An Epiphany on Social Programs

[Radu]

I was talking with one of my good friends last night about ideas raised in Atticus' thread on conservatives and Barack Obama, and I had a fairly startling revelation:

I am a prime candidate for why social programs are useful, beneficial, and should be required.

I have a college education, and consider myself an intelligent, motivated job seeker. Thus far I have had no success. I have no job. I have no insurance. I pay few taxes but would gladly begin paying--- it would mean I'm employed. If it were not for the support of my parents I would be on the street, and that's not a hyperbole. I'm not the typical scare case sometimes presented by some. You know the example: unwed high school dropout mothers having more babies to remain on welfare.

On paper, I should represent the Proud New America. I've got a degree, have spent a year abroad teaching and widening my worldview, I've got a fair amount of passion and ambition, and my political views trend more towards, "change the system from within" than "down with the man!"

So it's interesting to note... my friend asked me, rhetorically I believe, who benefits from social programs. Why should they stick around, and why should people pay for them? It made me rethink a bit... from a purely selfish standpoint, we should keep them around. I'm fortunate enough to have a safety net in the form of parental support. Without that, and without government assistance, I'm just this side of complete bankruptcy and homelessness, and that's not exaggeration.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

My move from hardcore Ayn Rand individualism in the very early nineties to my centrist liberalism today was helped along mightily by similar experiences.

In a modern society, there are just some social programs that you have to have for a decent, civilized society: universal healthcare, free public education to grade 12, subsidised (or deferred payment after reaching a certain income level later in life) university education to those good enough to get in, a social security safety net for unemployment, disability payments for the handicapped and mentally ill, mental health hospitals for the mentally very ill, etc.

[tleilaxu]

tough love: stop whining and get a fucking job, even if you think it is below you. it's what everyone else did.

i met this french chick who told me about her brother who had been unemployed and on the dole for over two years.

me: "why doesn't he get a menial job while he's looking for the one he wants?"

chick: "oh, those jobs aren't suitable for him"

reality check: maybe his self image and goals are unrealistic? there are a shitload of smart and qualified people out there, good jobs are tough to find, there's always someone busting their ass more than you, no one said life was easy or fair, so deal with it. every time i send out an ad to hire people i get dozens and dozens of applications. qualified people get rejected every day. if there were two applications with equal qualifications and one person worked at the quik-e-mart while the other was just unemployed, i'd take the quik-e-mart guy, because he isn't just sitting around waiting for his life to happen to him. don't make the mistake of thinking you are too good to dig ditches, or flip burgers.

and the economy is getting worse. good luck!

[Pigs in Space]

My move from hardcore Ayn Rand individualism in the very early nineties to my centrist liberalism today was helped along mightily by similar experiences.

In a modern society, there are just some social programs that you have to have for a decent, civilized society: universal healthcare, free public education to grade 12, subsidised (or deferred payment after reaching a certain income level later in life) university education to those good enough to get in, a social security safety net for unemployment, disability payments for the handicapped and mentally ill, mental health hospitals for the mentally very ill, etc.


pffff, A good society is one where there are thousands of people living under bridges in cardboard box colonies. It's a sign that big business has priced their private health plans correctly.

"Will work for food" signs are a fashion accessory, mutherfuckers.

[Name Lips]

tough love: stop whining and get a fucking job, even if you think it is below you. it's what everyone else did.

i met this french chick who told me about her brother who had been unemployed and on the dole for over two years.

me: "why doesn't he get a menial job while he's looking for the one he wants?"

chick: "oh, those jobs aren't suitable for him"

reality check: maybe his self image and goals are unrealistic? there are a shitload of smart and qualified people out there, good jobs are tough to find, there's always someone busting their ass more than you, no one said life was easy or fair, so deal with it. every time i send out an ad to hire people i get dozens and dozens of applications. qualified people get rejected every day. if there were two applications with equal qualifications and one person worked at the quik-e-mart while the other was just unemployed, i'd take the quik-e-mart guy, because he isn't just sitting around waiting for his life to happen to him. don't make the mistake of thinking you are too good to dig ditches, or flip burgers.

and the economy is getting worse. good luck!
Oh, it's more than possible to have a full-time job and still qualify for public assistance. It's even possible to have TWO working parents and still qualify for public assistance, if you have enough kids and the jobs are shitty enough.

[Varaj]

The all or nothing nature of many public services can make it so you are worse off to work as well. Instead of the hard cut off line that is used for determining qualification for many types of services I tend to favor a sliding scale. I think that would help encourage people to take lower end jobs because they would never be "shooting themselves in the foot" by working.

[Eliezer]

Assistance that is gradually cut based upon income rather than cut immediately when a "job" is obtained.

Catch-net healthcare that works the same way. I don't know what is wrong with politicians who think that an insurance program for underprivileged kids needs to be cut off completely when the household reaches a certain income level. It should be a scaling benefit.

Same should be true of almost all social programs that have entitlement limitations.

[Name Lips]

Yeah, the current welfare system (at least in New Mexico, I know there are differences between states) is designed to keep people from getting off of it. There's a point where if you make more money at your job, you get cut off from all assistance (the most important of which for employed people are food stamps and child care assistance, which we call CYFD), and have a net LOSS of income. So unless you can break through that income barrier in one huge leap, you're better off staying with the lower paying jobs, cutting your hours, and making sure you never save up more than $1000 in your bank account.

A friend of mine has a Master's degree in Education. Her life's ambition is to be a 4th grade teacher. She finally got all of the paperwork and requirements for her teacher's license, and then discovered that if she got a job as a teacher, she could no longer afford to send her kids to day care. She's a single mother and has no family in town to watch them, so without day care, she's just stuck. So she had to give up on her professional-level job, and is working much lower paying jobs while her Master's degree and teaching license sit around unused.

[Ancalagon]

In the UK they have something that is cynically called "the 80% tax". Suppose you get a job that will make you 100$ more a week than being on wellfare (or however it's called over there). Your benefits go down by 80$. So you go to work for 20$... and you probably spend more than that on public transit and lunches.... so why the heck bother?

Take this with a grain of salt, as I was told this by a Brit and I may have misunderstood.

Ancalagon

[Atticus_of_Amber]

In the UK they have something that is cynically called "the 80% tax". Suppose you get a job that will make you 100$ more a week than being on wellfare (or however it's called over there). Your benefits go down by 80$. So you go to work for 20$... and you probably spend more than that on public transit and lunches.... so why the heck bother?

Take this with a grain of salt, as I was told this by a Brit and I may have misunderstood.

Ancalagon

The "poverty trap" effect of welfare programs is a real problem, but its not a reason to abandon welfare. There are solutions (including the early Milton Friedman's idea of a "negative income tax" to gently wean people off the welfare as their incomes form part time or law paying work rise), but they tend to be very complex.