We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy. Indeed, surveys of them consistently show their desire for a job. But they’re also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work.
While this makes sense for them in the short term, it may actually hurt them over the long term. One of the most important steps toward avoiding or getting out of poverty is a job.Only 2.6 percent of full-time workers are poor, vs. 23.9 percent of adults who don’t work. And, while many anti-poverty activists decry low-wage jobs, even starting at a minimum-wage job can be a springboard out of poverty.
Thus, by providing such generous welfare payments, we may actually not be helping recipients.
Avoiding poverty is easy. Get a job. Work hard. Save money. Make friends. Get married before you have kids.
"One of the most important steps toward avoiding or getting out of poverty is a job."
Absolutely true. Even if the job pays almost nothing, it is the first step to get out of poverty. Why?
Because of human nature: if you don't have a job, employers think no one wants you, so they don't want you either. But if you're employed, obviously someone else wants you. QED. That makes you more desirable in the job market.
Another problem: there is so much easy money available to unemployed folks that it amounts to paying people for not working. Society is getting what it pays for: high unemployment.
Dr. Everett V. Scott
Same can be said for dating. Being not-in-a-relationship is a very bad way to get a date. I can only speak from the male observer point of view but most women prefer you to either have a girlfriend (or wife) before you appear desirable. (popular objects of desire through media excepted)
The base rule is the same though, most people want what other people have and cannot recognize a potential resource that has been overlooked.
Sadly, few people realize that to get ahead in this country, you have to forego the 'free" money from government. It is enticing to lure you in, but, you must not come to depend on it otherwise it is a trap. Employers do this as well, less these days. Lots of effort in recruitment, then some in the beginning but few years in, you are old hat and they assume habit and fear of sacrifice will keep you from leaving. To make your break, you have to take the hit and leave government or whomever behind. To become an adult, you have to leave the bosom of your family and support yourself.
Forced slavery was abolished but to sell yourself to the government or another by raising your own costs to being free is still allowed. There was a time in this country that being a hired-man was low status, now almost everyone is a hired-"person" and being your own boss through taking your own risks is denigrated.
Its effect is insidious, causing people to take the easy, short-term trap of gov't money. But really, there are few things more satisfying than being your own boss.
Dr. Everett V. Scott
"Avoiding poverty is easy. Get a job. Work hard. Save money."
No offense, but only a smug, self-absorbed jerkass who has never been unemployed could say that getting a job today is "easy." Working hard won't help you a damn bit either -- these days, most employers expect you to give every waking minute to the job, and if you even think about complaining you'll be out on your ear in a heartbeat.
A woman who was on welfare worked for me in the 70's. Every time I gave her a raise, welfare would reduce her benefit by the gross amount of the raise. The result is that raises actually cost her money because taxes are taken out of wages but not out of welfare.
So if I gave her a $0.25/ hour raise, she lost the whole amount from welfare but only got 85% of it in her paycheck.
She finally quit because she couldn't afford to keep getting raises.
jim- I've always wondered what would happen if instead of a dollar for dollar loss of welfare benefits as folks get raises or actually get a job, instead that it goes down incrementally the salary is higher than the poverty level or something to that effect. That gives an incentive to work, because you still get some help, as well as start making money. Just a thought?
Replace all the welfare programs with a single program called workfare. The workfare recipient can work up to 40 hours a week at minumum wage and of course taxes and SS would be withheld from their wages. Simple and fair solution.