5 ms·

There are no moral hazards when it comes to social welfare programs. People really think there are, but every time we look we find practically no freeloaders. T

There are no moral hazards when it comes to social welfare programs. People really think there are, but every time we look we find practically no freeloaders. This idea that we have to threaten people with literal starvation to get them to be productive members of society is ironically deeply impoverished. And if we really think that's true, why do we let people accrue wealth at all? Why do we then think that the most productive people in our society are also the richest? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I struggle to see the pillars of this moral structure in any other way than "poor people are a different breed and need stricter rules to keep them in line". Which again is super wrong! TFA cites research that shows that these kids' parents work, but their wages/bills are too low/high. Does anyone want to guess how bad those parents' jobs are? Do we need to detail the struggles working people go through (lack of health care, wildly inconsistent hours, sexual harassment and assault, etc)? The nicest thing you can say about this kind of thinking is that it's out of date. And what is "freeloading" anyway? Kids of all backgrounds and parenting situations get to eat? Bring on the freeloading then. Who do I make the check out to?

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>People really think there are, but every time we look we find practically no freeloaders. I don't believe that is true. You didn't provide any support for your claim at all either. Let's just consider a single example: >In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government. >... >I talked to lots of people in Hale County who were on disability. Sometimes, the disability seemed unambiguous. >... >As far as the federal government is concerned, you're disabled if you have a medical condition that makes it impossible to work. In practice, it's a judgment call made in doctors' offices and courtrooms around the country. The health problems where there is most latitude for judgment -- back pain, mental illness -- are among the fastest growing causes of disability. This is from NPR of all places: https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ Why are these health problems growing so fast? The obvious explanation is that the stigma against faking disability is evaporating in places like Hale County. That's how they got to the point where 1 in 4 working-age adults is on disability there. Another example: mtnGoat stated that their father was perfectly capable of paying for lunch but did not do so. If there was a need-based lunch program, mtnGoat would presumably be a "freeloader". Arguably, the real problem in mtnGoat's case is they had an abusive parent. The relevant state tool would be child-protective services, not a cafeteria lunch lady. I'm in favor of free school lunches for kids. But I'm very annoyed with the strawmanning in this thread. For example, it seems like a strawman to say that people who are against free school lunches "want kids to go hungry". Maybe they just believe that parents should be responsible rather than the state.
- taurath 1y ago
  If you’ve ever considered going on disability, or needed to, you’d be very quickly enlightened. It’s hard. You have to have documentation, you will get denied. Even then the benefits are pretty shit. It’s not a thing that you can just accidently get. There’s a lot of people who are just disabled. What happens if the parents who should be responsible, aren’t?
  - lukan 1y ago
    "What happens if the parents who should be responsible, aren’t?" Normally, child protection service? (But what I know, they don't always improve things)
    - vidarh 1y ago
      Which do you think is cheaper: Involving social services because someone isn't paying for school lunch, which would involve the state either paying foster parents or providing other costly monitoring, possible court cases, and/or support, or simply covering the cost of school lunches?
      - lukan 1y ago
        Simply covering school lunches, if this would be the decusion here. But that wouldn't solve the problem of negligent parents, only ease things a little bit for children.
        vidarh 1y ago
        But "negligent" isn't a binary, and it's not just parents who don't want to, but parents who can't afford to. For a lot of children, easing things a little bit might be all that is needed. For others it might ease things enough that it can be part of a set of relatively light interventions. For those who genuinely need more heavy handed interventions, it's not a solution, but it's also not in any way detrimental.
gred 1y ago
> There are no moral hazards when it comes to social welfare programs. This is a wild statement. Of course people take advantage of welfare programs. Of course welfare programs have unintended consequences and sometimes encourage immoral or anti-social behavior. That doesn't mean they're all bad or that they need to be completely eliminated, but leading with this obvious falsehood made it very hard to read the rest of your comment. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enforcement-task-force-releases-2024-report https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enfor...
- camgunz 1y ago
  This is exactly why I stake out such a strong position, so that positions like this poke their heads up. Individuals getting benefits when they're ineligible accounts for tiny amounts of the total fraud in these programs. Time after time we discover at least one of two things: - The effort/cost required to reduce fraud usually overshadows the cost of the fraud itself and also dramatically reduces the benefits of the program. There were 640,000 SNAP fraud investigations in 2014 [0]. If they cost $1,000 each that's $640m, and I bet they cost more! - The vast majority of fraud is either criminal, retailer, or both [1] The "moral hazard" angle of these programs is wildly overplayed. You don't hear anything about: - criminal trafficking - retailer fraud - program benefits There's political reasons for this, but it doesn't matter. Our brainrot on social programs is intense. > https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enforcement-task-force-releases-2024-report https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enfor... Looking at the fact sheet linked from that release [2], that stat that jumps out to me is 3,500 individuals charged totaling $1.4b in stolen CARES Act funds (this isn't a direct stat, but the numbers only get worse if we presume even more money from this and other programs was stolen), which is $400k/individual charged. It doesn't really seem possible for a person or household to have bilked the government for $400k under the individual benefits of the CARES Act [3]. We're looking at white collar fraud here, again a thing you never hear anything about. Finally, we should view some levels of fraud as indicative of broader social ills. For example the number of blue collar jobs has greatly diminished just in a single lifetime [4]. Could that be responsible for the dramatic increase in Social Security Disability claims (yes)? [0]: https://www.cbpp.org/snap-combating-fraud-and-improving-program-integrity-without-weakening-success https://www.cbpp.org/snap-combating-fraud-and-improving-prog... [1]: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45147.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45147.html [2]: https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus/media/1347156/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus/media/1347156/dl?inline [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act#Relief_to_individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act#Relief_to_individual... [4]: https://cepr.net/publications/the-decline-of-blue-collar-jobs-in-graphs/ https://cepr.net/publications/the-decline-of-blue-collar-job...

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago

>People really think there are, but every time we look we find practically no freeloaders. I don't believe that is true. You didn't provide any support for your claim at all either. Let's just consider a single example: >In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government. >... >I talked to lots of people in Hale County who were on disability. Sometimes, the disability seemed unambiguous. >... >As far as the federal government is concerned, you're disabled if you have a medical condition that makes it impossible to work. In practice, it's a judgment call made in doctors' offices and courtrooms around the country. The health problems where there is most latitude for judgment -- back pain, mental illness -- are among the fastest growing causes of disability. This is from NPR of all places: https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ Why are these health problems growing so fast? The obvious explanation is that the stigma against faking disability is evaporating in places like Hale County. That's how they got to the point where 1 in 4 working-age adults is on disability there. Another example: mtnGoat stated that their father was perfectly capable of paying for lunch but did not do so. If there was a need-based lunch program, mtnGoat would presumably be a "freeloader". Arguably, the real problem in mtnGoat's case is they had an abusive parent. The relevant state tool would be child-protective services, not a cafeteria lunch lady. I'm in favor of free school lunches for kids. But I'm very annoyed with the strawmanning in this thread. For example, it seems like a strawman to say that people who are against free school lunches "want kids to go hungry". Maybe they just believe that parents should be responsible rather than the state.

taurath 1y ago
If you’ve ever considered going on disability, or needed to, you’d be very quickly enlightened. It’s hard. You have to have documentation, you will get denied. Even then the benefits are pretty shit. It’s not a thing that you can just accidently get. There’s a lot of people who are just disabled. What happens if the parents who should be responsible, aren’t?
- lukan 1y ago
  "What happens if the parents who should be responsible, aren’t?" Normally, child protection service? (But what I know, they don't always improve things)
  - vidarh 1y ago
    Which do you think is cheaper: Involving social services because someone isn't paying for school lunch, which would involve the state either paying foster parents or providing other costly monitoring, possible court cases, and/or support, or simply covering the cost of school lunches?
    - lukan 1y ago
      Simply covering school lunches, if this would be the decusion here. But that wouldn't solve the problem of negligent parents, only ease things a little bit for children.
      - vidarh 1y ago
        But "negligent" isn't a binary, and it's not just parents who don't want to, but parents who can't afford to. For a lot of children, easing things a little bit might be all that is needed. For others it might ease things enough that it can be part of a set of relatively light interventions. For those who genuinely need more heavy handed interventions, it's not a solution, but it's also not in any way detrimental.

gred 1y ago

> There are no moral hazards when it comes to social welfare programs. This is a wild statement. Of course people take advantage of welfare programs. Of course welfare programs have unintended consequences and sometimes encourage immoral or anti-social behavior. That doesn't mean they're all bad or that they need to be completely eliminated, but leading with this obvious falsehood made it very hard to read the rest of your comment. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enforcement-task-force-releases-2024-report https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enfor...

camgunz 1y ago
This is exactly why I stake out such a strong position, so that positions like this poke their heads up. Individuals getting benefits when they're ineligible accounts for tiny amounts of the total fraud in these programs. Time after time we discover at least one of two things: - The effort/cost required to reduce fraud usually overshadows the cost of the fraud itself and also dramatically reduces the benefits of the program. There were 640,000 SNAP fraud investigations in 2014 [0]. If they cost $1,000 each that's $640m, and I bet they cost more! - The vast majority of fraud is either criminal, retailer, or both [1] The "moral hazard" angle of these programs is wildly overplayed. You don't hear anything about: - criminal trafficking - retailer fraud - program benefits There's political reasons for this, but it doesn't matter. Our brainrot on social programs is intense. > https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enforcement-task-force-releases-2024-report https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/covid-19-fraud-enfor... Looking at the fact sheet linked from that release [2], that stat that jumps out to me is 3,500 individuals charged totaling $1.4b in stolen CARES Act funds (this isn't a direct stat, but the numbers only get worse if we presume even more money from this and other programs was stolen), which is $400k/individual charged. It doesn't really seem possible for a person or household to have bilked the government for $400k under the individual benefits of the CARES Act [3]. We're looking at white collar fraud here, again a thing you never hear anything about. Finally, we should view some levels of fraud as indicative of broader social ills. For example the number of blue collar jobs has greatly diminished just in a single lifetime [4]. Could that be responsible for the dramatic increase in Social Security Disability claims (yes)? [0]: https://www.cbpp.org/snap-combating-fraud-and-improving-program-integrity-without-weakening-success https://www.cbpp.org/snap-combating-fraud-and-improving-prog... [1]: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45147.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45147.html [2]: https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus/media/1347156/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus/media/1347156/dl?inline [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act#Relief_to_individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act#Relief_to_individual... [4]: https://cepr.net/publications/the-decline-of-blue-collar-jobs-in-graphs/ https://cepr.net/publications/the-decline-of-blue-collar-job...