3 ms·

Welfare cliffs are caused by flaws in how they are calculated with respect to income, not their magnitude. Now, what does your comment have to do with that? Car

Welfare cliffs are caused by flaws in how they are calculated with respect to income, not their magnitude. Now, what does your comment have to do with that? Care to elaborate?

freehunter 8y ago
I would invite you to elaborate. The parent apparently has a misunderstanding, and all you've offered as a counterpoint is "that's not how it works". When someone tried to engage in a discussion, your response should be to explain your understanding, not to ask them to clarify their misunderstanding.
- danharaj 8y ago
  > PDF link to a 2014 study of the welfare cliff, the circumstances in which families on welfare become trapped in staying poor because the cost of replacing the benefits outpaces their ability to gain the same in income. It's the first sentence of the link guys, come on.
st26 8y ago
Speaking purely hypothetically, if the benefit value was small enough, it would never make sense to not work, no matter the flaws in the program. We take it for granted that one can live off welfare, even if not well- that assumption/precondition itself could be what pedro_hab is marveling at.
tfolbrecht 8y ago
First, I'd like to apologize for being rude and negating your statement. There's nuance to the problem; we shouldn't just tit-for-tat dismiss each other. The U.S. welfare is multifaceted. Try to shift to a stack oriented model. The real picture should include both indirect subsidization and multiple direct benefits/subsidization. Income, rent, food, medicine, childcare, transportation, utilities. There are what someone in poverty would consider sweet spots under certain conditions. Now, Not all welfare programs stack. Local cost of living changes the stickiness point. But, imo, the most overlooked problem is poor people get good at being poor. There are ways to exchange benefits and untaxed labor for value, even if it's not explicit or monetary. I've lived it. I know people who are scared to lose benefit X if they earn over Y. The bigger problem is that the government can't manufacture meaning and purpose no matter how much cash they pour out. No marketable skills develop, no local capital accumulation, no gaining experience and moving up. There are no good jobs to escape to. The cliff is doing what you know. What you consider unlivable is life for a lot of people. Also, I can give some sweet spot scenarios if you want hard numbers.

Welfare cliffs are caused by flaws in how they are calculated with respect to income, not their magnitude. Now, what does your comment have to do with that? Care to elaborate?

freehunter 8y ago

I would invite you to elaborate. The parent apparently has a misunderstanding, and all you've offered as a counterpoint is "that's not how it works". When someone tried to engage in a discussion, your response should be to explain your understanding, not to ask them to clarify their misunderstanding.

danharaj 8y ago
> PDF link to a 2014 study of the welfare cliff, the circumstances in which families on welfare become trapped in staying poor because the cost of replacing the benefits outpaces their ability to gain the same in income. It's the first sentence of the link guys, come on.

st26 8y ago

Speaking purely hypothetically, if the benefit value was small enough, it would never make sense to not work, no matter the flaws in the program. We take it for granted that one can live off welfare, even if not well- that assumption/precondition itself could be what pedro_hab is marveling at.

tfolbrecht 8y ago

First, I'd like to apologize for being rude and negating your statement. There's nuance to the problem; we shouldn't just tit-for-tat dismiss each other. The U.S. welfare is multifaceted. Try to shift to a stack oriented model. The real picture should include both indirect subsidization and multiple direct benefits/subsidization. Income, rent, food, medicine, childcare, transportation, utilities. There are what someone in poverty would consider sweet spots under certain conditions. Now, Not all welfare programs stack. Local cost of living changes the stickiness point. But, imo, the most overlooked problem is poor people get good at being poor. There are ways to exchange benefits and untaxed labor for value, even if it's not explicit or monetary. I've lived it. I know people who are scared to lose benefit X if they earn over Y. The bigger problem is that the government can't manufacture meaning and purpose no matter how much cash they pour out. No marketable skills develop, no local capital accumulation, no gaining experience and moving up. There are no good jobs to escape to. The cliff is doing what you know. What you consider unlivable is life for a lot of people. Also, I can give some sweet spot scenarios if you want hard numbers.