3 ms·

I personally know two people who abuse the welfare system and a study whose name starts with "Debunking the Stereotype" sounds like it's throwing any objectivit

by Aoyagi 11y ago

I personally know two people who abuse the welfare system and a study whose name starts with "Debunking the Stereotype" sounds like it's throwing any objectivity out of the window right at the beginning - not to mention they analyse data only from six third world countries. Inapplicable to richer countries with generous welfare benefits.

nedwin 11y ago
Are you suggesting your study of two people trumps this study?
- notahacker 11y ago
  To be fair, systematic data on experimental transfer programmes aimed at the extreme poor in developing countries is no better than random anecdotes for confirming or debunking stereotypes of lazy welfare recipients in developed countries with well-established welfare states. This study tells you a fair bit about extreme poverty relief schemes and precisely nothing about how the welfare state affects or doesn't affect people's behaviour in Western Europe and the USA. Lack of negative behavioural effect from conditional handouts as low as $4 per household per month really doesn't tell you much about the effect of subsidies designed to permit an at least borderline-adequate Western standard of living. They're trying to fix different issues with different sized budgets.
- yiri 11y ago
  I don't think he's suggested anything of the sort; tried to discredit the study, yes, but he hasn't characterised his anecdote as a "study" much less an authoritative one.
vanderZwan 11y ago
> I personally know two people who abuse the welfare system So? You performed what Daniel Kahneman has called "question substitution": replacing a difficult to answer question - "do welfare plans encourage exploitation" - with a simpler one: "are there people who exploit welfare systems". > sounds like it's throwing any objectivity out of the window right at the beginning Says the person who draws conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. My money is on the study with data, not the random internet person who actively looks for arguments supporting their existing beliefs.
- yiri 11y ago
  "actively look(ing) for arguments supporting their existing beliefs" is exactly his complaint against the original study, hence the complaint about the name; and that's probably true. Would the authors have been open to the possibility that their data demonstrated welfare recipients to be lazy, greedy users? Would they have dared to publish their research in the event that their data supported such a conclusion? It seems unlikely, and career suicide in any case.
- Aoyagi 11y ago
  Funny word that "encourage", right? In modern English it can mean anything from "allows something" to "literally tells you to do something". My conclusion was that the welfare abuser stereotype absolutely does exist in reality and there are people who do become lazy because of welfare benefits on "1st world" countries. Additionally, it was more of a huge scepticism than a "conclusion" and even that was supported by two additional arguments, not just that anecdotal evidence.
  - kiiski 11y ago
    There was this interesting article in Finnish news about a week ago[1 - finnish obviously]. Kela (the Finnish social security agency) conducted a study which showed that underuse of social security costs them more than abuse. Almost half of the people who would be entitled to some benefits do not apply for them, due to various reasons such as social stigma, lack of knowledge or because they consider all the paperwork too much work. As a result, many people end up with more serious problems (debt, evictions, medical issues, social exclusion) that the state ultimately ends up paying for. They found that abuse of the benefits exists, but is not very widespread. [1]: http://yle.fi/uutiset/sosiaaliturvan_alikaytto_tulee_meille_kalliimmaksi_kuin_vaarinkaytto__moni_tukeutuu_mieluummin_pikavippeihin/8447134 http://yle.fi/uutiset/sosiaaliturvan_alikaytto_tulee_meille_... Edit: fixed typo edit2: really fixed typo
  - vanderZwan 11y ago
    > Funny word that "encourage", right? In modern English it can mean anything from "allows something" to "literally tells you to do something". If only there was a context within which I was using these words that made it blatantly obvious which of these uses applied here, like a link to a paper/article discussing if welfare programs made people lazy. Also, you don't quite grasp what "anecdotal evidence" means in a scientific context.
jschwartzi 11y ago
Why don't you tell us how they abuse the system, and we can talk specifics? I've seen people buy bottled water with food stamps, but it's crass to assume they don't have a good reason when we know nothing about their situation. Until you explain, I think it's fair to give your acquaintances the benefit of the doubt.
- Aoyagi 11y ago
  What do you mean? They simply aren't looking (well, they pretend they are) for a job and they are living of welfare money. It's not exactly hard to abuse it in a lot of countries, really.

by Aoyagi 11y ago

nedwin 11y ago

Are you suggesting your study of two people trumps this study?

notahacker 11y ago
To be fair, systematic data on experimental transfer programmes aimed at the extreme poor in developing countries is no better than random anecdotes for confirming or debunking stereotypes of lazy welfare recipients in developed countries with well-established welfare states. This study tells you a fair bit about extreme poverty relief schemes and precisely nothing about how the welfare state affects or doesn't affect people's behaviour in Western Europe and the USA. Lack of negative behavioural effect from conditional handouts as low as $4 per household per month really doesn't tell you much about the effect of subsidies designed to permit an at least borderline-adequate Western standard of living. They're trying to fix different issues with different sized budgets.
yiri 11y ago
I don't think he's suggested anything of the sort; tried to discredit the study, yes, but he hasn't characterised his anecdote as a "study" much less an authoritative one.

vanderZwan 11y ago

> I personally know two people who abuse the welfare system So? You performed what Daniel Kahneman has called "question substitution": replacing a difficult to answer question - "do welfare plans encourage exploitation" - with a simpler one: "are there people who exploit welfare systems". > sounds like it's throwing any objectivity out of the window right at the beginning Says the person who draws conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. My money is on the study with data, not the random internet person who actively looks for arguments supporting their existing beliefs.

yiri 11y ago
"actively look(ing) for arguments supporting their existing beliefs" is exactly his complaint against the original study, hence the complaint about the name; and that's probably true. Would the authors have been open to the possibility that their data demonstrated welfare recipients to be lazy, greedy users? Would they have dared to publish their research in the event that their data supported such a conclusion? It seems unlikely, and career suicide in any case.
Aoyagi 11y ago
Funny word that "encourage", right? In modern English it can mean anything from "allows something" to "literally tells you to do something". My conclusion was that the welfare abuser stereotype absolutely does exist in reality and there are people who do become lazy because of welfare benefits on "1st world" countries. Additionally, it was more of a huge scepticism than a "conclusion" and even that was supported by two additional arguments, not just that anecdotal evidence.
- kiiski 11y ago
  There was this interesting article in Finnish news about a week ago[1 - finnish obviously]. Kela (the Finnish social security agency) conducted a study which showed that underuse of social security costs them more than abuse. Almost half of the people who would be entitled to some benefits do not apply for them, due to various reasons such as social stigma, lack of knowledge or because they consider all the paperwork too much work. As a result, many people end up with more serious problems (debt, evictions, medical issues, social exclusion) that the state ultimately ends up paying for. They found that abuse of the benefits exists, but is not very widespread. [1]: http://yle.fi/uutiset/sosiaaliturvan_alikaytto_tulee_meille_kalliimmaksi_kuin_vaarinkaytto__moni_tukeutuu_mieluummin_pikavippeihin/8447134 http://yle.fi/uutiset/sosiaaliturvan_alikaytto_tulee_meille_... Edit: fixed typo edit2: really fixed typo
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  > Funny word that "encourage", right? In modern English it can mean anything from "allows something" to "literally tells you to do something". If only there was a context within which I was using these words that made it blatantly obvious which of these uses applied here, like a link to a paper/article discussing if welfare programs made people lazy. Also, you don't quite grasp what "anecdotal evidence" means in a scientific context.

jschwartzi 11y ago

Why don't you tell us how they abuse the system, and we can talk specifics? I've seen people buy bottled water with food stamps, but it's crass to assume they don't have a good reason when we know nothing about their situation. Until you explain, I think it's fair to give your acquaintances the benefit of the doubt.

Aoyagi 11y ago
What do you mean? They simply aren't looking (well, they pretend they are) for a job and they are living of welfare money. It's not exactly hard to abuse it in a lot of countries, really.