Less welfare= Less poor?

Welfare queens most certainly do exist. My poor, rural hometown in Louisiana is full of them. There are two housing projects that contained people with a complete inter-generational depence on social programs to live. This ranged from housing to food to medical care to cash. The great majority were single mothers obviously. The town is tiny and I knew them and went to school with their kids. I have seen it in many places in the South.

What to do about that is a different matter. The people that I am describing are largely unmarketable in the job market. My hometown is dying anyway and there aren’t any jobs, even minimum wage ones to employ more than a few of these people. Babysitting wouldn’t work because no one would hire someone that talks like that to keep their kids.

For the people I am describing, I would say that welfare dependence did create the problem over time. If you pull all that away however, their mindset isn’t going to instantly change and allow them to survive very well without welfare and other aid.

I think you have the wrong definition of Welfare Queen. Do any of these people drive Benz’ and Caddys obviously not needing welfare? By your definition, you’ve described welfare recipeints who are utterly dependent on the system, not taking avantage of it.

For examples of welfare queens see the bottom of [url=http://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/services/welfare_fraud/]this page.

Dammit it. this page.

My point being that there are skilled workers who are unemployed.

I am one of those skilled workers that are unemployed. I have been a computer programmer for 20-odd years yet I am still having difficulty finding a job. The skills I have are no longer in demand and the longer I am unemployed the more those skills are becoming irrelevant. I have tried finding unskilled work but that is just as difficult. Employers won’t employ me because I am too skilled for the work, and they think I will leave as soon as a better opportunity comes along, or I will be bored by the work. I cannot retrain as I do not have the money for courses. I am trying to get on an MSc course at the moment but I will need a loan to finance it, and who will give me the money to do it?

That’s a common problem with programmers. I’m kind of surprised you don’t get financial aid for education in Wales. My company is shutting down next year and I’m going to go back to school for some type of training. We have to contribute to an unemployment plan and retraining expenses are part of the benefits. I would suggest a start up company at a flea market as a quick way of getting back on your feet. A lot of people in my area do nothing but scour antique stores and resell those items on ebay. I hope things go well for you,

Quite cynically, yes. :wink:

The assumption that every human being behaves rationally is one that is frequently wrong. People who are poor and rational often don’t stay poor for long.

I’ve been looking for a cite for several days, and finally found one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287641/

Number of people receiving welfare, down by 9 million since 1996. Welfare caseloads are now half of what they were.

Number of people living at or below the poverty level, 12.7% or 37 million. That number has grown for three consecutive years.

So I guess the question is now, why are so many more people choosing to become poor even though they don’t get welfare?

I guess this is along the lines of the “welfare queen” subtopic, but I have never (and will never) understand why women have multiple children when the can’t feed and clothe the ones they already have. I saw a lot of it when my husband was in the military - you would see women in the clinics with three and four children - and they could get free birth control if they would use it. Having the baby doesn’t cost them anything - the military pays medical expenses - but they still have to feed, clothe and educate the children. Lower ranking enlisted don’t make much money, and if an unskilled woman with four kids tries to find work she’s probably not going to make enough money to pay for child care.

I’m not being snarky here - I am honestly puzzled. I don’t have children because I have never been convinced I would make a good mother, and I didn’t think it would be fair to a child to have one and find out I was right. So seeing a 21 year old in a OB clinic pregnant with her fourth child just floors me.

[hijack]

it’s actually "Less welfare, ** fewer ** poor
[/hijack]

I think it is more likely that what Elder means to say is that some people will succumb to the “moral hazard” effect of welfare (i.e. become indolent) and thus end up poorer in the long run.

You really want to hear some horror stories? Work for social services or something connected to it. I was the assistant to the director of an outreach program from 1997 to 1998. Case workers aren’t allowed to disclose identifying details, but they are allowed to talk about some aspects of their cases.

Many of our clients were illegal or semi-legal aliens. They were very rarely a problem. They needed help, they got it, they moved on. Few of them stayed on assistance programs for extended lengths of time. Then, there were the others.

One of our social workers had to visit a client’s apartment to check on living conditions, as is required by law in some cases. There were 13 kids, plus the mom, living in a two room apartment. One of the daughters, 16, had had a baby, who was about 2 at that time. Her 14 year old sister was pregnant. The woman claimed, if I remember right, five different fathers for her children, all of them were either pretty darn poor or on welfare like her. The social worker, in reviewing her case, found that she’d been doing a scam where she’d trade food stamps for money, which she would then use to go shopping with.

There are people who abuse the system, I’ve met them. There are people who would not be able to have so many children if the state did not pay for it, I’ve met them too. The situation we had with welfare created a culture of dependency and passed it on to generations of people, many of them pretty darn prolific generations. Most of them would never get out because it was so easy to stay there. Not pleasant --not by any stretch of the imagination-- but easy. It’s hard to reach outside the culture you grew up in. It’s hard to take risks to change your situation when you are saved from outright desperation by a government safety net. You don’t try too hard because you know you don’t have to. After all, your social worker will help manage your crises.

I haven’t worked in that field for a while, so things might have changed significantly. I was there when welfare reforms started --my program was a pilot program, so we were at the forefront of that-- but I didn’t get to see what the results were. In my time there, my views toward welfare changed significantly. I’d thought it was basically a good thing before I started working there. After, I thought it was one of the most harmful social programs we’ve ever created.

For the record, I grew up pretty poor, as did both of my parents. My parents bought land in the country and built their own house so that they could have a decent place to live. They were living in a shitty part of the Bay Area until then, and from what I understand, building house ended up being cheaper than rent after a fairly short time. My father sometimes worked as a contractor and built the house himself with the help of some of his friends from work. We grew some of our own food to help stretch our money. I don’t remember going hungry, but the diet did get pretty monotonous sometimes. We actually needed the meat my dad got from hunting. I’ve eaten rabbit because we used to raise them for food.

We were on government assistance for a while when my dad got laid off from a job he’d gotten at GM after only a year or so on the job. They took a chance and my mom started a business. I have no idea how they managed to scrape up the money. It took a few years before that was successful enough to provide more than the basics, but we got off the food assistance program as soon as possible. Still, up until I was about 10, I remember having to get clothes from thrift stores, not because it was cool, but because that’s all we could afford.

The difference between the people who stay on welfare and my family is cultural, in my opinion. My dad’s mother grew up in Tennessee during the Depression. We’re talking barefoot because you can’t afford shoes, hand-built shack, stealing chickens poor. They never accepted any government handouts; told the “gubment” where to stick it. My mother’s mother somehow managed to raise 5 kids mostly on her own working as a secretary. One grandfather was a semi-literate machinist, the other was a smart, but very unsuccessful person. Something my grandparents managed to instill in (most of) their kids was a strong work ethic and a strong distaste for accepting government assistance. My parents passed it on to us.

Welfare, the way I knew it, virtually guaranteed that nothing similar would happen in families raised on welfare. There were disincentives to work, since your wages would cut into your benefits, or in some cases eliminate them. There was no penalty for having more kids, you just get more assistance to take up the slack, unlike someone who works for a living. People say, “do it for the kids,” but what you’re really doing is creating many more poor kids, many of whom are going to grow up and become welfare-supported parents of a new generation of dependents.

I hope the reforms that have happened will change some of that, and I hope there are further reforms planned. I think it’s sick that we lost what could have been some great people to that social sinkhole because the government decided that being nice was better than being realistic. Some of those welfare kids could have been so much more if they’d had the right outlook on life and had grown up in an environment that encouraged them to try, to plan, to manage their problems on their own. There are some situations in which helping is the greater harm.

No offence intended but I would honestly like to see you try to get a single one of the jobs you mention without any experience whatever and nothing in your background but welfare. My point about “learning a trade” is that it is a glib and completely useless answer. The days of master and apprentice are pretty much dead and gone; factory jobs are found in China and I seriously doubt that upholstery is a growth industry. I’m not sure what a “servers’ assistant” is so I won’t comment on that. To enter a trade such as plumbing, masonry, carpentry, and so on and so on, one needs a father, an uncle, an older brother, or some good friend who is established in the trade to recommend hiring one; in the case of union shops one also needs considerable cash for initiation fees, training, tools, equipment, specialized clothing, etc., etc.

Fast Food in an urban area will hire anything with a pulse. Show up on time and work moderately hard for 2 years and you’re a manager.

But fast food managers only make a dollar or two more than minimum wage. And fast food rarely hires full time. In fact, in service work it is hard to get even a guarenteed minimum of hours (one week you might work 40, the next you may only have two shifts) which makes planning a life and a budger nearly impossible.

I’ll refer again to the cite I gave above.

Number of people classified as living in poverty – 37 million

Number of people receiving TANF (welfare) – 4.7 million and declining every year

If there’s 32.3 million poor people who DON’T receive welfare, let’s quit blaming welfare for making poor people.

Fast food wasn’t on the list submitted; I don’t regard fast food work/management as a trade. Management would seem to me to be a profession—maybe a distinction without a difference. In any event, it seems to be inadequate to eliminate welfare.

Thats not true, people who work get incentives for having kids

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm
Unfortunately, this argument is incorrect. Working families do receive “financial incentives” to have more children, and far larger ones than welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per month in increased AFDC payments for another child…The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less. (3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent. (4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless families to either side of this comparison.)

Decline in Average AFDC Family Size, 1969-1992: (5)

Year Family size

1969 4.0 persons
1973 3.6
1975 3.2
1986 3.0
1992 2.9
Middle class people may get more government benefits than welfare families for having kids.

Middle class families may, possibly, get more indirect government benefits. You assume that: 1) A family makes enough to benefit from a tax cut. 2) That the benefits middle class people receive are anything comparable to the benefits that someone on welfare receives.

Middle class means you have a fairly comfortable life. Taking $4,850 off the taxable income for a middle class family is a slight increase in their tax return, probably on the order of a couple hundred dollars or so per year, depending on income. Ninety dollars a month for a welfare recipient is usually a large increase in income. Some of the families I knew at the program had incomes of less than $400 a month. Getting a 20% raise every time they had a kid would probably make a difference in the middle class birth rate. Factor in health care costs (free on welfare, costs you if you’re working) and related costs with raising children and the benefits middle class families receive are basically cancelled out, in my opinion.

My dad’s check took a $400+ monthly hit just providing insurance for the family. That was about 20% or so of his monthly income. My mother was self-employed. Ever look at the taxes for that? Not pretty, and you don’t get any benefits like insurance unless you pay for them yourself. Sure, my mom and dad made enough for us to be comfortable, eventually, but they did it by working their asses off. Both of them were either at work or in transit for about 12 hours out of every day, and my mother still had to do the bookkeeping when she wasn’t at the shop. Our income almost doubled in 10 years, from near-poverty to lower middle class. Whoopee. When my mother got cancer, guess what, half our income disappeared, and worse than that we ended up having to sell the business at a loss, still owing money in some cases. Back to being poor again.

You’re right in saying that middle class families do receive benefits, but I don’t see that as any kind of a factor in having children for someone with a solid middle class income. You’re also looking at a completely different demographic. To be more fair, compare it to one of the working poor families who don’t make enough money for tax benefits to mean anything at all, but who don’t qualify for government assistance. They would probably agonize over having another child because it would mean major changes in their lives. For a welfare recipient, there’s not a really big change in lifestyle and it’s not a big deal because most of the real immediate costs of child care are handled by the government. You don’t have to worry as much about food, housing, or health care because all of that is provided.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t think the situations are comparable at all.

In my opinion, after one or two children at most…if one cannot afford to take care of additional children, she should not have any.

It’s very disturbing to see a pregnant female on welfare walking with a stroller with her 18 mo. old and her 3 and 5 year old walking aside her.