Choices Matter in Avoiding Poverty

[Boomhauer]

I'm interested in seeing that people have a fair opportunity to get out of poverty,

Here's the problem. you may be interested in that. Once they suck at the free money/food trough, they don't want to sieze that opportunity. it's far easier to take the money than to earn it. The poverty cycle will continue as long as that is allowed. Start placing hard limits on welfare and actually having requirements, and you'll have more people striving to get off of it.

But that's not going to happen. Politicians use welfare to buy votes.

[Jamisjockey]

Personally, I don't care if anyone starves out of the lack of government programs.
The undeniable fact is that all welfare is forced charity under the threat of violence by the state.
Monopoly of force is immoral.

[brimic]

Personally, I don't care if anyone starves out of the lack of government programs.

Hunger is a powerful motivator.
Unfortunately what is described as 'hunger' or 'malnutrition' or 'poverty' by many has less to do with food and more to do with a lack of big screen TVs and Xboxes.

[GigaBuist]

Employment options are limited far more by other factors than cognitive impairment brought on by lack of sufficient nutrition.

In my experience, now that I'm working back in an environment that includes "general labor" the three main limiters are:

1) Showing up for work
2) Actually doing work when you're there.
3) Showing up for work reliably.

Back when I was in IT, yeah, cognitive abilities affected ones ability to get into that realm.  But not so much with turning bolts and picking weeds.  These are things a child can do.

Simple fact is people don't want to work.  When Arkansas and Georgia enacted strict (and I would say stupid) illegal immigrant policies farms couldn't find people to work the fields.  Jobs paid $12/hr in Arkansas and $17/hr in Georgia.  People would not do them. They're lazy.  They'd rather collect unemployment and welfare benefits.

And, De Selby, before you give me any crap about that work being too hard for the pay:  I'm out there doing it.  I prefer that work over sitting in an office writing code.

[cordex]

Cordex, I think we're talking past each other - I'm interested in seeing that people have a fair opportunity to get out of poverty, not in granting them all the money that would be required to make whatever the Feds say is not poverty. 

Just curious, but what is a "fair opportunity" to get out of poverty?  As Giga point out, when a person isn't taught a work ethic it simply doesn't matter how nutritious their breakfast was.  And as Avenger notes, the incentive provided by government-provided free food is not to escape poverty.

The shifting measure and other factors involved make the direct comparison not so useful - food isn't going to get people doing well in the economy by itself.  But childhood nutrition and basic education are necessary (not sufficient) conditions of doing so.

Yet becoming addicted to receiving "free" gubmint handouts - food or otherwise - negates the value of education and nutrition. 

Notice that we are talking about cutting those programs here - my question was how many people will not be able to eat without the welfare we have?   If we can be reasonably certain charities will pick up the slack, fine, but I don't see any evidence they can.

Charities would probably never be able to afford to feed everyone who is on welfare now in the manner they have grown accustomed.  On the other hand, they almost certainly could provide for most of the truly needy.  If charities (or other individuals) can't or won't do so in a particular instance, you are more than welcome to pick up the slack.  Or me.  Or anyone else who feels that providing for someone truly in need is moral and good.

[Jamisjockey]

In my experience, now that I'm working back in an environment that includes "general labor" the three main limiters are:

1) Showing up for work
2) Actually doing work when you're there.
3) Showing up for work reliably.

Back when I was in IT, yeah, cognitive abilities affected ones ability to get into that realm.  But not so much with turning bolts and picking weeds.  These are things a child can do.

Simple fact is people don't want to work.  When Arkansas and Georgia enacted strict (and I would say stupid) illegal immigrant policies farms couldn't find people to work the fields.  Jobs paid $12/hr in Arkansas and $17/hr in Georgia.  People would not do them. They're lazy.  They'd rather collect unemployment and welfare benefits.

And, De Selby, before you give me any crap about that work being too hard for the pay:  I'm out there doing it.  I prefer that work over sitting in an office writing code.

The work is too hard for the pay. Why? Because government subsidizes people NOT to do the work.

[Perd Hapley]

Mech,

Notice that we are talking about cutting those programs here - my question was how many people will not be able to eat without the welfare we have?   If we can be reasonably certain charities will pick up the slack, fine, but I don't see any evidence they can.

Of course it will be difficult for charitable orgs to correct the massive problem that government programs have created.

[Scout26]

The work is too hard for the pay. Why? Because government subsidizes people NOT to do the work.

Yep, bet if they weren't picking up their unemployment check and food stamps, there would have been a long line for those jobs.....Hunger is a great motivator...