implemented and/or enforced? Much of our hard-working tax dollars are going to able-bodied people who CAN work but DON'T wish to do so? In many cities able bodies welfare recipients are enrolled into programs where they must work in order to receive their welfare check. Many of such people are quite perturbed that they HAD TO WORK for their money? Hmmmmm, funny, that is HOW THE REST of us get our money. Again, should mandatory workforce programs be stringently enforced? Why? Wny not? Welfare is supposed to be TEMPORARY, not PERMANENT! Enough with the abuse of welfare! By the sweat of thou brow, thou shall eat and live.
So long as the workfair meets minimum wage requirements absolutely!
If it doesn't then we have seen in several nations that it fails quickly. Companies start firing people in exchange for people they can pay less than minimum wage causing a cycle of unemployment and wage lowering and making it impossible for low wage earners to keep their jobs.
That would depend on how you view it.
We could give a welfare recipient a job sweeping streets, for instance, and require that they work to keep their benefits. We could NOT pay enough (per hour) to cover the food stamps, school lunches, housing assistance, WIC, etc. that they receive.
We COULD pay minimum wage and then deduct their earnings from benefits but one could claim they are working for nothing.
Or we could allow working in the free market and the deduct half their earnings from benefit, providing an incentive to find better work. But again effectively paying them half minimum wage.
Depends on how you look at it, and guarantee the person working is going to look at it as if benefits are entitlements and they are underpaid.
Say the value of welfare for the week was $600 (example only) and that person made 700$ on minimum wage (sweeping streets or what have you) then in my view it would be fine for them to receive the usual welfare package plus the extra $100. On the other hand if they only made $500 then they should just receive the normal welfare package... I think I have explained this poorly, does that make sense?
Of course in my ideal system a person who found themselves unemployed and was looking for "welfare" would be offered two jobs at average wage for entry level in that job (in line with their skills) if they refused both then there would be no welfare at all. The state would create/find these jobs for these purposes using experts to determine which jobs would be most valuable/profitable. Welfare would only exist for that small period of time where these two jobs are being selected, say a maximum one week.
"He who does not work neither shall he eat" and all that.
BY GEORGE, HE'S GOT IT FINALLY. Something WE BOTH agree on!
Your method leaves out any incentive to support ones self. Society is still picking up the entire cost of support and that is unacceptable (to me).
The person with $600 in benefits, making and keeping an additional $700, is still a net drag on society Whatever they work at will not reduce welfare one penny - all the extra goes to luxuries that are basically being purchased by society.
Which is why I suggested that in such a case welfare be reduced by 50 cents on the dollar. Earn $700, get $350 in benefits. Total income now $1050 ($450 more than welfare alone) and a better job will produce even more. Now you have an incentive to actually provide your own support, while reducing the drag on your neighbor that WAS providing total support.
Which system are you referring to sorry?
It seems I did indeed explain this poorly as you misunderstand me. (My bad)
The person receiving 600 in benefits and earning $700 would not receive any benefits at all, they are making more than the value of those benefits so obviously they don't need them. On the other hand if they only made 500 then they would just receive the $600 welfare package.
Basically I think I can explain it like this.
There needs to be a bare minimum one receives to stop people starving to death etc.
that limit would be for example $600
Anyone making less than that would have their wage taken directly and used to help pay for their welfare. Anyone making more than $600 obviously does not need welfare.
Wages need to meet minimum and in my view also have to meet the job, i.e. I don't think we should have sewer workers or coal miners on minimum even if they are otherwise on welfare as those are tough jobs with risks involved.
Is that clearer?
IN an ideal system there is no welfare except while two jobs are found for your skill set and at average entry level wage. If you accept either then you have a job and don't need welfare. If you don't accept either then you don't receive welfare.
Unfortunately I believe this requires elements of socialism to ensure that the state can create and thus provide sufficient jobs to do this.
OK, I understand now.
But I still disagree, and prefer the option I listed. An example from a relative of mine:
Two parents, one in college and the other making a low wage. 4 kids. They got food stamps and WIC. As soon as the one graduated, he got an entry level job, raising their income, but lost half the food stamps. They actually had less money coming in total.
He got a raise and lost the other half of his food stamps. Total income went down again. He changed jobs, for another raise, and lost WIC. She went back to school and graduated during this period, getting a starting level job herself, but they lost all day care help.
It took 3 years of constantly declining income to really get their heads above water, and during that time they not only saw no increase in "livability" but actually had it get worse and worse. A good portion of their spending was on credit cards, just to have enough to eat.
So. Taking away $600 in benefits when a job is found paying $700 supplies absolutely incentive to work. Understanding that they will have to work to get anything at all, it still gives no incentive to actually support themselves. Allowing them to keep a portion of welfare bennies while earning more than the check helps relieve that problem; they now have a real incentive to better their skills and such and hopefully will. An option not only from economics and sociology but psychology as well.
Got it. Yeah I like that too.
So people get the bare minimum plus 50% of what they earn on top of that right? When does this cut off though?
Of course that still has a long term welfare system but I think it's better than what we do now.
In a way. The welfare is cut by half the earnings, so the effect is as you say.
Eventually, as earnings rise (and that's the point - to provide incentive to work to raise the earnings) a point will come where earnings are double the maximum welfare and at that point all welfare has been reduced to zero. But they still have an income double that of what they had on welfare alone.
Right now, there is no incentive to work at all. Workfare provides that incentive, but it is still a net loss to society as the make shift jobs we can come up with aren't worth the welfare payment. We are providing incentive to remain on welfare for life instead of working to get off of it if we cut welfare dollar for dollar for income from work. It would be very tough psychologically to work through that for the years it takes to do so, but if we allow an increase in total income during the period the people doing it actually see an increase in their standard of living as they go instead of remaining static while increasing their work income all the time.
It wouldn't be easy from a bookkeeping standpoint, but if unemployment insurance can do it (and that's just what they do), so can the welfare office.
Yup I like it. We should really do this.
I mean I prefer getting rid of the system entirely and replacing it with job placement but it's certainly a better compromise.
With time that should come naturally. We can't just click our fingers and produce 20 million meaningful, worthwhile jobs that pay a good wage. Doing so would drastically reduce nation wide prices for whatever is being produced, and probably result in a downward spiral that would soon negate our efforts.
But encouraging welfare recipients to improve their part in life via jobs produces a real net increase in GDP - more money to purchase with, more purchases mean more producers are needed and thus more jobs. Not in a year and not in 5, but long term it should work. If, that is, we refuse to accept unlimited sob stories about not being able to work - I got kids, I feel sick, I have an elderly mother to care for, I need a car to get to work in and can't afford one, etc.
There I completely agree, these transitions cannot be sudden.
As Xiaoping said "gentle rains water the crops, torrents wash them away".
And as I said for a compromise and as a transitional system I think you are dead on, now if we could just convince everyone else .
I must agree Josak
The large companies especially take workfare as an opportunity to fill the gap in seasonal employment trends, this is neither in the interest of the unemployed or the economy as a whole.
A better option would be to employ them in community projects on a minimum hours basis to fit in with their search for employment and balance with family life.
I think the general idea that welfare recipients work is good, but only acceptable when it is for the benefit of the community they live in and not the corporations that are keeping them from work in the first place.
Let's just bring back slavery and be done with it...
by Josak5 years ago
Wages have not been keeping up with the cost of living for a long time now in the US and the primary reason is the weakening of the unions, the problem really began during the presidency of Ronnie the union buster...
by Barefootfae4 years ago
Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
Here are two arguments that I have heard, separately, from people on the left.1 - Minimum wage doesn't cost jobs.2 - Companies outsource to countries with low wages.Let's examine that for a moment. Let's imagine the...
by Stacie L6 years ago
Michele Bachmanns radical position on minimum wageBy Greg SargentThis morning, Michele Bachmann confirmed on Good Morning America that she could support abolishing the Federal minimum wage. Thats an actual substantive...
by JeniferD6 years ago
I ask this because since the U.S. congress makes six figures a year doing essentially NOTHING for the people that voted them in and THEN denies the unemployed extended comps calling the unemployed 'lazy'. Any jobs...
by ahorseback16 months ago
Isn't It offensive to call it minimum wages ?Why do we have to call it minimum wage anyway ?Why do we have to work at all ?Why not $80.00 per hour minimum wage for doing nothing ?Why not a free paycheck for my WHOLE...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.