5 ms·

I grew up in Canada and went to school with rural kids, military kids, and french kids. My family wasnt in poverty but we didnt have many of the nice things oth

by err4nt 11y ago

I grew up in Canada and went to school with rural kids, military kids, and french kids. My family wasnt in poverty but we didnt have many of the nice things others had. Around grade 5 I began to notice how we never had money for a TV, but all the welfare kids I knew had TVs in their rooms. i noticed how I had to do chores, work, save, and help neighbours to afford to buy a game console and video games, and all my friends on welfare had every system and every game. I would wonder why my lunch had an apple in place of their Fruit Rollups and Cookies. One kid even got a pack of starbursts in his lunch every single day, if I was lucky, he would share or trade one with me. Now that Im an adult I can see that my parents priorty with their limited finances were GOOD food, GOOD clothes, and the necessities we needed for success. I kind of wonder how many kids that grew up on welfare are packing Fruit Rollups in their kids lunches today, how many welfare kids walk around with iPhones when lower middle class families cant afford it, etc. It has been my observation in Canada that what seems to work with cash assistance is a cushion to break your fall, not an IV dripping just-enough to not have to work. Where I lived you also had to prove you were applying for work to stay on it, but if you got a minimum-wage full-time job you would lose your welfare but not have as much money, so of course everybody's parents applied as often as they needed to, only went to work when they absolely needed to, and quit as soon as they possibly could to regain or keep the welfare status. And of course they modelled this to their kids. So I do think welfare can totally short circuit personal success, Ive seen many lives reduced to manipulating a aystem instead of becoming something beneficial to others. Its sad but I believe its human nature No matter how much assistance you provide, it cant be so much that it disincentivizes you from rejoining the work force without facing a 'penalty'.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>Ive seen many lives reduced to manipulating a aystem instead of becoming something beneficial to others Well, it ought to prepare them for a life dealing with corporate politics in that case.
snickerdoodles 11y ago
Yep - we have signs to not feed the animals, or they become dependent on us for food...
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  Comments like this are a reason I try to avoid any HN threads related to inequality/poverty...
Zigurd 11y ago
Many poor people also smoke and play the lottery, because that the entertainment that's accessible to them.
saalweachter 11y ago
> Where I lived you also had to prove you were applying for work to stay on it, but if you got a minimum-wage full-time job you would lose your welfare but not have as much money... Would you rather see the elimination of welfare or the removal of sharp cliff-like penalties for re-entering the workforce (eg, benefits that taper off as your income rises)? Regardless of which answer, why?
dragontamer 11y ago
> No matter how much assistance you provide, it cant be so much that it disincentivizes you from rejoining the work force without facing a 'penalty'. That's the welfare cliff, and it can be solved while keeping the overall welfare system in place. It just means that we need to wean off welfare between 20k/year and 40k/year, to encourage people to work at higher paying jobs instead of penalizing people who work at higher paying jobs. Everyone knows it is a problem, but Congress is too "busy" investigating Benghazi for years rather than hammering out a law that solves the welfare cliff.
- massysett 11y ago
  We have that. It's called the earned income tax credit.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    That needs to apply to _all_ government programs, like Food Stamps. SNAP cuts off immediately once you grow above the monthly income. So if you get a raise, all of a sudden you lose all food stamp benefits. There isn't just one welfare cliff to be solved: there are dozens. All of which need to be converted into something like the Earned Income Tax Credit (which more gradually weans people off of the Welfare as their income grows)
AC__ 11y ago
I guess since we can't all openly stereotype people based on race and religion any longer we'll have to make do with stereotyping the poor. I'd love for you to show me these iPod toting welfare recipients. I'm Canadian, and can assure you that welfare recipients are not living high-on-the-hog. Due to the extremely high cost of living in Canada they are, in fact, quite impoverished http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm Great to see another conservative view point buttressed with nothing more than anecdotes. Also, based on your account, by age 10 you and your friends were discussing your parents finances to the point you knew which families were receiving welfare? Seems far fetched.
- delinka 11y ago
  And all you'll ever get is anecdote if you look in the U.S. The "welfare professionals" (let's define this term to mean those that know precisely the minimum of effort to maintain the illusion of 'seeking gainful employment' in order to keep their handouts) keep a low-profile and compartmentalize well. Going to the welfare office today? Don't wear new/"in" clothing, don't take the iDevice with. Out and about socially? Maintain the appearance of not actually being on welfare of any sort: wear the nicer clothing, expose the iDevice prominently. And they can't have their children mocked and ridiculed at school for not fitting in as well, so they need their own iDevice as well. It's anecdote because there's no data. There's no data because who'd admit to cheating the system? There's no cause for investigation due to compartmentalization-- none of their intended social circle knows they're on welfare; any that do are also on welfare and doing the same thing. How would I, a "technocrat" making about six figures know this? Because a couple times in my life I've had to take advantage of this safety net. And I was always irritated at how people I'd seen entering and leaving the welfare office had so much material crap that I couldn't afford when I'd see them again out in public. There were several occasions where some of these welfare recipients were running businesses and hired me to perform computer repair, then in the offices I'd here them on the phone discussing with others how to game a particular part of the system. Disheartening. You want /data/ on this? Good luck.
  - socialist_coder 11y ago
rayiner 11y ago
Look at it this other way: is there something we could afford to provide for the cost of those TVs and iPhones that would ensure a good chance of those people lifting themselves out of poverty? If the answer is yes, then you've discovered a game changer: for a few thousand dollars per person, we could end poverty! The government should just buy those things for people directly and watch the magic happen. If the answer is no, then it's stupid to complain about poor people buying an iPhone or TV. It's calling for a meaningless gesture of piety. They're not making those purchases in lieu of something that would advance their condition.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  no, they're just wasting money foolishly and then gawping about like goldfish when they have no money left for things that matter. so maybe it's stupid to complain, but that doesn't make it smart to facilitate.
- mikeash 11y ago
  What if there is such a thing, but it only works if the people themselves do it, not the government? For a concrete example, it seems to me that one thing that helps people get out of poverty is having some savings. Being poor is expensive, often because large expenses compound due to financing, late fees, or even just an inability to make bulk purchases. Having a financial cushion can make life a lot cheaper. But there's no way (that I can see, anyway) that the government can provide such a cushion for someone who wants to spend it right away on irrelevant stuff.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The few thousand dollars you might save not buying a TV or cell phone isn't going to do shit to get you out of poverty. You can't save your way out of being poor a nickle and dime at a time.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      It means you can stop wasting money on buying necessities constantly in small quantities, not pay massive interest on credit cards or payday loans because your needs a sudden repair, etc. Will this solve the problem? Surely not for everybody. But a big problem (even if far from the only problem) with getting out of poverty is that it's a trap because it's so expensive to be poor.
theworstshill 11y ago
You're barking up the wrong tree though - iphones and TVs are fixed costs. I'm willing to bed vast majority of the poor spend vast majority of their money on housing, food and clothing, although a small minority might actually spend it on crack. And of course, a small minority will attempt to keep on welfare for as long as possible. Would you feel better if they do not have iphones? After all, they should know their place in the system, no? Do you even know the actual figures? How much does a single welfare recipient get per month?
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
We can play a game of anecdotal evidence all day. My experience is totally opposite to yours, welfare was though and no way in hell did we have more than our peers. Welfare was also something you didn't talk about, it was embarrassing and my dad yearned for a job, not for the money, he got that on welfare, but for the human dignity, the social contact, the respect, instead he was paralysed at home. Incentives played no role. But we're in agreement on your final sentence and I do acknowledge that there are people who game the system. But the issue I feel with the welfare debate is that it's usually a discussion about reducing it (to increase incentives to work), maintaining it or expanding it, with most people leaning towards one of the first two options. When really there are genuine cases of welfare where incentives play no role, and they're being squeezed hard. The debate should be more geared towards reducing fraud, catching dishonest recipients and supporting them in their dependency, not squeezing dishonest and honest welfare recipients all the same.
eimai134 11y ago
I can attest to this in the U.S. as well. I hang out with a pagan community that has a high percentage of people on food and cash assistance. They get so much money that they purchase holiday gifts with EBT (food stamps) and live almost solely on expensive branded snack food. Every person I've known on EBT has been gaming the system in some way - everything from getting roommates to sign off that rent is higher so they get more money and doing work under the table for cash and not reporting it, to wanting to get married but deciding not to because it would eliminate their benefits and turning down higher paying jobs because they know they need to keep low-wage, part-time jobs to keep benefits. Withdraw cash from a cash card to buy earrings, concert tickets and other luxuries - no problem! Until a couple years ago I didn't even know people were given debit cards with money on them from the government. I had always thought that poor people bought generic products, had old TVs, couldn't afford cable, had old flip phones, etc. But it's the exact opposite. The poor people I know on welfare/assistance have much nicer things than the middle class people I know. I believe that the system needs to be revised so only certain products can be purchased with government funds. It would help to keep the people using these services healthier as well.

by err4nt 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Ive seen many lives reduced to manipulating a aystem instead of becoming something beneficial to others Well, it ought to prepare them for a life dealing with corporate politics in that case.

snickerdoodles 11y ago

Yep - we have signs to not feed the animals, or they become dependent on us for food...

vdaniuk 11y ago
Comments like this are a reason I try to avoid any HN threads related to inequality/poverty...

Zigurd 11y ago

Many poor people also smoke and play the lottery, because that the entertainment that's accessible to them.

saalweachter 11y ago

> Where I lived you also had to prove you were applying for work to stay on it, but if you got a minimum-wage full-time job you would lose your welfare but not have as much money... Would you rather see the elimination of welfare or the removal of sharp cliff-like penalties for re-entering the workforce (eg, benefits that taper off as your income rises)? Regardless of which answer, why?

dragontamer 11y ago

> No matter how much assistance you provide, it cant be so much that it disincentivizes you from rejoining the work force without facing a 'penalty'. That's the welfare cliff, and it can be solved while keeping the overall welfare system in place. It just means that we need to wean off welfare between 20k/year and 40k/year, to encourage people to work at higher paying jobs instead of penalizing people who work at higher paying jobs. Everyone knows it is a problem, but Congress is too "busy" investigating Benghazi for years rather than hammering out a law that solves the welfare cliff.

massysett 11y ago
We have that. It's called the earned income tax credit.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  That needs to apply to _all_ government programs, like Food Stamps. SNAP cuts off immediately once you grow above the monthly income. So if you get a raise, all of a sudden you lose all food stamp benefits. There isn't just one welfare cliff to be solved: there are dozens. All of which need to be converted into something like the Earned Income Tax Credit (which more gradually weans people off of the Welfare as their income grows)

AC__ 11y ago

I guess since we can't all openly stereotype people based on race and religion any longer we'll have to make do with stereotyping the poor. I'd love for you to show me these iPod toting welfare recipients. I'm Canadian, and can assure you that welfare recipients are not living high-on-the-hog. Due to the extremely high cost of living in Canada they are, in fact, quite impoverished http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm Great to see another conservative view point buttressed with nothing more than anecdotes. Also, based on your account, by age 10 you and your friends were discussing your parents finances to the point you knew which families were receiving welfare? Seems far fetched.

delinka 11y ago
And all you'll ever get is anecdote if you look in the U.S. The "welfare professionals" (let's define this term to mean those that know precisely the minimum of effort to maintain the illusion of 'seeking gainful employment' in order to keep their handouts) keep a low-profile and compartmentalize well. Going to the welfare office today? Don't wear new/"in" clothing, don't take the iDevice with. Out and about socially? Maintain the appearance of not actually being on welfare of any sort: wear the nicer clothing, expose the iDevice prominently. And they can't have their children mocked and ridiculed at school for not fitting in as well, so they need their own iDevice as well. It's anecdote because there's no data. There's no data because who'd admit to cheating the system? There's no cause for investigation due to compartmentalization-- none of their intended social circle knows they're on welfare; any that do are also on welfare and doing the same thing. How would I, a "technocrat" making about six figures know this? Because a couple times in my life I've had to take advantage of this safety net. And I was always irritated at how people I'd seen entering and leaving the welfare office had so much material crap that I couldn't afford when I'd see them again out in public. There were several occasions where some of these welfare recipients were running businesses and hired me to perform computer repair, then in the offices I'd here them on the phone discussing with others how to game a particular part of the system. Disheartening. You want /data/ on this? Good luck.
- socialist_coder 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

Look at it this other way: is there something we could afford to provide for the cost of those TVs and iPhones that would ensure a good chance of those people lifting themselves out of poverty? If the answer is yes, then you've discovered a game changer: for a few thousand dollars per person, we could end poverty! The government should just buy those things for people directly and watch the magic happen. If the answer is no, then it's stupid to complain about poor people buying an iPhone or TV. It's calling for a meaningless gesture of piety. They're not making those purchases in lieu of something that would advance their condition.

oldmanjay 11y ago
no, they're just wasting money foolishly and then gawping about like goldfish when they have no money left for things that matter. so maybe it's stupid to complain, but that doesn't make it smart to facilitate.
mikeash 11y ago
What if there is such a thing, but it only works if the people themselves do it, not the government? For a concrete example, it seems to me that one thing that helps people get out of poverty is having some savings. Being poor is expensive, often because large expenses compound due to financing, late fees, or even just an inability to make bulk purchases. Having a financial cushion can make life a lot cheaper. But there's no way (that I can see, anyway) that the government can provide such a cushion for someone who wants to spend it right away on irrelevant stuff.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The few thousand dollars you might save not buying a TV or cell phone isn't going to do shit to get you out of poverty. You can't save your way out of being poor a nickle and dime at a time.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It means you can stop wasting money on buying necessities constantly in small quantities, not pay massive interest on credit cards or payday loans because your needs a sudden repair, etc. Will this solve the problem? Surely not for everybody. But a big problem (even if far from the only problem) with getting out of poverty is that it's a trap because it's so expensive to be poor.

theworstshill 11y ago

You're barking up the wrong tree though - iphones and TVs are fixed costs. I'm willing to bed vast majority of the poor spend vast majority of their money on housing, food and clothing, although a small minority might actually spend it on crack. And of course, a small minority will attempt to keep on welfare for as long as possible. Would you feel better if they do not have iphones? After all, they should know their place in the system, no? Do you even know the actual figures? How much does a single welfare recipient get per month?

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

We can play a game of anecdotal evidence all day. My experience is totally opposite to yours, welfare was though and no way in hell did we have more than our peers. Welfare was also something you didn't talk about, it was embarrassing and my dad yearned for a job, not for the money, he got that on welfare, but for the human dignity, the social contact, the respect, instead he was paralysed at home. Incentives played no role. But we're in agreement on your final sentence and I do acknowledge that there are people who game the system. But the issue I feel with the welfare debate is that it's usually a discussion about reducing it (to increase incentives to work), maintaining it or expanding it, with most people leaning towards one of the first two options. When really there are genuine cases of welfare where incentives play no role, and they're being squeezed hard. The debate should be more geared towards reducing fraud, catching dishonest recipients and supporting them in their dependency, not squeezing dishonest and honest welfare recipients all the same.

eimai134 11y ago

I can attest to this in the U.S. as well. I hang out with a pagan community that has a high percentage of people on food and cash assistance. They get so much money that they purchase holiday gifts with EBT (food stamps) and live almost solely on expensive branded snack food. Every person I've known on EBT has been gaming the system in some way - everything from getting roommates to sign off that rent is higher so they get more money and doing work under the table for cash and not reporting it, to wanting to get married but deciding not to because it would eliminate their benefits and turning down higher paying jobs because they know they need to keep low-wage, part-time jobs to keep benefits. Withdraw cash from a cash card to buy earrings, concert tickets and other luxuries - no problem! Until a couple years ago I didn't even know people were given debit cards with money on them from the government. I had always thought that poor people bought generic products, had old TVs, couldn't afford cable, had old flip phones, etc. But it's the exact opposite. The poor people I know on welfare/assistance have much nicer things than the middle class people I know. I believe that the system needs to be revised so only certain products can be purchased with government funds. It would help to keep the people using these services healthier as well.