Welfare Programs Increase Poverty

reply to post by Maslo


You are forgetting what happens when private industry is allowed to keep its profits.

Wages will naturally rise.

What keeps people from falling into poverty is having an economy that operates at maximum efficiency. - nothing else can change this ultimate truth.

Legislation can not eliminate poverty or even reduce it.

If it could, all of India would be a first world nation with flush toilets already.

If it was possible for legislators to wave a magic wand and use coercive force to eliminate poverty, I'd be all for it. But that is impossible.

---

If robots could do everything, we would all be rich and never have to work.

However, if people want more stuff than even the robots can produce, there will be jobs (which is why I feel there will always be jobs, because people always want more)

[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

You are forgetting what happens when private industry is allowed to keep its profits. Wages will naturally rise.

If you have 20 people waiting to work for your employer for half of your wage (because without it and without welfare they would have exactly 0 income so ANYTHING is better than nothing), wages will never rise, no matter the profit. Why would rationally and economically thinking employer rise wages if he doesnt have to, even if his profit increased tenfold? There is just no economic reason to do so, as long as he has enough employers and 5x more people waiting for the job if they quit.

What keeps people from falling into poverty is having an economy that operates at maximum efficiency. - nothing else can change this ultimate truth.

Economy operating at maximum efficiency would surely help, but alone it is just not enough. Unwillingly unemployed people would be even there, because company bankrots and cancellation of jobs are natural part of any free market economy - not all investments are successfull. Ever.
And even from economic POV its better for unemployed people to not fall into deep poverty while they search for a new job, because it increases their chance of not finding any, which is wasting of human resources. And as I have already written, as long as econ. benefits of welfare system (economic value of "saved" people which wanted to work but had problems in finding jobs and without welfare would have slipped into poverty, but with it have found new jobs) are greater than the value lost on paying chronic mis-users and taxation funding it requires, economy with welfare operates MORE efficiently in the long run than economy without it. And I am not even talking about humanistic side of such a system - society is not only economy.

Legislation can not eliminate poverty or even reduce it.

It cannot eliminate it, thats for sure, nothing can. But it can increase chances of recovery from povetry if someone wants it and actively searches for a job - thus it CAN reduce it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


While I admire your push for less reliance on government, and there are certainly people out there that milk the system, I do not believe that the economic climate right now is the greatest time to label these people. A majority of the spike in Welfare, food stamp, insurance care and general social programs increases are attributable directly to the economic labor marketplace. Many hard-working Americans who worked everyday of their lives are turning to the government for assistance to take care of their basic needs, so that they may survive long enough to find a job.

I worked everyday of my life I was able to work, rose through the corporate chain getting promotions. I had some buffer, when the economy hit lows. My first lay-off I was out of work 6 months and never bothered collecting unemployment or food stamps. I found work, moved across the country on my own dime, and was laid off a year after that. Most of my excess income was gone at that point causing me to apply for unemployment and max out credit cards while hoping to find a new job and taking cuts in my lifestyle to keep my family fed and a roof over their head. There is only so much assistance you can ask for from family members before you become a burden on them. Needless to say a year later, the industry I worked in is one of the hardest hit industries by the recession.

I have enrolled in school to change careers (on government grants and loans). I have food stamps and unemployment coming in. My son who is Autistic will now be eligible for SSI payments which will help. Honestly, even with all the help, if there were a job available able to support my family I would be working right now. I cannot get a $7 an hour job, I have tried but am way to over-qualified. The 20 year-old manager probably couldn't see supervising someone who has been managing for the whole span of his lifetime.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


unemployment insurance isn't welfare.

unemployment insurance can be something provided by a private market insurance agency and does not need to be managed by government.

If people want unemployment insurance, they should have to buy that in the private market.

If people need help buying food, this should be dealt with through charity.

The reason why we are having a total economic implosion is due to the government - only the government. You can't expect the people that just put half of America out of work to then take care of those people they just put out of work through their bureaucratic nonsense, regulatory insanity, wild outrageous spending sprees, and fraudulent central bank and monetary system.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

www.latimes.com... 2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

yes so then the gov't can decide we all need the unemployment insurance, demand that we buy into it, and then the insurance companies providing it can have a captive customer base just like the health insurance agencies are planning on having and they can do this!!!

oh, yes, let's just replace the gov't program with an insurance ponzi scheme......
when was the last time you had to deal with an insurance company and file a claim??
half the time, they don't want to pay for half of what you thought they would be paying for!!

the companies work for profit, the gov't is giving them a mass of people who really don't care how much they make, train them for free to work in the industries that need the workers, so well, the companies are gonna pick the ones they know aren't gonna care about the money!!
meanwhile, those of us who aren't considered poor, but well, aren't making enough to live on, well.....we are up a creek without a paddle, we have to pay for our own training, even when the money we are making isn't even making the basic needs of the family, and well, we are forced to compete with people who can take that job that is paying less than what their childcare costs are!!

maybe the gov't should start insisting that those getting the benefits seek jobs that will at least pay for their childcare and other related work expenses?? instead of accepting that job at burger king flipping burgers....

You dont really need to think why welfare programs could increase poverty.....
Everyone kind of know how this would work out.
But some genuine people really do need welfare... It is a matter of making the right policy....

reply to post by Incubus2


Let me agree with you....
I am the sister of a person who works the system to her benefit, won't work at all and keeps having kids to stay on welfare.

Also, my father had Lou Gerhig's disease... He was a hero in my eyes, because he continued to work for three years, even though he qualified for disability as soon as he was diagnosed, because it is a terminal illness.

But he wanted to work, because my dad was of the work ethic of "you work unless it is Sunday or a Holy Day." He beat the odds of the disease, which has an average life span of 18 months- 2 years. When he finally was unable to work (he was a Construction Engineer) he applied for disability... he was DENIED and given the "runaround" for two years!!!! He FINALLY began to recieve it and got benefits for 18 months before he died.

My father was a medical miracle for living with Lou Gerhigs as long as he did. He died at age 53.
I believe that the state was hoping he would die before they would have to pay any benefits out.... though in our area many people get disability for obesity, depression, and bi-polar disorder....
It makes me sick.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

The only exploiting going on is by the State, which views me as a source of slave labor.

en.wikipedia.org...

The state is not what makes you a worker slave, private ownership of the means of production is. The state does not hire you or create the need for cheap labour and massive profits. The state doesn't send jobs overseas for cheaper labour exploitation. The capitalists 'profit' goes up while wages stagnate, when the economy is low the workers suffer as the capitalists try to maintain their profits.

I understand you being anti-state, I AM ALSO, but you fail to understand what the state does and what capitalism does.

Capitalism requires the need to exploit labour in order for the capitalist to make money. The state is just the system that allows them to because they set up the state to protect privilege and keep the workers in their place. But the root of the problems with state, government and economy is the private ownership of the means of production.

BTW why the link? What was that supposed to prove?

Capitalism = free market?

It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society.

www.worldsocialism.org...

See capitalism is not free-markets at all. Free-markets are free-markets, and under capitalism nothing is free, you are exploited by the few at the expense of the many. The only people who benefit from capitalism, is capitalists, the few at the top who live off the labour of others.

So for you to have the true free-markets, we all want freedom, then capitalism will never get you there.

It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit.

www.worldsocialism.org...

Capitalism does not have a monopoly on free-markets, it is nothing more than the 'private ownership of the means of production'. The idea that a single person can exploit many workers, by using them to make a living for themselves, is the problem.
A system that we have been conditioned to except as normal by those who hold the power. The only way they can hold and maintain that power is by convincing the population that capitalism is necessary and the only way to organize society.

I really don't think that that is the system you want, you're just confused because you've been conditioned to love capitalism and hate socialism, but you're not taught what either one really is. You also seen confused about the role of the state.

one in every six americans are recieving some type of aide from our gov't at the present time according to this story...

www.usatoday.com...

there's 50 million on the medicaid rolls...

40 million are gettting food stamps....

10 million are on unemployment....

and...
4.4 million are on welfare.....

www.usatoday.com...

seems to me that the safety nets are doing more to keep US labor afloat than to help those that are "too lazy to work"



which, well, helps free companies to do things like expand their business, develope new products, and well...of course, let's not forget....
pay those nice salaries and benefits to those few lucky ones in their companies.....

which reminds me of this story:

www.ft.com...


they've passed a law, almost went unnoticed, that requires companies to start reporting payroll income to the gov't....

should prove interesting!

Welfare programs are the epitome of the term "Unintended Consequences".

As Nm has shown, their is a large sector in today's societies that given the choice between earning $1000 by being useful or given a $1000 by being un-useful, most would chose the later.

The statistics prove the facts; over 40% of today's 'tax' payers are within a negative tax bracket (in other words: while they pay a percentage of income tax, the entitlements afforded to such end up paying them more than they put into the system!)

What eventually becomes, and where we are at, is over 40% of the population is paid to remain on the dole while the other 60% fund their existence and citizenry. I know it sounds harsh and I know there are exceptions to such, but this is the reality.

As someone else brought up and I believe so naively, raising the 'minimum wage' would solve the problem. When in fact, a forced floor will always produce an economic supply shortage.

Let us look at an example: Completely hypothetical, yet highly relevant!

The government, in its wisdom has imposed a price floor upon milk. Meaning that producers must sell their milk for $5.00/gallon. Before the floor, milk only cost $3.00/gallon.

Prior to the price floor, a dairy farmer employed 10 workers and paid a wage of $10/hour. This is the price that the farmer has determined that they need to pay a worker to maintain the level of demand upon their product. Any fluctuation could obviously be dealt with in many ways, such as: Wage reductions, layoffs, cutting overhead - if demand dropped. Wage increases, hirings, bonuses, etc. - if demand increased.

Now comes the price floor. A forced, artificial price placed upon a product or service. The farmer, wanting to stay in business has now been forced with the following: Less profits, which means, less money for production costs. That in which is employment, more cows, research and development, etc. Since payrolls typically comprise a small business's largest expense, wages or layoff will occur, even though normal market forces do not dictate it!

Now replace a price floor with minimum wage. As an employer is forced to pay someone a wage for a job that is not equatable with the pay, less people are hired. Someone flipping burgers is not worth 10. 9 or even 8 dollars/hour. Sorry. The skill set is minimal and the demand for such is so great that the wages would naturally be low. But yet through the wisdom of minimum wage laws, employers now are faced with paying a low skilled worker more than they are worth in terms of skills.

Overall leading to a reduction in workforce in terms of manpower. This also leads to an increase in prices for the products and/or services that were provided, so to pay for the workforce they are now forced to pay artificially high for.

There is no easy answer to the solution, except a complete overhaul of entitlements, minimum wage laws, tax structure and regulation structure. Otherwise, we will continue to see items such as a hamburger being $5.00

Originally posted by dawnstar
pay those nice salaries and benefits to those few lucky ones in their companies.....

What makes them lucky? Do you think they woke up one day and drew straws and it was their time to be compensated for their abilities and talents? Besides the small percentage of persons that obtained wealth via the lottery (poor mans tax) or inheritance, luck had a minuscule part in it. It was hard work, determination, tenacity and grit that enabled most people to reach the pinnacle of their lives.

As soon as we begin attributing it to luck, it reduces their talents to simple chance they were paid well. This is like saying pro-sport players are lucky they made it to the levels they are at now.

which reminds me of this story:
www.ft.com...
they've passed a law, almost went unnoticed, that requires companies to start reporting payroll income to the gov't....

should prove interesting!

What part does the Federal Government have any right to demand companies to report their payroll to them? Centrally planned governments never work, especially on a country the size of ours. This bill is just a way to continue the wealth envy and sow seeds of distrust amongst people and companies.

Besides, via payroll taxes and the IRS, the government could already obtain this data. This is just another pandering attempt to refocus peoples attention from the Government to business. While there are companies that have done heinous acts, vilifying business on a whole is pure wealth envy and practically pushing people towards a class war.

reply to post by ANOK

Capitalism does not have a monopoly on free-markets, it is nothing more than the 'private ownership of the means of production'.

If you cannot own production means which you have created and/or bought, or you cannot freely lend them to other people (your employess) under conditions which you dictate, its no longer free market.

free market directly implies 'private ownership of the means of production', as it implies everything created by private entity stays private unless it wilfully chooses to donate/sell its assets to public or employees.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Maslo]

Originally posted by Maslo
If you cannot own production means which you have created and/or bought, or you cannot freely lend them to other people (your employess) under conditions which you dictate, its no longer free market.

The workers own the production. You own what you produce as apposed to the capitalist who makes their living from your labour through 'profit'. Profit that you produced and should rightly go to you.

free market directly implies 'private ownership of the means of production', as it implies everything created by private entity stays private unless it wilfully chooses to donate/sell its assets to public or employees.

No it doesn't. You are not understanding the concept correctly. You keep focusing on 'private property' when it has nothing to do with property at all. It's the concept of ownership of the means of producing what we need being used to exploit workers for the benefit of a minority group (the capitalists), that is the problem.

Free-market under capitalism is a myth, as the means to produce goods to sell on the 'free-market' are kept artificially scarce in order to maintain profits for the capitalists at the expense of the people.

You again also fail to understand what Socialism is and how it works. You assume everything will be shared and nothing will be owned, that is Communism. That is what Marx wanted, using socialism as a way to create the capital need to switch to full communism. He saw state socialism as a better evil than capitalism, which is a pyramid scheme that sucks all the wealth upwards.

Anyway I digress, communism is the unreachable utopia, socialism is the better alternative to capitalism, Anarchism is preferable to the state...

Libertarian Socialism.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

The workers own the production.

Only if they own the means of production.

Profit that you produced and should rightly go to you.

What about profit that you produce using production means owned by another person?

No it doesn't. You are not understanding the concept correctly. You keep focusing on 'private property' when it has nothing to do with property at all. It's the concept of ownership of the means of producing what we need being used to exploit workers for the benefit of a minority group (the capitalists), that is the problem.

Means of production are also a property, belonging to persons which created/bought them. If they are workers, so be it, a am not against voluntary socialism if it does not breach third persons property rights, and is a free agreement between workers. But if the means of production were created/payed for by those you call capitalists (privately), then they are their property, and workers cannot steal them, even if they lend them - this is where libertarianism (respecting private property rights above all) and socialism (no private ownership of means of production) come into conflict.

Free-market under capitalism is a myth, as the means to produce goods to sell on the 'free-market' are kept artificially scarce in order to maintain profits for the capitalists at the expense of the people.

Even if it were true, how is it not free market? If someone owns a resource in a free market, he can do whatever he wants with it, because its his property - even keep it artificialy scarce, if he wants.

You again also fail to understand what Socialism is and how it works. You assume everything will be shared and nothing will be owned, that is Communism.

Of course not everything, just production means. That is enough for my point.

Libertarian Socialism.

Classical liberalism.

Originally posted by Maslo
Only if they own the means of production.

And that is what socialism is, the workers owning the means of production. That's you and me. That's everyone who does not earn their living from other peoples labour.

What about profit that you produce using production means owned by another person?

Why would you? In socialism the means of production are owned by those that are using it. No one person would own the means, and thus be able to monopolize that means to exploit workers.

Means of production are also a property, belonging to persons which created/bought them. If they are workers, so be it, a am not against voluntary socialism if it does not breach third persons property rights, and is a free agreement between workers. But if the means of production were created/payed for by those you call capitalists (privately), then they are their property, and workers cannot steal them, even if they lend them - this is where libertarianism (respecting private property rights above all) and socialism (no private ownership of means of production) come into conflict.

First off 'private property', in this context, means anything that is state protected and used to exploit labour in order for a class of people to live from the profits of through the control of production and distribution.

If someone owns a company and tries to hire workers to work for them in a socialist system they would be out of luck. Why would anyone work for a capitalist if they can work at a cooperative/collective for more money and better working conditions?

If workers refused to work for the capitalists, as happened in Spain, the capitalists have no choice but to except the new system and join in.

The workers have paid for the means of production many times over since the industrial revolution. Where do you think the capitalists wealth comes from? It comes from the exploitation of labour.

The 'private property rights' argument doesn't work here because even in our present system there are rules as to what you can do with your 'private property'. You couldn't buy a house next to me and turn it into an abattoir for example, however much you 'own' that property.

Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.

"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?

"But then why do we oppose them?

"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order."
[Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113]

Even if it were true, how is it not free market? If someone owns a resource in a free market, he can do whatever he wants with it, because its his property - even keep it artificialy scarce, if he wants.

It's only 'free' for those who own capital. For those who don't it's not free, it's extremely 'expensive'. There are two side to your 'free-market', those that own the means to production, and those that don't. Your 'free-market' capitalism only benefits those that do.

Using your logic if I could, hypothetically, own all the water on Earth and then control it's distribution by under-producing, making it a scarce resource, thus causing it's price on the 'free-market' to be extremely high so I personally make massive profits while thousands die from dehydration, it would be OK with you because it's my right to do what I want with my 'property'?

Private property rights should not give you the right to use that property to exploit labour. This system of capitalism gives no choice, so it is exploitative and coercive.

'Free-Market' btw is just a term designed to make capitalism less personal for the capitalists, to make it seem as we all actually share a part in their capitalism when obviously we don't. Just another way fascist systems control the negativity associated with them, by changing the use, or meaning, of terms. Capitalism has too many negatives attached to it, so change it to 'free-market' and suddenly it takes on a different facade. Society is constantly manipulated to be passive consumers, or we'd raging revolutionaries, as our, mostly hidden, working class history can attest to.