# How does the USA's social safety net compare with those of the European welfare states? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841 "2013-09-14T13:03:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Doggo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/87869e/32.png) [@Doggo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doggo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/81 "2013-09-22T10:28:35Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > The law has changed. Good to hear that. It really was unaffordable. While travel might not have cost a lot, free prescriptions must have cost mega. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/82 "2013-09-22T20:37:16Z")
> [@Fiendish\_Astronaut](#): > > I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference between politics in Western Europe and politics in the US. I speak in general terms here and there is some overlap of course, but, in Europe, providing a high standard of living for its citizens is considered to be the most important aim for its politicians. In the US, the position and power of the country and its economy is the most important thing. European politicians will generally believe that the strength of the country comes through its citizenry. In the US, the philosophy is that the strength of the country provides an opportunity for its citizens to flourish. > > The difference explains the contrasting approach to social welfare IMO. Well, not all the citizens are meant to flourish in the USA. We still have a constituency for what is in some ways a slavery economy. The insistence on not paying a living wage, the insistence on decades-long prison terms for a variety of crimes, the sheer raving hatred for anything that could be called “welfare” or “socialism”–these come from a powerful vocal constituency that demands cheap labor and cheap goods. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/83 "2013-09-22T20:39:45Z")
> [@Doggo](#): > > Good to hear that. It really was unaffordable. > While travel might not have cost a lot, free prescriptions must have cost mega. All prescriptions are free to everyone in Scotland. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/84 "2013-09-22T20:45:49Z")
> [@Doggo](#): > > In the UK, working 60 year olds get free public transport, free medicine and winter fuel allowance, even if their rent includes central heating. No wonder the UK is in the deep doodoo. I think you’ll find the “masters of the universe”, the willfully blind political class and a _benign_ legal framework were responsible for the finanical crisis, not some old duffers on a bus. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/85 "2013-09-22T20:50:07Z")
> [@Doggo](#): > > Good to hear that. It really was unaffordable. > While travel might not have cost a lot, free prescriptions must have cost mega. Prescriptions are still free for pensioners (not sure what the age limits are right now), but that’s probably cheaper than paying for emergency treatment. Don’t most developed/first world countries give free healthcare to senior citizens? I was under the impression even the US did. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/86 "2013-09-22T21:48:29Z")
> [@BrokenBriton](#): > > I think you’ll find the “masters of the universe”, the willfully blind political class and a _benign_ legal framework were responsible for the finanical crisis, not some old duffers on a bus. Yeah. I do struggle with the idea that it’s the sick, the old, the disabled and the unemployed who’re the problem. Especially the unemployed, because you can normally get people to sympathise with the other groups to at least some extent. But the unemployed are apparently just lazy, and their laziness is cyclical. The more available jobs there are, the less lazy they get. Who could have predicted that? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/87 "2013-09-22T22:52:25Z")
I think the fact that our system is significantly less generous than having even a minimal job has something to do with that. If unemployment paid more than a job, people would be less likely to work. Most people aren’t altruistic enough to work for less than they could get from the government. People respond to incentives in a predictable way. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/88 "2013-09-22T23:13:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I think the fact that our system is significantly less generous than having even a minimal job has something to do with that. If unemployment paid more than a job, people would be less likely to work. Most people aren’t altruistic enough to work for less than they could get from the government. People respond to incentives in a predictable way. Well, but the UK system does not generally (with a few exceptions) pay more than one could earn working. But it seems strange to argue that people work out of “altruism”. I don’t think they do - they work because they want a decent life and that normally requires money. So yes, British folks can _survive_ on what they’ll get on welfare, just, but most of us would like more. And to get more, we need to work. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/89 "2013-09-22T23:17:15Z")
But do Britons get less from the system than they would for even a minimal job? Is it better to work for McDonald’s, or be on welfare? In the US, we incentivize work with an Earned Income Tax Credit(working people get extra money at tax time if they make under a certain amount), and in addition food stamps can be used by working people to help make ends meet. Plus, welfare here sucks. It keeps you alive, and barely at that. So no one starves, but even flipping burgers is vastly superior to welfare. Plus if you are able-bodied and don’t get a job in two years, you get cut off from cash welfare benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/90 "2013-09-23T00:15:07Z")
Good lord, **adaher** , please get educated on the topic. If you are able-bodied and do not have dependent children _ **you get NO cash payments at all** _ from our current system, and that’s been true since 1996. ONLY families with dependent children get any cash at all, and the time limit is 5 years in a lifetime, not two. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/91 "2013-09-23T01:24:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But do Britons get less from the system than they would for even a minimal job? Is it better to work for McDonald’s, or be on welfare? > > In the US, we incentivize work with an Earned Income Tax Credit(working people get extra money at tax time if they make under a certain amount), and in addition food stamps can be used by working people to help make ends meet. Plus, welfare here sucks. It keeps you alive, and barely at that. So no one starves, but even flipping burgers is vastly superior to welfare. Plus if you are able-bodied and don’t get a job in two years, you get cut off from cash welfare benefits. Accepting that **Broomstick** has questioned your basic assumptions here regarding the US system, it is almost always better to work full time at minimum wage than it is to claim welfare benefits in the UK. The system you are describing is not all that different from the one we have here, except that almost all benefits in the UK are cash. The only way that working might not be worth it, financially, is if you have a huge family. The average UK welfare recipient has the same number of children as anyone else in this country - one or two. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/92 "2013-09-23T01:28:14Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Good lord, **adaher** , please get educated on the topic. If you are able-bodied and do not have dependent children _ **you get NO cash payments at all** _ from our current system, and that’s been true since 1996. ONLY families with dependent children get any cash at all, and the time limit is 5 years in a lifetime, not two. This is why it’s difficult to have these conversations- there really isn’t a nationwide system. Eligibility for Federally-funded benefits is the same nationwide - families including children up to 60 months. But states can provide additional benefits with their own funding -in my state, childless adults can get cash benefits and once you’ve reached the limit on cash benefits (2 years) you can still receive non-cash benefits such as two-party checks and vouchers. And you can get 2 years of the state-funded cash benefits after receiving 60 months of Federally funded benefits. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/93 "2013-09-23T01:34:05Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > This is why it’s difficult to have these conversations- there really isn’t a nationwide system. Eligibility for Federally-funded benefits is the same nationwide - families including children up to 60 months. But states can provide additional benefits with their own funding -in my state, childless adults can get cash benefits and once you’ve reached the limit on cash benefits (2 years) you can still receive non-cash benefits such as two-party checks and vouchers. And you can get 2 years of the state-funded cash benefits after receiving 60 months of Federally funded benefits. That certainly does make matters confusing. In the UK, there are no means-tested benefits with strict time limits. You could (in theory) live off them all of your life. What a hell of a life that would be, but it is possible and it does happen. Not many people choose that life, although compared to other European countries, we’re pretty bad at social mobility. Compared to the US, though, this place is a paradise in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/94 "2013-09-23T02:45:56Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > This is why it’s difficult to have these conversations- there really isn’t a nationwide system. Eligibility for Federally-funded benefits is the same nationwide - families including children up to 60 months. But states can provide additional benefits with their own funding -in my state, childless adults can get cash benefits and once you’ve reached the limit on cash benefits (2 years) you can still receive non-cash benefits such as two-party checks and vouchers. And you can get 2 years of the state-funded cash benefits after receiving 60 months of Federally funded benefits. The difference is that you are capable of distinguishing between Federal and state benefits and are able to succinctly convey the differences. **adaher** blithely states “two years cash” without any qualification and apparently no awareness that that is not a universal benefit in the US. That is highly misleading. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/95 "2013-09-23T03:34:06Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Good lord, **adaher** , please get educated on the topic. If you are able-bodied and do not have dependent children _ **you get NO cash payments at all** _ from our current system, and that’s been true since 1996. ONLY families with dependent children get any cash at all, and the time limit is 5 years in a lifetime, not two. > > I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. Did I mention children? No. Did I mention lifetime? No. The 2-year limit is how long you can get TANF at once. [http://www.tanf.us/](http://www.tanf.us/) Good lord, broomstick. That wasn’t a correction, it was nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/96 "2013-09-23T03:55:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Most Americans who are homeless have mental or drug problems, they say. But I have read harrowing accounts of Dopers who have been rendered homeless and had to go to food banks. I’ve always heard that it was the habitually homeless in America who typically have drug/alcohol or mental problems. Most people who wind up homeless in the United States are only that way temporarily. They’re able to get back up on their feet with either state assistance or the help of friends and family. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/97 "2013-09-23T03:59:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > One reason, I think, would be religion. Most of America believes in the Christian God and many of those believe we live in a [just world](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis). > > Someone who thinks that God is good, and He never gives you more than you can handle, isn’t likely to think that poor people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. Most of Europe believed in the Christian God at the time our social security networks first got defined, but generally not in a God that gives money to those who are just. While the biggest denomination in the US is the RCC, US culture is permeated and was defined by people who did (do) believe that. Also, there is an enormous difference between “God never gives you more than you can handle” and “God never gives you more than you can handle on your own”. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/98 "2013-09-23T04:11:05Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > Not many people choose that life, although compared to other European countries, we’re pretty bad at social mobility. Compared to the US, though, this place is a paradise in that regard. No, compared to the US, the UK is about the same. See the wiki article I linked to up-thread: [Socio-economic mobility in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Comparisons_with_other_countries): > [@](#): > > Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found that the US among the lowest in mobility.[4][8] One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[8][10][13] found that of nine developed countries, \*\*the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility \*\*with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. **The four countries with the lowest “intergenerational income elasticity”, i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada** with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)[8] ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/99 "2013-09-23T04:16:55Z")
The problem with those studies though is that they measure in quintiles. The wealthier a country is, the most it gets penalized in such studies, since you have farther to go to go from one quintile to another. A better way to measure income mobility would be to simply measure income growth or decline over generations. If an American is raised in a household that makes $30,000/yr and at 30 he’s making $60,000/yr, that’s great, right? No, it just puts him up one quintile. But in Sweden, that would probably be worth two quintiles, so it makes Sweden appear more socially mobile. ---
**Author:** ![Doggo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/87869e/32.png) [@Doggo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doggo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841/100 "2013-09-23T07:58:29Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > Yeah. I do struggle with the idea that it’s the sick, the old, the disabled and the unemployed who’re the problem. > > Especially the unemployed, because you can normally get people to sympathise with the other groups to at least some extent. But the unemployed are apparently just lazy, and their laziness is cyclical. The more available jobs there are, the less lazy they get. > > Who could have predicted that? I assume you are being sarcastic. However, it is a fact that countries with a generous welfare system cannot get people on welfare to move to other parts of the country where work is available, even if it is unskilled, and it is necessary to bring in people from other countries to do that work, while also paying welfare to able bodied people fully capable of working. Just look at the “surfer dude” that had his 15 minutes of fame recently. If someone can travel all the way from the other side of the world to get a job in the States or the UK, why can’t someone in those countries travel a few hundred miles to get work? However it could also be something to do with the fact that people with a degree in “media studies” ( for example ) aren’t educated to do job that is actually in demand like engineering or plumbing or electrical or farming, or welding etc etc etc. Businesses that deal with trades just can’t get enough workers that can do the job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-the-usas-social-safety-net-compare-with-those-of-the-european-welfare-states/668841.md?page=6)