3 Minute Fix to the Economy

[MechAg94]

The better way to do the welfare stuff is simply to keep it at the lower amounts and keep it strictly temporary.  If there is any way to game the system to get more money or maintain benefits longer, people will do it.  I think it is happening every day that many of those people go to greater effort to maintain their benefits than to just get a job.  Unemployment is gamed by employees and businesses alike.  

The problem with putting welfare recipients to work is:  
1.  You have govt employee unions who won't want them replacing govt employees or getting in the way of hiring employees.

2.  IMO, you are essentially removing workers from the work force who should be in the work force.  It is the same problem we have now.  The "safety net" is too big and set so high that is easier to just use it as a hammock instead of getting out of it.  

3.  I don't want anything resembling government slaves or debtors prison to be created which it could easily become.  It isn't intended, but when has that ever mattered 10 or 50 years down the line.

4.  If you think DMV employees are overworked, just add welfare workers to the mix.  Not only would performance be worse, but suddenly all of the personal information in the DL database would be up for sale.  In addition, the govt health plans would likely be swamped with all sorts of sickness and injury claims.  There is no incentive to be honest and hard working in a situation like that.  
(I would add that the DMV near me isn't so bad and the people are nice.  It is just a small office and they have a lot of steps they have to cover for each person)

[MechAg94]

The problem is that welfare is a financially better option than working for $10/hour.  No commute costs, plenty of time to find under-the-table work for cash, and your cabinets and fridge are always full.

Right after my ex wife quit her job while I was a full time student, (still working 26-30 hours a week, but at just over minimum wage) we were on food stamps for a couple months.  Even just the amount there was ridiculous; I can't remember the exact number, but she pulled receipts showing we didn't spend that much on groceries when we had a combined income around $90k, and that amount was reduced to account for me still having some income.

And that is the problem any form of welfare or unemployment.  People get caught up in blind compassion and want to "help" people less fortunate and fail to realize the bad incentives they are creating.  If people are not motivated to work for any other reason, most will at least work to get basic room and board.

And it really can't be govt workfare.  There is no accountability or fear of getting fired in a situation like that.

[KD5NRH]

The better way to do the welfare stuff is simply to keep it at the lower amounts and keep it strictly temporary.  If there is any way to game the system to get more money or maintain benefits longer, people will do it.

 

This, though I'm not opposed to longer term help for the unlucky guy who gets in a wreck while he has no benefits, and ends up unable to do the job he's spent years building up the experience/education to do.  As I've said elsewhere, if you enroll in an educational program with real earning potential (for you - no quadriplegics getting nursing degrees) and maintain reasonable grades, I don't mind seeing you get 5+ years of benefits that will cover tuition and basic living expenses.  OTOH, if you're not bedridden and aren't trying to improve your potential, cut 25% of the benefits each quarter and in a year you're not eligible for another cent until you've worked at least 2000 documentable hours. (50 40-hour weeks)

I think it is happening every day that many of those people go to greater effort to maintain their benefits than to just get a job.  Unemployment is gamed by employees and businesses alike.

Right; I'd also say that a condition of receiving benefits should be that you're required to submit to up to 40 hours a week (minus actual work time and with provisions to avoid missing classes as applicable) of testing, interviews and whatever else is necessary to prove that you're really disabled, that you maintain an appropriate level of hygiene and decorum, etc.  The smelly guy with a greasy mohawk who drops at least two f-bombs per sentence gets a barber shop pass and a couple of how to be human classes, then either improves or gets cut off.

[TommyGunn]

How does making a employee more expensive for the employer better?

Supply side economics.  The theory is that the employee, being a person, tends to spend his wages.  Thus, increase the money he has and he goes out and spends it in stores and such.  They've done studies that giving a really poor person $1 puts 5 into the economy vs only $1-2 for the rich guy.  The idea being along the lines that the poor guy actually gets a haircut at a barber, the barber spends the extra money from more haircuts having his shop repainted, the painter gets to buy more steak, the rancher buys more feed, etc....

While price increases are indeed a problem, generally the increased income outweighs the increased costs.

The problem I see is that you either get (A.) Fewer employees with more $$$ to spend [as employers might have to fire some workers to keep overhead manageable] or (B.) as I said, the now more well paid employee finds the prices have gone up because businesses everywhere have raised prices, thus effectively negating the employee's pay raise.
As for "studies" that show giving a poor person $1.00  puts $5.00 into the economy, I don't understand how this can be so.  Sure he can spend the dollar, and the dollar just goes through the economy.  And poor people are not really big time spenders.   Getting more out of the deal than it "costs"  ("the increased income outweighs the increased costs") seems like magical thinking.  
Maybe it is possible in a smartly improving economy .... but we don't seem to be enjoying that.

[brimic]

2Thessalonians 3:10 comes to mind.

If a person isn't willing to work for$2,5,10,15 per hour, what makes them think someone else should be forced to put food on their table. Hunger is a powerful motivator, and there is very little of it today in America.

[Ned Hamford]

I would like to see more state experimentation on the specific issue of the poor and homeless.  I for instance do wonder what would happen if Gov. Cheese came back.  Imagine the social data we could get with modern technology.

Then again, is our government money best spend on experimenting on possible dystopian kits?

Just curious...

[Firethorn]

The problem is that welfare is a financially better option than working for $10/hour.  No commute costs, plenty of time to find under-the-table work for cash, and your cabinets and fridge are always full.

Bingo.  Remember, $15/hour 'under the table' is cheaper than $10/hour 'legal' for the employer.  And you don't have to pay 'any' of those pesky taxes on it.

[brimic]

In the local fishwrapper today: http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/hunger-task-force-farm-prepares-for-season-b99499937z1-303669131.html

Its great that people give up a say of work/vacation to help those less fortunate. However, maybe its just the reporting done here but.,, where are the hungry people who benefit from this charity and why are they not volunteering?

A friend if mine kept a newspaper clipping from last winter taken from the 'volunteer opportunities" listing... a homeless shelter was looking for volunteers to keep their sidewalk clear of snow.

There was a time that some of us still remember where people on the lowest rungs who were hanging on for dear life, even if they had to suffer the tempirary indignity of taking food stamps, had far more work ethic than the average college grad today.

[230RN]

A friend if mine kept a newspaper clipping from last winter taken from the 'volunteer opportunities" listing... a homeless shelter was looking for volunteers to keep their sidewalk clear of snow.

Rober Reich is the perfect hyperleftist loudmouthed tool.  

[Scout26]

I would like to see more state experimentation on the specific issue of the poor and homeless.  I for instance do wonder what would happen if Gov. Cheese came back.  Imagine the social data we could get with modern technology.

Then again, is our government money best spend on experimenting on possible dystopian kits?

Just curious...

I grew up eating lots of .gov cheese and butter.   Oh we weren't on food stamps or welfare.  Mom was a Nurse and Dad owned a tavern.  So he would "get" government cheese and butter for the price of a beer or a shot.  Once word got around, he was turning them away as we couldn't eat all we got.  I remember giving blocks of cheese and butter every to the neighbors every week because we had so much.  This was when a bottle of beer (swill) cost Dad ~$.25-.30 and he sold them for $.75-$.1.00.  So a pound of butter or 3lbs of cheese was really good deal and even better for his patrons.  Free Cheese and Butter for a beer (or a shot of the cheap stuff).

So that's what would happen.  Again.   Same with any .gov handout.  Half if not more doesn't go to those that could use the help, but to graft, theft, and/or fraud.

[Firethorn]

I grew up eating lots of .gov cheese and butter.

My disabled grandfather got a lot of government food back in the day and I'd help eat it when I visited him.  I remember the cheese - good quality but uncut blocks of American, and powdered milk. 

Don't remember the butter, but I suppose he probably got that as well, it just wasn't noticeable to my young self.

As for a homeless shelter, if it wasn't that such a high proportion are really disabled, often mentally and physically, I'd expect that 'most' of the labor necessary could be provided by it's very occupants.

But then, homeless shelters and such get...  Complicated.  I'm happy that if I ever became homeless, as a veteran at this point a single phone call will get me shelter somehow.  But I don't think it should be a military exclusive 'benefit'.  From everything I've read, homeless are expensive - costing the government, between city, county, state, and federal, somewhere over $100k/year each.  Damage, police, courts, shelters, emergency rooms, etc...  It all adds up.

Turns out it's orders of magnitude cheaper to put them in housing and provide the basics like food and clothing.  Rather than the old time requirements of making sure they were 'clean' first, just get them into shelter, even if they're drunk or high.  Amazingly enough, it's easier to clean them out once you have them in stable shelter. 

There's no easy '3 minute' fix for the economy.  There's lots and lots of hard fixes, that are often counter-intuitive.  A lot of it involves meeting in the middle between European economies and our own.  We need to NOT set up the welfare states they have, yet provide enough here that we're NOT being penny-wise pound foolish.

[MechAg94]

 

This, though I'm not opposed to longer term help for the unlucky guy who gets in a wreck while he has no benefits, and ends up unable to do the job he's spent years building up the experience/education to do.  As I've said elsewhere, if you enroll in an educational program with real earning potential (for you - no quadriplegics getting nursing degrees) and maintain reasonable grades, I don't mind seeing you get 5+ years of benefits that will cover tuition and basic living expenses.  OTOH, if you're not bedridden and aren't trying to improve your potential, cut 25% of the benefits each quarter and in a year you're not eligible for another cent until you've worked at least 2000 documentable hours. (50 40-hour weeks)

Right; I'd also say that a condition of receiving benefits should be that you're required to submit to up to 40 hours a week (minus actual work time and with provisions to avoid missing classes as applicable) of testing, interviews and whatever else is necessary to prove that you're really disabled, that you maintain an appropriate level of hygiene and decorum, etc.  The smelly guy with a greasy mohawk who drops at least two f-bombs per sentence gets a barber shop pass and a couple of how to be human classes, then either improves or gets cut off.

I understand where you are coming from, but you are saying that someone working for the govt has to make a judgement call to cut off someone's benefits usually while they are begging for more money and claiming all sorts of sad circumstances to justify it.  You are not going to find many govt employees willing to do that and even fewer who would do it correctly with rational sense.

[Ron]

The welfare state has been the crowning success of the left.

If the unintended consequence of the welfare state is the destruction of the family unit then so be it; they will create a new social construct to raise the children.

It will be much easier to control the flow of information into the young skulls of mush without a strong father or virtuous mother acting as a gatekeeper to the child's mind.

 

[Perd Hapley]

The welfare state has been the crowning success of the left.

If the unintended consequence of the welfare state is the destruction of the family unit then so be it; they will create a new social construct to raise the children.

It will be much easier to control the flow of information into the young skulls of mush without a strong father or virtuous mother acting as a gatekeeper to the child's mind.

I'm not sure it was unintended. Or if it wasn't set up for that purpose, I'm not so sure they don't want it to continue for same.