3 ms·

The assertion is that none of those are inherent qualities of a group. Reduced work effort is a chicken egg issue. Of course people on welfare are going to have

by daveguy 10y ago

The assertion is that none of those are inherent qualities of a group. Reduced work effort is a chicken egg issue. Of course people on welfare are going to have reduced "work effort" -- joblessness is probably what made you have to get it in the first place. Same with drug consumption. I would question any "higher drug use" measure as selection bias -- investment bankers aren't generally being drug tested are they? That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority are not eager to earn a productive living. I think it would be great to drug test for it (but damn expensive and not very libertarian). I bet you'd see a lot of well off people not opting for the free income because they "don't need it" whereas they'd line up for it without a drug test.

bhickey 10y ago
Poor people use illegal drugs at a lower rate than wealthy people. Probably because drugs are expensive and they don't have as much leisure time. The notion that we should drug test welfare recipients is just an outgrowth of condescending Calvinist morality.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Wrong on all counts. Poor people have more leisure time and do more drugs. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf Why not just spend 2 minutes googling like I did before posting ?
  - bhickey 10y ago
    Thanks for your condescension. http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/21/house-republicans-want-drug-tests-for-food-stamp-recipients-theres-no-good-reason-for-that/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/21/house...
yummyfajitas 10y ago
A further claim is that increasing welfare reduces work effort. Is this disputed? I don't know why we are discussing drug tests for welfare, but simple arithmetic provides a very low bar for them to be cost effective. Google suggests a drug test costs $10-30. If welfare costs $15,000/year, then you only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it. Do you think folks on welfare do drugs at a rate lower than 0.2%?
- jnbiche 10y ago
  > A further claim is that increasing welfare reduces work effort. Is this disputed? Yes, it's disputed. Assuming that you/the GP are correct, and that data do exist that people on welfare have reduced "work effort" (how is that measured?), increased fertility, and increased drug consumption, then you of all people know that correlation doesn't mean causation. It could be that their increased fertility and/or drug consumption caused them to go on to welfare. Or vice versa. Either way, it would be very hard to draw any conclusions from such data outside of correlation. In addition to confounding, you also run into lots of statistical biases in such data. As someone else pointed out, poor people are screened for drugs at much higher rates than non-poor, because the jobs that poor people work in are much more likely to require them. As such, even if such data exists, it would be very suspect. Furthermore, drug testing the general population, even one that has marginally higher drug use rates (and I've seen no convincing data of this either way) runs into the problem of predictive value and false positives (for the same reason screening the general female population under 40 for breast cancer results in massively high rates of false positives).
- chockablock 10y ago
  > you only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it. What do you mean 'worth it'? Do you think that the benefits to society of giving someone $15k/yr in welfare are $0? If so, why not argue for just abolishing social welfare programs altogether--you can even save yourself the cost of all those drug tests! If not, why do you think society should forgo those benefits because the recipient failed a drug test?
  - maerF0x0 10y ago

by daveguy 10y ago

bhickey 10y ago

Poor people use illegal drugs at a lower rate than wealthy people. Probably because drugs are expensive and they don't have as much leisure time. The notion that we should drug test welfare recipients is just an outgrowth of condescending Calvinist morality.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Wrong on all counts. Poor people have more leisure time and do more drugs. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf Why not just spend 2 minutes googling like I did before posting ?
- bhickey 10y ago
  Thanks for your condescension. http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/21/house-republicans-want-drug-tests-for-food-stamp-recipients-theres-no-good-reason-for-that/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/21/house...

yummyfajitas 10y ago

A further claim is that increasing welfare reduces work effort. Is this disputed? I don't know why we are discussing drug tests for welfare, but simple arithmetic provides a very low bar for them to be cost effective. Google suggests a drug test costs $10-30. If welfare costs $15,000/year, then you only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it. Do you think folks on welfare do drugs at a rate lower than 0.2%?

jnbiche 10y ago
> A further claim is that increasing welfare reduces work effort. Is this disputed? Yes, it's disputed. Assuming that you/the GP are correct, and that data do exist that people on welfare have reduced "work effort" (how is that measured?), increased fertility, and increased drug consumption, then you of all people know that correlation doesn't mean causation. It could be that their increased fertility and/or drug consumption caused them to go on to welfare. Or vice versa. Either way, it would be very hard to draw any conclusions from such data outside of correlation. In addition to confounding, you also run into lots of statistical biases in such data. As someone else pointed out, poor people are screened for drugs at much higher rates than non-poor, because the jobs that poor people work in are much more likely to require them. As such, even if such data exists, it would be very suspect. Furthermore, drug testing the general population, even one that has marginally higher drug use rates (and I've seen no convincing data of this either way) runs into the problem of predictive value and false positives (for the same reason screening the general female population under 40 for breast cancer results in massively high rates of false positives).
chockablock 10y ago
> you only need to have a 0.2% positive rate for it to be worth it. What do you mean 'worth it'? Do you think that the benefits to society of giving someone $15k/yr in welfare are $0? If so, why not argue for just abolishing social welfare programs altogether--you can even save yourself the cost of all those drug tests! If not, why do you think society should forgo those benefits because the recipient failed a drug test?
- maerF0x0 10y ago