Welfare Reform Extension Act

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

I do think welfare has become a way of life for some people.  However, I feel there should be more done regarding post-secondary education to lift people out of poverty.  Such jobs as housekeping or Wal-Mart should be for teenagers, college kids, and 2nd income housewives, not the breadwinner.

Ideally yes, but certainly we could mandate that those jobs be paid a decent wage - far more than $6 or $7 per hour.  We're coming to a point where nearly half the jobs in the economy are being described as 'well, those job are just for teenagers'!

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

Okay, we all understand your theory.  Do you have evidence to support that theory?

Evidence that poor people do not typically land highly paid jobs out of welfare?!  You must be joking.  How about some evidence that they do since that is the absurdly unlikely claim.

Good lord man, the median income is about $15 per hour - people just don't make that much out there!

[opebo]

Okay, lets see.  Bill is a mid manager at a tech company.  His company downsizes, and he is laid off.  He spends six months on welfare and the finds a job.  Does he find a job at another tech company or does he work at Burer King?  I go to a lot of fat food joints, and I don't see any middle aged men working there, opebo.  They get jobs comparable to the one they lost.

Bill got TANF money and unemployment benefits from the govenrment, so he's a welfare recipient.  Not everyone who goes on welfare is necessarily poor.

Now, if its so easy to prove your claim, and so obvious that its true, why do you object to producing evidence from a credible source that studies economic data?

So you are claiming that the typical welfare recipient is someone who has ever had a large income.  I suggest to you that the typical welfare recipient is someone who has never had a large income and never will.  I hate to waste my time trying to dig up statistics on welfare and wages - certainly you could do the same. 

Perhaps you're right, the typical welfare recipient is an upper middle class white male with an advanced degree who is merely 'laid off', and not in fact a black or rural person suffering the effects of generations of poverty in a society devoid of upward mobility.  Anyway, lets both google.

[opebo]

http://www.cepr.net/publications/TANF.htm

CEPR data, shows the largest sector where work was found for former welfare recipients was retail, an houlry wage of over $10 p/h was earned.

That only says that in the retail sector as a whole the average hourly wage was $10.64 per hour.  Which says nothing about what the wages of the welfare people were. 

[opebo]

http://www.cepr.net/publications/TANF.htm

CEPR data, shows the largest sector where work was found for former welfare recipients was retail, an houlry wage of over $10 p/h was earned.

That only says that in the retail sector as a whole the average hourly wage was $10.64 per hour.  Which says nothing about what the wages of the welfare people were. 

"I'm sorry Mrs. Opebo, but your boy ain't right."

OK, read this quote from your own posted link:

Most former welfare recipients found employment in a relatively small number of industries over the late 1990s (Table 1). Current Population Survey (CPS) data[2] shows that the largest proportions of former welfare recipients found jobs in either retail trade (one-sixth) or eating and drinking establishments (one-sixth). Nine industries, mostly in the service sector, account for the employment of nearly two-thirds of all former welfare recipients. Overall, these are relatively low-wage industries: in the second quarter of 2003, retail had an average hourly wage of $10.64 while food establishments averaged $6.94 per hour (not including tips), both of which were much lower than the $13.94 average for the private sector as a whole.

Retail had an average houly wage of $10.64.  Not welfare recipients made $10.64 upon leaving welfare, just that the average wage in the sector was $10.64.

[opebo]

Great post migrendel!  Working class hubris!

The 'reform' welfare needed was to be trebled in budget, not reduced or subjected to limits in duration.

[opebo]

Flyers you are absolutely correct about the sad state of employment opportunities and the sorry wage levels in the US.  However I take issue with the assumption that people should be expected to get off of welfare.  Built into the capitalist system is a requirement of about 4 or 5% unemployment to prevent upward pressure on wages - this is orchestrated by the Federal Reserve as the main lever for implementing its stated purpose, which is to prevent inflation. 

It is unreasonable to expect people to get off of welfare if they don't want to.  I mean why should we care?  Really it is just the puritan work ethic, which demands that people 'work' for their living - of course the rich never do.  We need to get past the work ethic as the Europeans have before we can ever look at these issues reasonably.

[opebo]

Flyers you are absolutely correct about the sad state of employment opportunities and the sorry wage levels in the US.  However I take issue with the assumption that people should be expected to get off of welfare.  Built into the capitalist system is a requirement of about 4 or 5% unemployment to prevent upward pressure on wages - this is orchestrated by the Federal Reserve as the main lever for implementing its stated purpose, which is to prevent inflation. 

It is unreasonable to expect people to get off of welfare if they don't want to.  I mean why should we care?  Really it is just the puritan work ethic, which demands that people 'work' for their living - of course the rich never do.  We need to get past the work ethic as the Europeans have before we can ever look at these issues reasonably.

You're smoking crack.  It's people who work who support people on welfare.  Your comment that the rich don't work may be true of your family, but it generally is not.  Your view of the world is seriously skewed and distorted.

No, the tax money that supports a welfare system should come primarily from the rich - the owning class.  From profits or return on capital, in other words, rather than 'earned income'.  Of course there are some people who work but are paid a lot, such as yourself.  These people are rare, but can certainly afford to pay a hefty tax.  After all, their work is much easier than that of the lower classes.

[opebo]

Someone needs to look up the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act.

Why don't you take a look at unemployment in the countries with economic systems of the sort you advocate? Yet unemployment in the laissez-faire 20s was a record low of 3 percent.

If the rich never work for their living, what is my father doing every day?

The primary purpose of the Federal Reserve is to prevent inflation.  In practice its goal is about a 4% to 5% unemployment rate.  Did you notice in the late 1990's when the unemployment rate got too low the Fed raised rates?  (also conveniently underminding Al Gore). 

As for unemployment in Western Europe - it is about the same, though their more honest reporting make it appear higher.  Besides, where is the sting of unemployment in a country with a civilized, generous welfare state?

Lastly, if your father is working so much, perhaps he isn't rich.

[opebo]

The Federal Reserve is the only thing that can cause long-term inflation. If preventing it were their only purpose, they would do nothing.

Strange theory.  In any case, their goal is not 0% unemployment but around 4-5% unemployment.  In other words it is the government's goal to impoverish about 4-5% of the people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider it a problem - only those afflicted with a protestant work ethic would consider it a problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he has to work, I suppose he is not 'rich'.  My definition of rich requires leisure and living off of return on capital, not merely a highly paid working class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely!  My point was to denigrate the idea that 'hard work' matters at all.  In fact most lowly paid work is highly unpleasant, while higher paid work is fairly pleasant.  None of which has any bearing on anything, so why should it be such a big part of our protestant work ethic? Lets just recognize that income level and status is determined by class and not individual 'effort'.

[opebo]

No, the tax money that supports a welfare system should come primarily from the rich - the owning class.  From profits or return on capital, in other words, rather than 'earned income'.  Of course there are some people who work but are paid a lot, such as yourself.  These people are rare, but can certainly afford to pay a hefty tax.  After all, their work is much easier than that of the lower classes.

Tax revenue does come mainly from "the rich" as you call them.  And you are wrong that highly paid work is easier than low-paying jobs.  In most cases, the reverse is true, though high-paying jobs surely have more status.  Whether they are harder or easier depends on level of training, and personal preference for type of work.  Not having worked at all, that's not something you'd know a lot about.

I'm just making the point that 'hard work', pleasantness, unpleasantness, individual 'effort, and all that sort of thing is rather vague and subjective.  One has one's job because of one fortune of birth and class identity, not because of any of those canards so prized by believers in the protestant work ethic.

[opebo]

Unreformed welfare was only 1% of the national budget, far less than we give to useless missile shields, pointless public works programs, and a large group of old people who could survive on their savings without grasping for their Social Security check. The fact of the matter is that there is enough private wealth in this country to support every shiftless Faulpelz for the rest of his or her life. The only thing that stops us is an ability to countenance the suffering of others.

Missile Defense was is far less than 1% of the Budget.  Its actually, about 0.4%

The wealth-transfer program known as the military budget is about 15% of the budget.