Should welfare be "painful"?

[strawman]

Assumptions:
Let's assume a nation with a great welfare system. If you choose not to work, you get enough help to feed yourself, house yourself, clothe yourself, and receive reasonable medical care - not fabulous, but livable. Suppose as well that there are enough jobs of a varied nature that any able-bodied person who desires to work can do so, and will receive more than they would on welfare.

Supposition:
I suspect that a measurable percentage of that nation's able population will choose to live on welfare rather than "work". Perhaps the extra income isn't enticing enough, or they have unreported income sources, etc.

Question:
Should welfare be "painful" enough to encourage able persons to get a job, and if so, in what ways can a nation force able people to work without significantly affecting welfare for those unable to work?

"Painful" is merely a placeholder. You could instead attack it from the angle of creating incentives to work, rather than making not-working painful (carrot vs stick) or you can use the word "difficult" or "time consuming" in place of painful - but keep in mind that non-able persons might be significantly negatively affected.

 

[GasBandit]

In my opinion, while receiving public assistance ("welfare"), you should be disenfranchised. Your ability to vote (there is no "right" to vote) would be restored once you are no longer on the dole.

 

[MindDetective]

Here's something to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

"Pain" by any definition may not work properly as an incentive to move "out" of the system simply because "out" may not be in any recognizable direction. The skills required to even progress out of the hole may not be readily available to many either. It isn't that they can't acquire skills but they need to know how, and where to start. For many of those who are lost below the poverty line, it may not be a choice but rather a learned state of mind.

As an analogy: you put a dog in a big room with a lot of holes in the wall. Only a couple of them will lead to another room but most of them just lead to holes back into the room it is placed. You apply an electric shock to the dog and there is no reason to expect it will figure out which hole will offer relief from that pain. The dog must be guided out. Painful shocks CAN be used to do this, but not indiscriminate shocks. Without direction, the dog will only learn to live with the shocks.

 

[Wahad]

In my opinion, while receiving public assistance ("welfare"), you should be disenfranchised. Your ability to vote (there is no "right" to vote) would be restored once you are no longer on the dole.

Why? Is one a lesser person for being, say, physically handicapped and thus unable to work, or a single mom? What could possibly diminish the 'ability' to vote in a person other than imperfect mental health*?

*Which I realize is awkwardly phrased, but I could see some people who might be described as not being in complete control over their faculties not having the ability to vote.

 

[GasBandit]

Why? Is one a lesser person for being, say, physically handicapped and thus unable to work, or a single mom? What could possibly diminish the 'ability' to vote in a person other than imperfect mental health*?

*Which I realize is awkwardly phrased, but I could see some people who might be described as not being in complete control over their faculties not having the ability to vote.

The burden of justifying their lack of enfranchisement is not on me - there is no right to vote. Frankly, there are too many people voting already as it is. The entire concept that everybody seems to take at face value that anyone and everyone can and should be able to vote is both false and destructive. To me, you have to have skin in the game to even be considered as a potential voter. If it were up to me, this would be coupled with prerequisite military service.

 

[Adam]

The 26th Amendment is surprised by this lack of right to vote.

(I suppose the critical piece of the 26th which doesn't necessarily undercut you argument here is that it doesn't allow the right to vote being denied because of age. Just like the 19th doesn't for sex or the 15th for race.)

Even the 14th is misleading about that right:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[strawman]

Here's something to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

That's a very salient point, because children raised by those who have spent their life in welfare may learn that way of living, and it becomes a cycle.

So any method that would move people out would probably have to deal with this (over a long period of time) than any other type of person who voluntarily stays on welfare.

 

[PatrThom]

I'd be happier seeing those on the dole not be in control of their finances. If someone else is going to have to provide for you, feed you, and clothe you, then they get to decide what you eat, what you wear, and how much discretionary income you get.

Here's the rub. That's your job. If you're on welfare, your 'job' will be to oversee the care and feeding of another welfare family. Income and guidelines are all Federally mandated, and any shortfalls due to poor planning on your part will be made up by taking from your budget. You wouldn't be allowed to freeze/starve to death, but you would definitely be moved from 'live with few luxuries' to 'live with no luxuries.'

Granted, I'm no expert, but I see that lack of freedom as plenty of incentive to get your life under control.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

Amendments

You caught on to the rub there... those amendments say you can't be denied voting privileges because of age, sex, color, etc. There's no actual delineation of enfranchisement in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments.

It's a different story in some STATE constitutions, however... but it seems state governmental powers are even less consequential than the constitution these days... and the latter seems to rank well below a politician's opinion of the moment.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I'd be happier seeing those on the dole not be in control of their finances. If someone else is going to have to provide for you, feed you, and clothe you, then they get to decide what you eat, what you wear, and how much discretionary income you get.

Here's the rub. That's your job. If you're on welfare, your 'job' will be to oversee the care and feeding of another welfare family. Income and guidelines are all Federally mandated, and any shortfalls due to poor planning on your part will be made up by taking from your budget. You wouldn't be allowed to freeze/starve to death, but you would definitely be moved from 'live with few luxuries' to 'live with no luxuries.'

Granted, I'm no expert, but I see that lack of freedom as plenty of incentive to get your life under control.

--Patrick

I feel like that wouldn't work in real life.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

This thread is kind of silly, since it has so many assumptions it doesn't really resemble anything that looks like a real society or life in our present.

But I can't resist jumping in to lol at gasbandit

 

[GasBandit]

WHAAARGARBL

STFU Charlie

 

[strawman]

This thread is kind of silly, since it has so many assumptions it doesn't really resemble anything that looks like a real...

SCIENCE!
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?

 

[Adam]

SCIENCE!
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?

Because he doesn't do much time actually thinking?
Added at: 17:09

You caught on to the rub there... those amendments say you can't be denied voting privileges because of age, sex, color, etc. There's no actual delineation of enfranchisement in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments.

It's a different story in some STATE constitutions, however... but it seems state governmental powers are even less consequential than the constitution these days... and the latter seems to rank well below a politician's opinion of the moment.

If I was to take on a liberal view of the constitution, I'd say the founding fathers assumed that they didn't need to enshrine the right to the vote in the constitution any more than writing "This constitution is to be written on paper." would be considered a curious addition.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I don't think that welfare should be 'painful,' or that anyone forced to go on welfare should feel like they are being punished. In the case of an able-bodied person that can get work but simply doesn't have it, it should feel like 'help', and temporary help at that. The only way I see to really encourage someone to try to better their situation and get off of welfare is to have a counselor or other guide that the recipient can regularly meet with, that can help with job placement, finance problems, etc. If the recipient just needs a helping hand to get back to another job, then that's great. If they need more to be able to develop the skills to find a job in the first place, then that should be the goal of what welfare ultimately provides.


I realize such a program is unlikely, and if it were it would be rife with logistics problems and corruption (and in many places such systems are already existing, and do run into those same problems), but as a basic outline for what I think it 'should' be like, that's it.

 

[blotsfan]

I think that in a perfect system, people on welfare should be required to go to a place where they get help looking for jobs and can take classes to provide job skills (and be required to apply for a certain number of jobs per week).

 

[Tress]

EDIT: Never mind, I misread the OP.

In your thought exercise, would being on welfare have the same amount of stigma and shame associated with being on welfare now? That may be enough to keep deadbeats off of it.

 

[Officer_Charon]

I think I've posted my views on welfare before, and received a blast in the face due to poor wording on my part.

My statistical sampling may be skewed, but it does seem as though the majority of those with whom I come into contact with, at least from an arresting standpoint, tend to be either on welfare, or the children of someone on welfare.

 

[PatrThom]

I feel like that wouldn't work in real life.

We'll put you down as, "Undecided."

--Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

In my opinion, while receiving public assistance ("welfare"), you should be disenfranchised. Your ability to vote (there is no "right" to vote) would be restored once you are no longer on the dole.

I forsee no employer taking advantage of this rule to get his employees to vote for who they say or for no one...

My statistical sampling may be skewed, but it does seem as though the majority of those with whom I come into contact with, at least from an arresting standpoint, tend to be either on welfare, or the children of someone on welfare.

Next thing you'll tell me is that the rich spend way less time in jail, if at all...
Added at: 07:56

Supposition:
I suspect that a measurable percentage of that nation's able population will choose to live on welfare rather than "work". Perhaps the extra income isn't enticing enough, or they have unreported income sources, etc.

Yes, they'll all chose to live on welfare because of tax evasion...

Realy, why does that always come up... the problem isn't that we're giving money to gangsters/gangbangers/etc., the problem is that they're not in jail...

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

The problem is that marijuana isn't legal

 

[Mathias]

SCIENCE!
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?

I'm kinda with him on this.

This thread has been all "poor people - lazy and stupid"

 

[strawman]

I'm kinda with him on this.

This thread has been all "poor people - lazy and stupid"

It's easy to get stuck on the superficial, but honestly if people aren't thinking about it more than superficially then their insights aren't going to be that valuable anyway. Perhaps a cheat sheet is in order:

First level:
Poor people are lazy and stupid. How can we make them not be lazy?

Second level:
Some poor people are lazy - how do we differentiate them from poor people who are truly not able to work, and how can we encourage those who can to work for a living?

Third level:
Ideally, we would take care of all the needs of those who are unable to take care of their own needs. We see now that people are abusing the very limited welfare we currently provide, and that is leverage welfare opponents are using to discourage welfare expansion. Is there a way to avoid this very specific type of welfare abuse - which, in theory, would allow us to overcome objections due to abuse and actually take better care of the poor than we are now.

 

[Dave]

As someone who has been on Welfare, I have my own views on it. I'll expound in a bit but I have to go to a meeting.

 

[GasBandit]

If I was to take on a liberal view of the constitution, I'd say the founding fathers assumed that they didn't need to enshrine the right to the vote in the constitution any more than writing "This constitution is to be written on paper." would be considered a curious addition.

Actually, at the time of the founding fathers, you had to own real estate to vote.
Added at: 10:24

The problem is that marijuana isn't legal

STF... wait... actually, there IS a whole lot that this could solve.

 

[Dubyamn]

I've always thought that welfare should be tied to some kind of work training program. You take money for welfare you get enrolled in a landscaping course, or a janatorial course or whatever makes sense for the area like a machinist course for the rust belt. Candidates get training and the businesses get better trained job candidates.

 

[Dave]

When my wife and I first got together I broke my leg and lost both my jobs. We ended up not only going on government assistance for food stamps, but also government housing and - yes - welfare. So for a time I was living in the projects on food stamps getting government assistance to make ends meet. Here's what I saw while I was there.

1. Lots of single minority mothers with children. The fathers were absent either because they bailed or were in jail. Most of these mothers did not work, mainly because any work they did would only exacerbate their situation by lessening the amount of aide they received while all of their paychecks would go to daycare expenses. Getting a job for them would have hurt them!! This is not their fault but was because of the system.
2. Lazy fucking bums/drug addicts. Not as many of these as you might think. Frankly the majority were single moms, but this subgroup did exist. Again, most of them were minority and most of them had some form of criminal record, mostly for either drugs or petty crimes. And once you go down that road it's nearly impossible to do anything else about it. I'll be linking a book at the end of this that I think some of you may need to read. You heartless bastards, you! Back to the point, yes, some of these people existed. But the fact they exist does not detract from the fact that there are those who need help and nobody but the government will do so.
3. The rest were like us - people fighting tooth and nail to get out from under the thumb of the establishment. And trust me when I say it was fucking hard as shit to remove ourselves from the situation. For example, I was making about $6.50 an hour bar-tending and about the same from my second job (once I got hired again). At the same time we were living for free somewhere and getting a stipend for food and expenses. When I got my jobs back (finally!) we started losing these perks, yet I didn't make enough to pay for them myself. Luckily, we got into what's called Section 8 housing that was rent scaled to match a certain percentage of our income. Were it not for that, we wouldn't have been able to afford a place and would have been thrown out of our current residence. What could we have done? I could have quit my jobs.

So what am I really saying? Welfare is already a pretty painful and degrading experience, but the system aggravates the situation and makes it very, very hard to get out of. I can really see how easy it would be to just throw my hands up in the air and give the fuck up. Why are there more poor people who do drugs? Because being poor and jobless is boring and fucking depressing as shit. drugs are an escape for the time being, even though it ends up being something even more of a problem down the line. Add in the incredibly biased "war on drugs" and you have generations of disenfranchised minorities who have nothing left for them but discrimination and hard times. For these people whose life has been ruined by a small amount of drugs that would be overlooked in other (whiter) neighborhoods, there is no American dream.

Frankly, this whole thread pisses me off because it minimizes the pain and suffering for people in the position of having to swallow their pride and ask for help and assumes that those who do are lazy, shiftless sub-humans who are nothing more than a fucking drain on the real and better society.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030

 

[strawman]

Either I'm really bad at setting up the parameters, or people are bad at reading and understanding. Probably more my fault than anything. I'm not talking about people who need help. I'm not saying get rid of welfare. I'm not saying let's make it hard or painful for people who need it to get it.

I'm saying that if we truly want to take care of people who are having a difficult time, we need to give them more, and make it more easily and readily available.

How do we prevent abuse, though?

So I've set up what I thought was a very simple, limited discussion with a set of assumptions and a single question to see if there's a way to tackle the problem of abuse. Not to make it hard for people who need it, or to make people feel like dirt for requesting help. My OP has nothing of that nature in it.

Of course if we get bogged down in emotional aspects of our CURRENT, and irrelevant to this question, system, then we're never going to be able to approach the problem.

But, you know, I don't control the thread. If what you have to say is more important to you that the topic at hand then I don't blame you for enlightening everyone.

But you do have a great point of view, and I would like your input - is there a way to tell the difference between your group #2 and the other people who actually need help? If there's a way to tell the difference, is there a way to encourage them to become self-sufficient without negatively penalizing the other groups who are already trying to get out of their situation?

How best to help the other groups is really another discussion entirely. I'm trying to focus just on this one, tiny aspect of the whole process - because I see it as a major stumbling block that's preventing communities from providing more support to the poor - the specter (valid or not) of abuse of the system.

 

[Dave]

The problem lies with the current political and social system of making it easier to stay within the system of governmental assistance than it is to get out of it. There is no real incentive to remove yourself from welfare because the middle class no longer exists. Politicians have to go super-conservative and be hard on crime, which is slanted astronomically towards those who are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. The war on drugs and a culture of racial and economic profiling ensures that unless you are lucky enough to be born white and of a certain economic level, you are unlikely to ever be anything more than poor unless you are exceedingly lucky.

The system needs to be reset starting with the restructuring of the middle class to be a viable entity. This means that the rich and corporations who make their insane amounts of wealth on the backs of those who see little to no reward from their efforts need to start paying their fair share. The prison system needs to be overhauled to make it less of a financial cash cow to keep people incarcerated. The health care system needs to be overhauled so that one illness or injury can no longer financially ruin a person or family.

Right now this country, its laws and the underlying current of "I got mine" attitude is slanted against anyone who is brown, poor or young. We have become a cesspool of greed and graft, favoring the rich and powerful.

Until we can stop our governmental cronyism, it'll never change without a revolution.

 

[strawman]

So your answer to "Should welfare be "painful" enough to encourage able persons to get a job" is

it'll never change without a revolution.

Which is interesting. While a sea change would be ideal, it is disappointing that you feel there are no minor steps that could help in any way.

I suppose I'm frustrated by that attitude. It's like saying the only way to move a mountain is to wait for an earthquake. Rather than working on the problem little by little, people expect, or wait for, a leader to appear and force things to change wholesale. The funny thing is that Martin Luther King wouldn't have happened if others hadn't already been moving things in the right direction, using small steps, for decades.

Why is it that people feel that because a sea change is necessary, we should simply stop thinking about making minor changes, nevermind actually implementing them?

I could understand a response of "There is no way to discern between people able to work and those truly in need" or "Even if we could tell the difference we can't come up with a plan to help them become self sufficient" - but a response that says, "It's pointless to discuss because the system is corrupt" is silly - especially because even once you have the proposed sea change you still have to face these issues.

In fact, my assumptions already state that the sea change has occurred for the purposes of this discussion. It posits that if that change occurs, then we will still have this problem.

What are you arguing against, exactly? Neither of us wants the poor to suffer or live in indignity.

 

[Dave]

I'm not saying it has to be a revolution, but we are in a pretty downward spiral and have been for years where the rich write the laws to get richer and fuck the rest of us. Meanwhile, politicians get rich from backroom dealings and lobbyists and pass legislation that does nothing more than further the ends of their toadies as opposed to their true constituents.

I had true hopes that Obama would be the change we needed, but he's as much a corporate crony as Bush II was. the problem is, there's no real incentive for them to change as they keep getting richer and their lives better by doing these sort of things. Look at Ron Paul. He's talking about things that need to be done but nobody is listening to him because his ideas are different. Not all of them are right in my views, but he's at least looking at our system and saying, "This shit ain't working! Let's try something new!" And those in power and control what we hear and see are ignoring that because it's not what they want to have happen. They want things to continue down the same path because they are profiting from the misery and degradation of others.

The only reason I say revolution is not because it's something I want or that I think would be a good thing, I just don't see the entrenched establishment changing for any other reason because they don't have to.

 

[@Li3n]

Why are there more poor people who do drugs?

I for one wouldn't bet on that being true... i mean look how many business decisions where clearly fuelled by cocaine use.
Added at: 19:03

So I've set up what I thought was a very simple, limited discussion with a set of assumptions and a single question to see if there's a way to tackle the problem of abuse. Not to make it hard for people who need it, or to make people feel like dirt for requesting help. My OP has nothing of that nature in it.

Dude, if we knew that we'd be writing a book about it... and getting a Nobel Prize in Economics for it...

 

[GasBandit]

I suppose I'm frustrated by that attitude. It's like saying the only way to move a mountain is to wait for an earthquake.

Mmm, I think it's more akin to a computer finally getting so screwed up that you just need to format the hard drive and reinstall the OS.

 

[Dave]

I for one wouldn't bet on that being true... i mean look how many business decisions where clearly fuelled by cocaine use.

Let me expound. I know that more poor people don't use drugs, but they use cheaper drugs with more horrible side effects, and are far, far, FAR more likely to get arrested and incarcerated than those who used cocaine to make business decisions. So while the amount of drug use is about the same regardless of economic or racial background, it's the poor and minorities who make up the bulk of arrests and prosecutions.

 

[@Li3n]

Let me expound. I know that more poor people don't use drugs, but they use cheaper drugs with more horrible side effects, and are far, far, FAR more likely to get arrested and incarcerated than those who used cocaine to make business decisions. So while the amount of drug use is about the same regardless of economic or racial background, it's the poor and minorities who make up the bulk of arrests and prosecutions.

Well if the problem is getting arrested for it... then i think i might have an idea...