Sorry, but welfare wasn't intended to provide "wants."
Agreed. With that I was simply using my economics definition - Paraphrasing but "A need is something the consumer desires". How MUCH of a need it is varies depending on the specifics of the item in question, whether there are substitutes, price, etc...
It would also be much cheaper for everyone to simply shut off the subsidy machine. Never mind "give them money" -- what have they done to deserve a single penny of MY money, that I work to earn?
There's a reason that I prefer 'workfare' over 'welfare' for the most part.
Still, designed
properly the idea is that it costs the taxypayer LESS money than the damage and subsequent imprisonment costs when they start stealing to support themselves. Some steal anyways, but eh.
Basically, as long as our society is unwilling to let people starve to death in the streets and deal with the associated unpleasantness from starving people, we have to provide assistance. After that, the question becomes 'how do we maximize effect while minimizing cost?'
I last worked for a public housing authority just over thirty years ago. Back then, we had families in which the third AND fourth generations were still living in the same apartment.
It's my understanding that reforms from the '90s and '00s mostly put an end to this.
My 'workfare' simplified:
1. Mandatory Employment - they act as the 'employer of last resort'.
2. Provides technical training - The military
used to be the biggest source of trained craftsmen, today it's both far smaller and more vertically integrated; I'd go so far as to say that 'most' military retirees keep working with the government after their retirement/seperation. Not saying that these people should join the military.
3. Works mostly on 'infrastructure' - picking trash off highways should be last resort. In this case it's defined as 'Something that helps the American public be happier or more productive and can reasonably be expected to last at least 20 years with only routine maintenance
4. Pay will be scaled to skill level/difficulty of work, but will 'generally' be a skosh less than private sector work. 60-80% I think. With some modifications that employers who expect highly skilled(as opposed to just highly educated) workers for peanuts are going to have to pay more. As I said earlier though, you're not getting anybody that's not pathetic for less than what it takes for a single person to 'live' on. And I consider it possible to 'live' on a wage that doesn't provide enough for a car, your own room to sleep in, etc...
5. Absorbs and releases workers as the economy goes through it's regular swings.