5 ms·

If they're neither working nor financially independent, what are they living on? Not a rhetorical question; I don't live in the US, and am a bit vague about its

by mrec 11y ago

If they're neither working nor financially independent, what are they living on? Not a rhetorical question; I don't live in the US, and am a bit vague about its welfare system. Is this essentially about people moving back in with family?

fapjacks 11y ago
We have nothing approaching basic income or housing that anybody could live off reasonably. Either these kids are living with parents, living off parent's money, or are living out of their cars. There is no in between here. I suspect that it's the former, which is really giving an awful impression about what is possible in the States. The vast majority of Americans need to work their asses off just to make rent. If you don't do that, you are either living off someone else's money, or don't have a house. End of story.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >We have nothing approaching basic income or housing that anybody could live off reasonably. State welfare programs, section 8, food stamps, "earned income credit", medicaid, SSI, TANF, SNAP, etc. There's lots of aid in the US. Over 100m people nationally are on some level of means tested welfare. That's pushing one third of this nation. National spending accounts for $1T in welfare spending. That's slightly less than Mexico's entire GDP; a country of 122m. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.p... The narrative of the US not having any welfare is asinine. In fact, the spending is staggering. When I lived in poorer neighborhoods in Chicago, most of my neighbors were on a fair amount of welfare to the point where they never had to bother getting a job. If you're willing to live in an urban area and live a modest lifestyle its largely trivial to game welfare benefits for a living.
  - jrjarrett 11y ago
    >>>We have nothing approaching basic income or housing that anybody could live off reasonably. >State welfare programs, section 8, food stamps, "earned income credit", medicaid, SSI, TANF, SNAP, etc. There's lots of aid in the US. I question this response with the qualifier of "living off reasonably." I'm certainly lucky enough not to need any of that, but from what I understand, it's barely subsistence existence.
  - krisdol 11y ago
    I really don't think that cato is in the ballpark of being an objective source on welfare, though I don't have a reason to disagree with the number you mentioned. I'm having trouble calculating a max SNAP/food stamps benefit that would exceed $194/month for an individual in urban NYC. Is that modest? Sure, I bet there are some people who are satisfied living off of public welfare alone. They exist in every country, and probably in greater numbers in more-socialized countries. I'm unconvinced that the problem is big enough to warrant cutting any public-welfare programs. Some level of "mooching" is expected. For me, when I was growing up on food stamps and welfare as a refugee, I know that it wasn't a level of living my family wanted to settle at. Evidently, neither does most of the country. The assistance helped us get settled and avoid a situation that surely would have resulted in us being thrown to the streets.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Can be anything. For one, they could actually be looking at jobs but passively. i.e. if you check the newspaper or websites for jobs, but didn't apply to any, you're not counted as 'looking for a job', so you're not unemployed either even though you obviously are. Passive job search is not included in the figures. Other than that, note that unemployment is measured in periods of 4 weeks. i.e. if you have a consulting gig for 8 months, and are then out of a freelance job for 5 weeks (after which you get another gig), and get interviewed during that time, you'd be unemployed, despite the fact you may have earned a normal annual income that year. Anyway, that's just to say that unemployment numbers may be off. It doesn't answer your question yet. But indeed there are also people who can't provide for themselves and are considered unemployed. A lot of them live at their parents, another significant chunk is simply living on debt. Creditcard debt is huge in the US.
prostoalex 11y ago
Most likely they live with other family members, either parents or elderly family who wouldn't mind a helping hand around the house in exchange for free rent. Previous generations had two reasons to move out and rent on their own - marriage and health insurance. Nowadays Americans are marrying at much lower rate, and parents can keep kids on their insurance until the age 26. So maybe this is the new normal, and the previous status quo of 20-something moving out and getting a job immediately was a distortion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by mrec 11y ago

fapjacks 11y ago

We have nothing approaching basic income or housing that anybody could live off reasonably. Either these kids are living with parents, living off parent's money, or are living out of their cars. There is no in between here. I suspect that it's the former, which is really giving an awful impression about what is possible in the States. The vast majority of Americans need to work their asses off just to make rent. If you don't do that, you are either living off someone else's money, or don't have a house. End of story.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>We have nothing approaching basic income or housing that anybody could live off reasonably. State welfare programs, section 8, food stamps, "earned income credit", medicaid, SSI, TANF, SNAP, etc. There's lots of aid in the US. Over 100m people nationally are on some level of means tested welfare. That's pushing one third of this nation. National spending accounts for $1T in welfare spending. That's slightly less than Mexico's entire GDP; a country of 122m. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.p... The narrative of the US not having any welfare is asinine. In fact, the spending is staggering. When I lived in poorer neighborhoods in Chicago, most of my neighbors were on a fair amount of welfare to the point where they never had to bother getting a job. If you're willing to live in an urban area and live a modest lifestyle its largely trivial to game welfare benefits for a living.
- jrjarrett 11y ago
  >>>We have nothing approaching basic income or housing that anybody could live off reasonably. >State welfare programs, section 8, food stamps, "earned income credit", medicaid, SSI, TANF, SNAP, etc. There's lots of aid in the US. I question this response with the qualifier of "living off reasonably." I'm certainly lucky enough not to need any of that, but from what I understand, it's barely subsistence existence.
- krisdol 11y ago
  I really don't think that cato is in the ballpark of being an objective source on welfare, though I don't have a reason to disagree with the number you mentioned. I'm having trouble calculating a max SNAP/food stamps benefit that would exceed $194/month for an individual in urban NYC. Is that modest? Sure, I bet there are some people who are satisfied living off of public welfare alone. They exist in every country, and probably in greater numbers in more-socialized countries. I'm unconvinced that the problem is big enough to warrant cutting any public-welfare programs. Some level of "mooching" is expected. For me, when I was growing up on food stamps and welfare as a refugee, I know that it wasn't a level of living my family wanted to settle at. Evidently, neither does most of the country. The assistance helped us get settled and avoid a situation that surely would have resulted in us being thrown to the streets.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

Can be anything. For one, they could actually be looking at jobs but passively. i.e. if you check the newspaper or websites for jobs, but didn't apply to any, you're not counted as 'looking for a job', so you're not unemployed either even though you obviously are. Passive job search is not included in the figures. Other than that, note that unemployment is measured in periods of 4 weeks. i.e. if you have a consulting gig for 8 months, and are then out of a freelance job for 5 weeks (after which you get another gig), and get interviewed during that time, you'd be unemployed, despite the fact you may have earned a normal annual income that year. Anyway, that's just to say that unemployment numbers may be off. It doesn't answer your question yet. But indeed there are also people who can't provide for themselves and are considered unemployed. A lot of them live at their parents, another significant chunk is simply living on debt. Creditcard debt is huge in the US.

prostoalex 11y ago

Most likely they live with other family members, either parents or elderly family who wouldn't mind a helping hand around the house in exchange for free rent. Previous generations had two reasons to move out and rent on their own - marriage and health insurance. Nowadays Americans are marrying at much lower rate, and parents can keep kids on their insurance until the age 26. So maybe this is the new normal, and the previous status quo of 20-something moving out and getting a job immediately was a distortion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]