3 ms·

The choice that welfare allows is: welfare (much leisure with little money) versus work (little leisure with X money), where X depends on your productivity. For

by dpatru 16y ago

The choice that welfare allows is: welfare (much leisure with little money) versus work (little leisure with X money), where X depends on your productivity. For people with little productivity, welfare looks very attractive.

michaelchisari 16y ago
You make a series of egregious assumptions in your analysis of poverty. First, is that "productivity" is fixed in any way. New skills can be learned, attitudes can change, etc. I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor, instead arguing that depression and social alienation are greater issues than a culture of leisure. Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc. In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.
- dpatru 16y ago
  > I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . . Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work. > welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . . The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years. See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=show http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.

by dpatru 16y ago

michaelchisari 16y ago

You make a series of egregious assumptions in your analysis of poverty. First, is that "productivity" is fixed in any way. New skills can be learned, attitudes can change, etc. I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor, instead arguing that depression and social alienation are greater issues than a culture of leisure. Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc. In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.

dpatru 16y ago
> I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . . Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work. > welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . . The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years. See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=show http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.