When Poor Folk Get Cash, It Doesn't Make Them Lazy.

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9764324/welfare-cash-transfer-work

For as long as there have been government programs designed to help the poor, there have been critics insisting that helping the poor will keep them from working. But the evidence for this proposition has always been rather weak.

And a recent study from MIT and Harvard economists makes the case even weaker. Abhijit Banerjee, Rema Hanna, Gabriel Kreindler, and Benjamin Olken reanalyzed data from seven randomized experiments evaluating cash programs in poor countries and found "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work." Attacking welfare recipients as lazy is easy rhetoric, but when you actually test the proposition scientifically, it doesn't hold up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9764324/welfare-cash-transfer-work

For as long as there have been government programs designed to help the poor, there have been critics insisting that helping the poor will keep them from working. But the evidence for this proposition has always been rather weak.

And a recent study from MIT and Harvard economists makes the case even weaker. Abhijit Banerjee, Rema Hanna, Gabriel Kreindler, and Benjamin Olken reanalyzed data from seven randomized experiments evaluating cash programs in poor countries and found "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work." Attacking welfare recipients as lazy is easy rhetoric, but when you actually test the proposition scientifically, it doesn't hold up.

That is evaluating the result of giving cash to poor people in a poor society, not to welfare cases.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9764324/welfare-cash-transfer-work

That is evaluating the result of giving cash to poor people in a poor society, not to welfare cases.

 

[Trausti]

What's the argument exactly? If it's that people who are already working will continue to work even though they get a government benefit, no surprise. But what of those who are chronically unemployed or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence? We already know their spending habits from EBT cards; why would we think that their effort to work would change if that were substituted for free cash?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What's the argument exactly? If it's that people who are already working will continue to work even though they get a government benefit, no surprise. But what of those who are chronically unemployed

chronic unemployment makes cash a bad thing for poor people?

or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence?

How many people would be in that group? Is that a number large enough to negate the findings of the study?

We already know their spending habits from EBT cards; why would we think that their effort to work would change if that were substituted for free cash?

What are those spending habits?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And we continue to hear about how welfare is so awesome and you can just never work again... by people who would never consider going on welfare to enjoy the unbeatable frills it provides.

 

[DBT]

Even before the advent of cash (monetory renumeration), people were willing to do things for their tribe/community.

There are motivativations for doing useful community work, volunteering for charity work, hospitals, emergency services, etc, regardless of not being payed.

A social wage would not necessarily make 'poor people' lazy.

 

[Trausti]

These threads just seem odd to me. The same folks who push for more government handouts are usually the same folks who push for more immigration. The hypothesis being that we need immigrants to do unfilled jobs; yet we've got all these people here already - collecting government benefits - who could do those same jobs. Insanity.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2AJOQPEi2k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Crazy Eddie]

what of those who are chronically unemployed or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence?

Do you have any idea what kind of person you're talking about who is actually "chronically unemployed" or follows a "generational pattern" of welfare dependence? These are not generally the kinds of people who are CAPABLE of holding a job for any length of time. That is a low-skill, under-motivated, under-educated, underclass individual whose (un)employment history is probably the LEAST of his problems. For most such people the existence of government assistance is the only thing keeping them from turning to petty crime to make ends meet, assuming they haven't already since government assistance doesn't pay nearly enough for a decent living.

We already know their spending habits from EBT cards

Yes, those underclass slobs have an alarming tendency to buy FOOD. Those assholes.

 

[DBT]

These threads just seem odd to me. The same folks who push for more government handouts are usually the same folks who push for more immigration.

I don't push for more immigration...regardless of where it comes from, or whoever they may be.

My position is that the World is grossly overpopulated, including Australia - being an arid continent (obviously there are those who disagree) - therefore we need to develop a steady state economy. Though this is already happening with falling birth rates in developed nations, this situation does not appear to meet the needs of neoclassic economists and Governments who continue to sing the matra of 'growth, growth, growth!'

 

[Crazy Eddie]

These threads just seem odd to me. The same folks who push for more government handouts are usually the same folks who push for more immigration.

Really? I've almost never heard those two positions being held simultaneously. I HAVE heard people supporting welfare programs also support a "path to citizenship" for immigrants or comprehensive immigration reform. That isn't the same thing as "pushing for more immigration." Actually, it's approximately the same thing as pushing for a robust welfare program, since citizenship and a reformed immigration system would make life easier for people trying to enter the country and help them avoid sliding into deep poverty once they arrive.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Even before the advent of cash (monetory renumeration), people were willing to do things for their tribe/community.

There are motivativations for doing useful community work, volunteering for charity work, hospitals, emergency services, etc, regardless of not being payed.

A social wage would not necessarily make 'poor people' lazy.

Nicely put.

Most people, including poor people, do work all the time for which they are not paid with money. They change their brother's oil, babysit for a friend, paint the community center, etc.

Unemployment is generally not a lifestyle choice, people are generally social beings, and people generally feel useful and needed when they do work that they can see as a benefit to others.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Even before the advent of cash (monetory renumeration), people were willing to do things for their tribe/community.

There are motivativations for doing useful community work, volunteering for charity work, hospitals, emergency services, etc, regardless of not being payed.

A social wage would not necessarily make 'poor people' lazy.

Nicely put.

Most people, including poor people, do work all the time for which they are not paid with money. They change their brother's oil, babysit for a friend, paint the community center, etc.

Parenthood is basically a full-time job and yet it doesn't even pull minimum wage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the argument exactly? If it's that people who are already working will continue to work even though they get a government benefit, no surprise. But what of those who are chronically unemployed or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence? We already know their spending habits from EBT cards; why would we think that their effort to work would change if that were substituted for free cash?

Exactly. Showing that providing money to those who are working doesn't make them stop doesn't say anything about the leeches.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What's the argument exactly? If it's that people who are already working will continue to work even though they get a government benefit, no surprise. But what of those who are chronically unemployed or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence? We already know their spending habits from EBT cards; why would we think that their effort to work would change if that were substituted for free cash?

Exactly. Showing that providing money to those who are working doesn't make them stop doesn't say anything about the leeches.

The leeches? Oh so we are talking about billionaires now?

 

[laughing dog]

What's the argument exactly? If it's that people who are already working will continue to work even though they get a government benefit, no surprise. But what of those who are chronically unemployed or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence? We already know their spending habits from EBT cards; why would we think that their effort to work would change if that were substituted for free cash?

Exactly. Showing that providing money to those who are working doesn't make them stop doesn't say anything about the leeches.

The expenses of the program are unchanged and if their efforts to work (or find work) are not affected, then the only thing that changes are
1)that their spending choices are expanded , and
2) perhaps monitoring costs of the recipients are reduced.

In other words, more choice for the recipients and less government. Something I would think conservatives and moderate libertarians would favor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's the argument exactly? If it's that people who are already working will continue to work even though they get a government benefit, no surprise. But what of those who are chronically unemployed or follow a generational pattern of welfare dependence? We already know their spending habits from EBT cards; why would we think that their effort to work would change if that were substituted for free cash?

Exactly. Showing that providing money to those who are working doesn't make them stop doesn't say anything about the leeches.

And voter fraud... and Visigoths!

 

[DBT]

Exactly. Showing that providing money to those who are working doesn't make them stop doesn't say anything about the leeches.

The leeches? Oh so we are talking about billionaires now?

Must be...the mega rich being the biggest leaches on the planet.

Key Facts

The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation’s wealth.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.
The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.
Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.
CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.
30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.
The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

These threads just seem odd to me. The same folks who push for more government handouts are usually the same folks who push for more immigration. The hypothesis being that we need immigrants to do unfilled jobs; yet we've got all these people here already - collecting government benefits - who could do those same jobs. Insanity.

Because no-one really wants to do the grunt work, whether rich or poor.

Get some dirt poor immigrants to do it, then when they save some money they'll turn it down as well, if they can move up the chain.

Just human nature.