't think it's very interesting. How...unsurprising.

[Flagg]

Dude, obvious troll is trolling.

[energiewende]

You seem to think that I am arguing that welfare should be cut because I hate poor people.

What in fact I am saying is that welfare (whatever sum may be given out, which may be more or less than now) should have an obligation to do work that is at least not more onerous than that required in a similar paying job.

In the particular case you cited - that in the US able-bodied men without dependents receive much less welfare than those with dependents - I think this system is bad. It looks sensible if you assume it doesn't change incentives but in fact it encourages people to have children they cannot ordinarily support in order to be elgibie for welfare, which they are then never able to support through working. This is the main mechanism of the welfare trap.

[Terralthra]

You seem to think that I am arguing that welfare should be cut because I hate poor people.

What in fact I am saying is that welfare (whatever sum may be given out, which may be more or less than now) should have an obligation to do work that is at least not more onerous than that required in a similar paying job.

In the particular case you cited - that in the US able-bodied men without dependents receive much less welfare than those with dependents - I think this system is bad. It looks sensible if you assume it doesn't change incentives but in fact it encourages people to have children they cannot ordinarily support in order to be elgibie for welfare, which they are then never able to support through working. This is the main mechanism of the welfare trap.

What I pointed out is that for single men and women, welfare does have an obligation to work. And for families on TANF, welfare has a requirement to participate in job training, job seeking, or community workfare that comes to 36 hours/week.

Moreover, the idea of a welfare trap is impressively stupid, consdiering that after five years on TANF, recipients can not receive TANF again. That's why the program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

[Broomstick]

Broom, I believe the process of applying for food stamps varies from state to state, but doesn't affect my overall point: That persons on welfare are often times better off then persons just past the "cut off", and that in and of itself serves as a dis-incentive to get off welfare. Foodstamps is only one aspect, there are also subsidized housing and other programs to take into account. Which means only two factors would really influence a person to get off welfare 1) Pride, or 2) An opportunity to bypass the "no mans land" between the point where you lose benefits, and where you are making enough money that you really don't miss those benefits.

I just want to point out a couple things:

1) applying for foodstamps is easy... qualifying for the benefit is another matter. Anyone can apply, as often as they like but in order to actually recieve benefits you have to document your income and assets. Last time I did that it took 15 pages and includes copies of the titles to my vehicles, a copy of my lease, and so on. This wasn't too difficult but if you're homeless and couchsurfing how do you prove it? And if you don't prove it you don't get benefits.

Once you get it done you have to do it again every six months. You can't simply say "it's on file" you have to re-document everything.

Then there are the tiny little annoyances that the middle class don't think of when dissing the poor - the first time I applied I had to FAX the documents in... but I don't have a fax machine. I was unemployed and couldn't use a fax at work. There are places in my neighborhood that will allow you the use of a fax machine. The cost back then was $1/page. I have 15 page application, so $15 just to submit it. The alternative was driving to a city 90 minutes away to hand it in, in person... oh, yeah, how much is gas? And no bus service from here to there. Copies are $0.15/page at the library or post office, so... $2.25 for that. $17.25 just to get the paperwork in, and I'm supposed to be destitute, remember? (They did fix the "fax it in" problem, now costs nothing, yay for that)

That's where the question "have you ever been on benefits?" comes in - because until you have you don't realize that it's not exactly "free" money, you have to continually apply and re-apply and document and it's all a pain in the ass. This does function to discourage people who don't really need benefits, whereas people who do will put up with the aggravation because they need to eat.

2) Subsidized housing: The waiting list in my area is TEN YEARS LONG. If you qualify for subsidized housing where the hell are you supposed to live in the meanwhile? It is also CLOSED. If you aren't on it you can't get on it. They do have a waiting list for the waiting list... and that's no joke.

3) Cash benefits a.k.a. TANF: Unless you have kids you can't get it, and even then only for 5 years.

4) Medicaid: in most states kids have the greatest odds of getting on it. Past 18, most men do not qualify no matter how destitute. Most women don't qualify unless they're pregnant, and then only so long as they are pregnant.

5) WIC: another food benefit. Open only to pregnant women, nursing women, infants, and children.

Most able-bodied adults can qualify ONLY for foodstamps and Section 8 housing... and even if you qualify for Section 8 you have to wait YEARS to actually get a place. Um... where, exactly, is the comfort here? The incentive to stay there if you can possibly do something else?

Working poor is a different matter - there are working poor who qualify for one or another or a couple of the above, but they're already working.

I'd like to see welfare benefits for food and housing be provided across the board to anyone who wanted them, but to be such that no one would want them unless they really needed them in order to prevent the system from being abused.

How do you plan to determine that need? How convoluted will be the process?

The most basic of food and housing, while providing programs for training to allow people to better themselves rather than to simply perpetuate the welfare cycle.

Training programs are only useful if there are actual jobs available for people to take once they complete them. It's been a problem around here the last few years that plenty of people take training, but there are no job openings in the areas trained.

Now that you have that baseline survival safety net, you provide financial incentives when certain milestones are met, such as finding employment and maintaining it for 6 months or a year, completing a training program, etc. In short, you reward able bodied and able minded people for bettering themselves, so that eventually they work their way out of the system.

I could get behind that, but the devil is in the details. The more complex you make compliance the more likely the system is to unintentionally reward something undesirable.

[Stark]

He wants to 'prevent abuse' by limiting demand; it sounds like he wants to provide socialised housing on demand but make them as crap and undesirable as possible to revent people wanting to use them.

As the UK how effective this approach was, and don't use words like 'underclass'.

Creating an equitable and simple system that can be clearly explained and enforced isn't the goal - making people in socialised housing hate it is. The suffering is key, not the welfare.

[Zaune]

We used to call that "less eligibility" in this country. It didn't work then and it isn't going to work now.

[NoXion]

Nor then does welfare which pays people to do nothing at all. Supposing we could eliminate involuntary unemployment then we could also eliminate welfare, except for the permanently completely disabled. However since we cant the question is which system is most effective at relieving involuntary unemployment with the fewest possible undesireable side-effects.

At least with unemployment benefits there's an expectation that claimants will find work at some point. Of course job market conditions like a shitty economy or living in a deprived area might make it harder for folks to find a job, but that's hardly the fault of the benefits system.

Art, or design?

You tell me, is that enough information to build a functional version? Leaving aside the question of whether it's even a functional design in the first place, I doubt it. Same thing for that minimum wage-slavery machine.