Factual data: how many "welfare queens" versus the unvoluntarily unemployed of good will ?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Voyager

I understand. Misleading statistics are defined as those that don’t match your preconceived ideas.

I explained in very simple terms why the statistics that I criticized were misleading. You’ve eschewed addressing that, in favor of empty accusations. Whatever.

Now? Here’s one.

I believe that source is outdated, as I’ve seen a recent estimate which said the number is unchanged. But it makes no difference. Of course, the number ebbs and flows. But even the changes described there don’t change the big picture.

You have yet to demonstrate that such a creature exists outside your imagination.

You seem to be implying the concept doesn’t exist, which by your own standards would imply that you have some source. But of course, you don’t.

I’m not going to bother trying to prove it exists, because my basis is personal RL knowledge of many such people rather than distortable internet stats, and because that’s a premise of this thread. Obviously no one has to accept any assertions that I make - or that you make, FTM. My initial point here was that - if you legitimately want to address the arguments of those who talk about “leeching off welfare” - you can’t bring statistics which give equal weight to short termers and long termers.

And as for my second paragraph, you have yet to demonstrate any percentage of people now on welfare being long termers, however that term is defined.

True, because I don’t know the numbers. Neither do you, of course, though you seem to be trying to obscure that fact with your bluster.

You’d have to know the distribution of time on welfare to know this, but it hardly matters, because it is clear that most people who have been on welfare have been on it a relatively short period of time.

No, actually it matters quite a lot, as above.

[Kent_Clark]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

There’s no one who is unemployable at any job period.

Even if that’s true (and I have serious doubts) there are people for whom no employer wants to employ for any number of reasons. A person may not have dependable transportation to be able to get to the job, may be caring for a sick relative requiring frequent taking time off, have a criminal record that no employer wants to take a chance with, serious physical or mental problems that make the person a high risk for permanent employment, or have behavioral problems that an employer just doesn’t want to put up with.

Such people might be able to work at least a few hours a week from home or in a job customized to their needs. However, as has been pointed out in numerous threads by numerous posters, companies do not exist to give you a job. Unless a company is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate individual needs and problems, or unless government is willing to create “make work” jobs that do the same, it’s a fact that some people will be, to all intents and purposes, unemployable.

[Voyager]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I explained in very simple terms why the statistics that I criticized were misleading. You’ve eschewed addressing that, in favor of empty accusations. Whatever.

No, your deciding that the percentage of people now on welfare who are long termers is important doesn’t make it so. Statistically this number will always be inflated. Say that for one year 52 women wee on welfare for one week each, and one was on welfare for the entire year. Isn’t the fact that only one of 53 women ever on welfare is a long termer more significant than that one half of those on welfare at any given week were? By the former number we’d be doing an excellent job getting people off welfare, by the latter a terrible job. I think the former is more correct.
So, I still say your metric is misleading and not useful.

I believe that source is outdated, as I’ve seen a recent estimate which said the number is unchanged. But it makes no difference. Of course, the number ebbs and flows. But even the changes described there don’t change the big picture.

I live in California, and I’ve seen many articles along the line of my cite, but I’d never expect anyone to buy this based on just my memory. Unemployment in California is still around 12%, so I see no reason for the picture to have changed. And the point was that many people are unemployed because finding work is nearly impossible. Yours was that they could if they lowered their requirements, since immigrants were. That immigrants are leaving to return to a not very nice environment seems to contradict your claim, doesn’t it?

You seem to be implying the concept doesn’t exist, which by your own standards would imply that you have some source. But of course, you don’t.

I’m not going to bother trying to prove it exists, because my basis is personal RL knowledge of many such people rather than distortable internet stats, and because that’s a premise of this thread. Obviously no one has to accept any assertions that I make - or that you make, FTM. My initial point here was that - if you legitimately want to address the arguments of those who talk about “leeching off welfare” - you can’t bring statistics which give equal weight to short termers and long termers.

The concept of welfare queen certainly exists. I’m sure there are one or two scattered about. But as an actual problem, no.
Found some good data.

This is from a 20th Century Fund study.

Does welfare make people have huge families to get more benefits? No.

• In 72.7% of families on AFDC, there are 2 or fewer children. The average AFDC family size has decreased from 4.0 to 2.9 persons since 1969.

How much cash do welfare recipients receive?

• Since 1970, states have allowed inflation to erode 45% of the value of welfare payments. In addition, many states have cut benefits: In 1970, the average monthly welfare check per family was $676 (in 1993 dollars). In 1993, the average monthly welfare check per family was $373. Most AFDC households purchase shelter, clothing, transportation, personal hygiene, household needs, school supplies, and medical expenses not covered by medicaid/medicare out of an annual benefit income that averages $8000 for a family of 3 when AFDC and foodstamps are combined. (Living like “queens”?)

This site has an agenda, but you are welcome to look up the quoted study. I’m not sure when this is from, but the situation for people on welfare has hardly improved since 1992, a date mentioned on the page.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Voyager

No, your deciding that the percentage of people now on welfare who are long termers is important doesn’t make it so. Statistically this number will always be inflated. Say that for one year 52 women wee on welfare for one week each, and one was on welfare for the entire year. Isn’t the fact that only one of 53 women ever on welfare is a long termer more significant than that one half of those on welfare at any given week were? By the former number we’d be doing an excellent job getting people off welfare, by the latter a terrible job. I think the former is more correct.
So, I still say your metric is misleading and not useful.

I think the other number is more correct, because it measures the percentage of welfare funds that go to long termers versus that which goes to short termers, and it accurately captures who is on the program at any given point in time.

If you want to insist that the other stat is better, that’s a valid opinion too. But I’ll bet a lot of people would agree with me, and my objective is to point out that these numbers can paint a very different picture, and people shouldn’t see the stats you used without realizing this. As long as we’re in agreement that this is so, and are just quibbling over which metric is more significant, we can leave it at that.

I live in California, and I’ve seen many articles along the line of my cite, but I’d never expect anyone to buy this based on just my memory. Unemployment in California is still around 12%, so I see no reason for the picture to have changed. And the point was that many people are unemployed because finding work is nearly impossible.

OK, I looked up what I think was my source, and I believe your claim is correct. 11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09 According to this article, the illegal immigrant headcount has leveled off after declining about 7.5% over the prior two years.

Yours was that they could if they lowered their requirements, since immigrants were. That immigrants are leaving to return to a not very nice environment seems to contradict your claim, doesn’t it?

Actually this report claims that there has not been an increase in the number of people leaving, just a decrease in the number arriving. (FWIW, my anecdotal evidence - from people I know who deal with a lot of illegal immigrants - would agree with your claim that they are leaving. But this report claims otherwise.)

In any event, the real point here is that a 7.5% decline is not a huge deal and doesn’t change the big picture. These 11 million people are not here to get social programs, much of which they are not eligible for. They are here to work, and they face many of the same obstacles that posters are claiming make it impossible for others to work, and have language and paperwork barriers to boot.

The concept of welfare queen certainly exists. I’m sure there are one or two scattered about. But as an actual problem, no.
Found some good data.

This is from a 20th Century Fund study.

This site has an agenda, but you are welcome to look up the quoted study. I’m not sure when this is from, but the situation for people on welfare has hardly improved since 1992, a date mentioned on the page.

In my first post to this thread I wrote “Also, FTR, I think there are very few people who really live on a high standard of living off as “welfare queens”. It’s about living semi-decently while producing virtually no effort, rather than about living rich.” I don’t disagree that it’s very hard to live rich as a welfare queen (and nearly impossible to do it legally).

[Acsenray]

@GreasyJack

the term first came into usage during the 1976 primaries, when Reagan had his “welfare queen” anecdote he would trot out about some lady living in the lap of luxury because she was collecting welfare under dozens of aliases. So even when the term was first coined, it was talking about people committing deliberate fraud not people collecting benefits legitimately.

And, if I recall correctly, when pressed on the point, the Reagan campaign was unable to identify even one actual welfare queen.

[Broomstick]

@anson2995

If you’re able bodied and don’t have kids, you can only get food stamps for 3 months out of 36.

This is incorrect. Food stamps are based on income (or rather, lack of it). When I’ve been on them (for the second time this winter) they’ve been awarded for six months at a time, then subject to review at that point. (First time around I did, finally, get work and no longer qualified as I was, for a few months, earning a living wage.) In theory, you could receive food stamps indefinitely. Of course, you get nothing else but food from that program so at some point you will be unwashed and homeless, even if you can still obtain food. So you’ll be unemployable because you smell bad and your clothes aren’t laundered and ragged, but hey, it’s all your fault, right? :rolleyes:

I will also point out that unemployment, food stamps, and every other such benefit IS subject to audit. I know this, because I have been through one. As I am honest and keep good records it was no big deal, but I suspect many are not so organized.

I think the confusion comes in because the time limit applies ONLY if you aren’t doing one of the following:

1. Working
2. Looking for work
3. In some sort of educational or training program

Really, that’s a low bar, and most states funnel food stamp recipients into a training/work search/workfare program as soon as they apply for such benefits. If you refuse to participate you can lose food stamps after three months, but few people are incapable of meeting that requirement.

ON TOP OF THAT - even that requirement was suspended between April 1, 2009 and September 1, 2010. In other words, during that time period there were NO requirements on receiving food stamps, and no time limits. Why? Because so many were unemployed and applying that it overwhelmed all the available programs.

ON TOP OF THAT - some areas were able to waive the requirements even BEFORE that, largely due to localized high unemployment, and in some areas there are still no requirements. There are just so many more people looking for work than there is work available that it just because ridiculous to maintain that requirement. It’s cheaper to simply give them food stamps than to increase the size of the bureaucracy and programs.

AND BEYOND THAT - many people on food stamps are like me - UNDERemployed, not UNemployed. I am making SOME money, just not ENOUGH money. I am not required to be in job search/workfare/training because I am already employed a certain amount of the time right now. It’s just not bringing in enough money to live me out of poverty (and, by the way - I AM making more than minimum wage when I do find work. It’s not the amount of the wages, it’s the lack of work). So if you’re working but not making enough you could receive food stamps indefinitely without end… but then, you’re WORKING, right? You’re not sitting on your backside all day watching soap operas or playing video games. That’s why when I’ve been awarded food stamps it’s for six month stretches, then subject to reviews, and I have to report my monthly income if it goes either above or below certain limits. It’s NOT just a matter of me getting a deposit in an account every month, there are checks and limits and controls.

[clairobscur]

Since the OP isn Dutch :

I seem to remember that the Netherlands has an abnormally high %age of her population on disability (by comparison with other western countries). Am I right, or am I mistaken?

[constanze]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

constanze, I’ve failed to follow your point with most of what you’re saying.

Yes, I’m sorry for wasting my time trying to put logic and facts into your beliefs based on anecdote.

[Maastricht]

@clairobscur

Since the OP isn Dutch :

I seem to remember that the Netherlands has an abnormally high %age of her population on disability (by comparison with other western countries). Am I right, or am I mistaken?

I am Dutch, and you used to be right. For a couple of years, an economic surplus of workers was put on disability rather then laid off. It was easier for employers and had more benefits for the employees then firing and being fired. The number of people on disability of course skyrocketed, a phenomenon that was aptly named "Dutch disease". But within a few years, the symptom was diagnosed, legislation was changed, excesses were trimmed, and the numbers returned to average for Europe.

[billfish678]

@Voyager

No, your deciding that the percentage of people now on welfare who are long termers is important doesn’t make it so. Statistically this number will always be inflated. Say that for one year 52 women wee on welfare for one week each, and one was on welfare for the entire year. Isn’t the fact that only one of 53 women ever on welfare is a long termer more significant than that one half of those on welfare at any given week were? By the former number we’d be doing an excellent job getting people off welfare, by the latter a terrible job. I think the former is more correct.
.

As you say, it depends on how you look at it. From a helping folks thing out point of view, 52 good people were helped compared to one leach.

From a cost to the taxpayer point of view, 50 percent of the money was given to the leach. If you could greatly reduce the number or longevity of the leaches, you could greatly reduce the program cost and/or help significantly more deserving people.

[shiftless]

@billfish678

From a cost to the taxpayer point of view, 50 percent of the money was given to the leach. If you could greatly reduce the number or longevity of the leaches, you could greatly reduce the program cost and/or help significantly more deserving people.

In an ideal world we could find that one leach and save a few bucks, true. In the real world we would probably spend more money finding her than we would otherwise waste, kick her off welfare then get to watch her and her kids starve on the street in front of our house.

No system is 100% effective. We waste vast sums of money every day supplying our troops in other countries, supporting the elderly and doing all the other things government does so hamfistedly. Way more than we waste on welfare. Why is it that, when we see a woman in front of us at the grocery store buying a candy bar with food stamps, we all suddenly see how we can balance the budget?

[billfish678]

@shiftless

In an ideal world we could find that one leach and save a few bucks, true. In the real world we would probably spend more money finding her than we would otherwise waste, kick her off welfare then get to watch her and her kids starve on the street in front of our house.

No system is 100% effective. We waste vast sums of money every day supplying our troops in other countries, supporting the elderly and doing all the other things government does so hamfistedly. Way more than we waste on welfare. Why is it that, when we see a woman in front of us at the grocery store buying a candy bar with food stamps, we all suddenly see how we can balance the budget?

Oh I agree. Or at least I consider those perfectly cromulent points.

At some point the beauracracy to save money by stopping “fraud and waste” cost more than it saves.

IMO thats really the crux of the OP’s question. How much “welfare” is given out to people who “don’t deserve it / abuse the system”?

If its a high percentage, its something legit to get mad about and worth fixing. If its a tiny number, then while it chaps one’s hide that someone folks are getting away with it, in the big scheme of things just let it go.

I’ve done federal gubment work. It was amazing the amount of paperwork done to make sure there wasn’t petty theft going on. I always thought we should have entrusted folks a bit more, done random audits, and if someone was found “doing wrong” it would be up shit creek time for them. But big orgs just luvs em some paperwork.

[Voyager]

@billfish678

As you say, it depends on how you look at it. From a helping folks thing out point of view, 52 good people were helped compared to one leach.

From a cost to the taxpayer point of view, 50 percent of the money was given to the leach. If you could greatly reduce the number or longevity of the leaches, you could greatly reduce the program cost and/or help significantly more deserving people.

But we don’t know that the person on welfare for five years is a leech. She might have significant mental issues preventing her from working. Now, she might be a leech, but the decline in benefits over time has made that a lot less likely.

If we really thought this was a big problem, the right thing to do would be to hire more caseworkers and have the resources to investigate long term recipients and to see if they in fact meet the guidelines. If most do meet them, this wouldn’t be cost effective.
Maybe this “leech” is on the rolls because she has lots of kids. The data I posted shows this is less of an issue now, and I wonder how those against welfare would prevent it? More birth control, freely available with more education. Free and easy to get abortions? Both of those are fine with me, but likely not with the right. Kicking the kids out the door and onto the street isn’t, because the kids did nothing wrong.

ETA: I see my first point is already covered. Before I get bent out of shape about leeches, someone needs to provide some data showing it is actually a problem. Fotheringay-Phipps doesn’t seem interested or able to do so.

[Voyager]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

OK, I looked up what I think was my source, and I believe your claim is correct. 11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09 According to this article, the illegal immigrant headcount has leveled off after declining about 7.5% over the prior two years.Actually this report claims that there has not been an increase in the number of people leaving, just a decrease in the number arriving. (FWIW, my anecdotal evidence - from people I know who deal with a lot of illegal immigrants - would agree with your claim that they are leaving. But this report claims otherwise.)

In any event, the real point here is that a 7.5% decline is not a huge deal and doesn’t change the big picture. These 11 million people are not here to get social programs, much of which they are not eligible for. They are here to work, and they face many of the same obstacles that posters are claiming make it impossible for others to work, and have language and paperwork barriers to boot.

The improving economy makes it very reasonable that there would be a leveling off in 2010. But that no one else is leaving doesn’t mean that the jobs are plentiful - just that the surplus has been mostly taken care of. The point was whether someone now unemployed in the legal market is lazy - and that data doesn’t support that accusation. You can’t outsource farm work or domestic work.

In my first post to this thread I wrote “Also, FTR, I think there are very few people who really live on a high standard of living off as “welfare queens”. It’s about living semi-decently while producing virtually no effort, rather than about living rich.” I don’t disagree that it’s very hard to live rich as a welfare queen (and nearly impossible to do it legally).

If you think $8K a year is living decently, you have a very different definition of that word than I do.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Where do you get $8K a year from? (You can get a lot more than that in rent subsidies alone.)

[anson2995]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

And why limit to “federal” programs?

To try to simplify the discussion. Every state has their own programs, and so do some cities and many of the 3000+ counties. Don’t want to get involved in a back and forth about every possible exception.

If you consider Medicare to be a welfare program, then I think you also have to throw in financial aid for college students, child care assistance, first-time home buyer tax credits, CHIP, worker’s comp… I don’t know where it stops.

[Heyoka13]

My cousins daughter presents a constellation of typical symptoms of the malady:

drives a hoopty (was given a nice car, trashed it in a month)

3 kids, 3 fathers, 2 conceived while on welfare

legal problems, bad checks, no insurance, maxed out credit cards

horrific housekeeping skills

says DCFS is ‘out to get her’

80 pounds overweight, (curiously, all the kids are underweight)

loud fights with the ‘boyfriend’ of the week results in frequent police calls

And btw, she’s caucasian. The WQ lifestyle is color blind.

[constanze]

@billfish678

If its a high percentage, its something legit to get mad about and worth fixing. If its a tiny number, then while it chaps one’s hide that someone folks are getting away with it, in the big scheme of things just let it go.

I’ve done federal gubment work. It was amazing the amount of paperwork done to make sure there wasn’t petty theft going on. I always thought we should have entrusted folks a bit more, done random audits, and if someone was found “doing wrong” it would be up shit creek time for them. But big orgs just luvs em some paperwork.

I’ve shown the numbers from Germany: 1.9% of receipents of welfare were convincted of abuse - with lots of stringent controls. On the other side of the spectrum, bank bailouts were done without any checks. Tax auditors for big business, each employee bringing in an average of 1 mil. Euro per year in withheld taxes, are not hired sufficiently, because the govt. doesn’t want to frighten and scare business and rich people.
Whereas welfare receipents have to accept an amount of intrusive control - unanounced household visits to find out if you are living with somebody, baring all finances, birthday gifts from grandparents to children are counted as income - that in my opinion violates human dignity. The hypocrisy and double standard is appalling.

[lazybratsche]

There we go, at least a single anecdote. Heyoka, how does this person get by? If she’s entirely dependent on welfare programs, that sounds like one example of a welfare queen. But perhaps she has a part time job that barely pays enough to get buy, or is entirely reliant on the generosity of her family. That might make her a leach on her relatives, but not a welfare queen. Of course it’s probably not so clear cut – perhaps she has a job that pays a bit, lives with family and asks them for money regularly, all while receiving food stamps.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@anson2995

To try to simplify the discussion. Every state has their own programs, and so do some cities and many of the 3000+ counties. Don’t want to get involved in a back and forth about every possible exception.

You’re not simplifying things if you’re misrepresenting them. If you’re going to discuss the lifestyle and how it can be lived, you need to discuss the lifestyle as it’s actually lived, and not claim you can’t be a lifer on social assistance by ignoring many of the programs that such people actually live on.

The fact that there are so many of these programs out there at so many levels is one thing that makes the lifestyle possible. Especially because many of these programs are administered by social workers who, as part of their jobs, refer the people to other programs that they can also apply for.

I noted this issue in my first post to this thread.

If you consider Medicare to be a welfare program, then I think you also have to throw in financial aid for college students, child care assistance, first-time home buyer tax credits, CHIP, worker’s comp… I don’t know where it stops.

OK, so there’s some things that are hard to decide about. But you can’t just ignore it all. They’re there.

FWIW I would not consider Workers Comp a welfare program, since workers pay for it. As for the rest of them, it would depend on context. For purposes of this discussion, for example, I wouldn’t consider first-time homebuyers assistance a welfare program, since we happen to be discussing the lifestyle of “welfare queens” and that program is not likely to be something a welfare queen would be living on. For other purposes it might qualify.

If it makes it any easier, you could focus on the big ones (income, rent, food, medical) with general acknowledgment of the fact that there are actually quite a lot more out there (e.g. some of the ones you mentioned, plus programs for utility bills, cell phones etc. etc.)

But to focus on one or two programs and try to make a case that’s premised on the assumption that these programs are all there is, when that is actually far from the case, is misleading, and dishonest if done deliberately.