6 ms·

This is a great idea. It would really work if it supplements the welfare checks; it would get people into the mindset of working. Let me explain. Right now, if

by ajays 15y ago

This is a great idea. It would really work if it supplements the welfare checks; it would get people into the mindset of working. Let me explain. Right now, if you're a bum, you make a decent amount of money panhandling + scamming the government ("disability", etc.); let's call this "freeloading". The problem is: the amount of money you can make freeloading is close to minimum wage (if you include everything). So there isn't much incentive to take up work; freeloading may not pay as much, but you get total freedom, no schedules, no boss, etc. After some time, you just become so used to that lifestyle that it's impossible to come back into the working mainstream. A system like this can be a great way for people to, on their own schedule, supplement their freeloading income. Over time, they'd get used to the concept of effort and reward, and maybe consider taking up real work? On another note: I think minimum wage should be much higher; say, $20/hour. This may not sound like a good idea, but think about it: it should be high enough that a freeloader has serious economic incentive to get off his ass and look for work! Another way to look at it is: I would much rather pay more for something, and have that extra money directly go to a worker's pocket; than route the money circuitously through government taxes, bureaucracy, non-profits, etc. to that person on welfare. Edit: the above are just ideas. If you disagree with them, say something instead of hitting the down arrow.

shingen 15y ago
$20 / hour is a nice thought, but unfortunately what that would do is create massive unemployment and much larger welfare abuse. There's a fine line on just how high you can set a minimum wage (in relation to the economy in question) before you give too much incentive to companies to automate that labor, shrink their business slightly, or offload the costs to the consumer with price increases (net negative result). Google what happened in New Jersey when they raised minimum wage above the federal level years ago (low paid jobs got wiped out, companies fired workers and attempted to become more efficient, particularly it hammered fast food workers). Or this: "Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised" http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/again...
- ajays 15y ago
  I understand what you're saying; but the problem here is that 1 state raised the minimum wage. Naturally, jobs will flow to the neighboring states. But what if the Federal minimum wage was raised? You do understand the point I'm trying to make: that there should be _some_ _significant_ economic incentive for people to get off welfare and on to work! Right now the incentive is minimal at best. So how do you create the gradient that moves people off of welfare and on to jobs? You can either take away welfare benefits; or you can give much more rewards for working.
  - shingen 15y ago
    The same threshold applies whether at the federal or state level in terms of the consequences. Push it too far at the federal level and you'll wipe out a row of cheap labor jobs, that will either be automated or off-shored; and those that can't be either will result in consumer price increases (which just burdens primarily the poor and middle class). If you want to incentivize with $20 / hour minimum wage, you'd have to mandate hiring, or change the laws governing firing employees. Businesses would rebel against it immediately otherwise. Bill Clinton & the Republicans worked together in the mid 1990s to successfully overhaul the existing welfare system by altering the terms of how you could get welfare and for how long and so on. Prior to that, the system was largely resulting in a stagnant perpetual welfare cycle, where people went in and never came out. It seemed to work great right up until the big economic implosion of the last few years.
    - ajays 15y ago
      I disagree that you would have to mandate hiring. The local Walgreens needs 5 people to man the store. Do you think they'll just close up shop? Of course not. They'll have to pay more to their employees, and we (the customers) will have to pay an additional, say, 5%. As for the welfare reform: people route around obstacles. I think people have been able to game the current system too. "Disability" is one such option; claim a physical disability, and get $1000/month in disability payments (or that's what I've heard). Earned Income Credit is another such option. My basic point is: just like in any learning algorithm, we need a gradient that will drive people in the right direction. The larger the gradient, the faster the movement. :)
rmc 15y ago
scamming the government ("disability", etc.) You know that there are loads of actual poor disabled people? Not everyone on social welfare is a leech on society. Have some compassion.
- waqf 15y ago
  GP didn't assert there weren't poor disabled people; merely that if you are a [sc. non-disabled] poor person it is possible to scam the government into paying you disability benefits.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
anamax 15y ago
> On another note: I think minimum wage should be much higher; say, $20/hour. This may not sound like a good idea, but think about it: it should be high enough that a freeloader has serious economic incentive to get off his ass and look for work! Another way to look at it is: I would much rather pay more for something, and have that extra money directly go to a worker's pocket; than route the money circuitously through government taxes, bureaucracy, non-profits, etc. to that person on welfare. How about work as the incentive? We have crappy parks and yet we give money to folks who don't work. That shouldn't be. And don't give me "they can't afford day care". For every group of four parents on aid, one does day care for the other three while they work. Crappy jobs are the best incentive.
- ajays 15y ago
  > How about work as the incentive? Here's how I look at it. You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job) ; or you can apply attraction, and have them move themselves (by offering a significant economic incentive to work). Ye old carrot and stick solution. :) I believe the former (stick) has been tried many times, and it doesn't work quite as well. People just don't like others telling them what to do. But by giving a significant incentive (a carrot), you make the person themselves affect change; and it is more sustainable. Anyways: these are just ideas that I'm hoping can spur some discussion. Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job) I'm not suggesting applying force. I'm saying that they only get money for doing crappy jobs. If they don't want to do the crappy jobs, fine, but no money. > Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working. The current system rewards bad behavior.
krschultz 15y ago
You do realize that $20/hr over the course of a year is roughly $40,000. And $40,000 is more than what something like 40% of the people in the US make in a given year. That would be an unworkable change in the labor market. Most college graduates don't start out making that much right out of college, much less people without a college degree.

by ajays 15y ago

shingen 15y ago

$20 / hour is a nice thought, but unfortunately what that would do is create massive unemployment and much larger welfare abuse. There's a fine line on just how high you can set a minimum wage (in relation to the economy in question) before you give too much incentive to companies to automate that labor, shrink their business slightly, or offload the costs to the consumer with price increases (net negative result). Google what happened in New Jersey when they raised minimum wage above the federal level years ago (low paid jobs got wiped out, companies fired workers and attempted to become more efficient, particularly it hammered fast food workers). Or this: "Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised" http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/again...

ajays 15y ago
I understand what you're saying; but the problem here is that 1 state raised the minimum wage. Naturally, jobs will flow to the neighboring states. But what if the Federal minimum wage was raised? You do understand the point I'm trying to make: that there should be _some_ _significant_ economic incentive for people to get off welfare and on to work! Right now the incentive is minimal at best. So how do you create the gradient that moves people off of welfare and on to jobs? You can either take away welfare benefits; or you can give much more rewards for working.
- shingen 15y ago
  The same threshold applies whether at the federal or state level in terms of the consequences. Push it too far at the federal level and you'll wipe out a row of cheap labor jobs, that will either be automated or off-shored; and those that can't be either will result in consumer price increases (which just burdens primarily the poor and middle class). If you want to incentivize with $20 / hour minimum wage, you'd have to mandate hiring, or change the laws governing firing employees. Businesses would rebel against it immediately otherwise. Bill Clinton & the Republicans worked together in the mid 1990s to successfully overhaul the existing welfare system by altering the terms of how you could get welfare and for how long and so on. Prior to that, the system was largely resulting in a stagnant perpetual welfare cycle, where people went in and never came out. It seemed to work great right up until the big economic implosion of the last few years.
  - ajays 15y ago
    I disagree that you would have to mandate hiring. The local Walgreens needs 5 people to man the store. Do you think they'll just close up shop? Of course not. They'll have to pay more to their employees, and we (the customers) will have to pay an additional, say, 5%. As for the welfare reform: people route around obstacles. I think people have been able to game the current system too. "Disability" is one such option; claim a physical disability, and get $1000/month in disability payments (or that's what I've heard). Earned Income Credit is another such option. My basic point is: just like in any learning algorithm, we need a gradient that will drive people in the right direction. The larger the gradient, the faster the movement. :)

rmc 15y ago

scamming the government ("disability", etc.) You know that there are loads of actual poor disabled people? Not everyone on social welfare is a leech on society. Have some compassion.

waqf 15y ago
GP didn't assert there weren't poor disabled people; merely that if you are a [sc. non-disabled] poor person it is possible to scam the government into paying you disability benefits.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

anamax 15y ago

> On another note: I think minimum wage should be much higher; say, $20/hour. This may not sound like a good idea, but think about it: it should be high enough that a freeloader has serious economic incentive to get off his ass and look for work! Another way to look at it is: I would much rather pay more for something, and have that extra money directly go to a worker's pocket; than route the money circuitously through government taxes, bureaucracy, non-profits, etc. to that person on welfare. How about work as the incentive? We have crappy parks and yet we give money to folks who don't work. That shouldn't be. And don't give me "they can't afford day care". For every group of four parents on aid, one does day care for the other three while they work. Crappy jobs are the best incentive.

ajays 15y ago
> How about work as the incentive? Here's how I look at it. You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job) ; or you can apply attraction, and have them move themselves (by offering a significant economic incentive to work). Ye old carrot and stick solution. :) I believe the former (stick) has been tried many times, and it doesn't work quite as well. People just don't like others telling them what to do. But by giving a significant incentive (a carrot), you make the person themselves affect change; and it is more sustainable. Anyways: these are just ideas that I'm hoping can spur some discussion. Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working.
- anamax 15y ago
  > You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job) I'm not suggesting applying force. I'm saying that they only get money for doing crappy jobs. If they don't want to do the crappy jobs, fine, but no money. > Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working. The current system rewards bad behavior.

krschultz 15y ago

You do realize that $20/hr over the course of a year is roughly $40,000. And $40,000 is more than what something like 40% of the people in the US make in a given year. That would be an unworkable change in the labor market. Most college graduates don't start out making that much right out of college, much less people without a college degree.