4 ms·

I remember reading this book called 'The Losers' (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2114133.The_Losers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2114133.The_Losers)

by N_Lens 11mo ago

I remember reading this book called 'The Losers' (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2114133.The_Losers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2114133.The_Losers) about a privileged man who has a car accident, becomes disabled and comes to rely on government support. The book looks at the lives of the working poor and actually poor, who rely on welfare cheques and other subsidies and highlights the social and psychological impacts of these systems of support. It was very disempowering and psychologically enslaving for the people living on these systems of support. I know it's probably not intentional but I believe welfare in the US absolutely is rife with negative outcomes and negative incentives for people receiving support, it doesn't uplift and enable success, it keeps people trapped in poverty and a mindset of helplessness. I come from Australia where the social welfare system has similarly degraded (Though not as bad as the US), and there are increasingly more dehumanizing aspects in engaging with the system just to receive a below-subsistence amount. This article highlights one aspect of such disincentives, but I believe the problem is deeper and more systemic.

HarryHirsch 11mo ago
The decision to implement benefit cliffs is absolutely intentional, because income requirements that cause people to fall of medicaid or SNAP completely are sharp, and maybe 10 % of the population rely on those. Obamacare subsidies are phased out gradually, because half the country relies on Obamacare, and if there were issues around Obamacare, that would have repercussions at the ballot box. It serves to have an underclass that politicians can dump on, it seems.
- themafia 11mo ago
  > because income requirements that cause people to fall of medicaid or SNAP completely are sharp How often do pay increases perfectly keep someone in the gap? Presumably some of them will be large enough, through changes of jobs for example, that the family would completely jump that gap. > because income requirements that cause people to fall of medicaid or SNAP completely are sharp Why would it? This is perhaps intentional as well. Only allow the program to benefit half the country. I'm sure you can predict how that political split occurs and insulates politicians from the ballot box. > It serves to have an underclass that politicians can dump on, it seems. It helps keeps wages suppressed. Politicians want money. They don't care about "dumping" on you, they'll make any excuse they need to keep the money coming in.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- faidit 11mo ago
  Maybe it's just incompetence, bureaucratic morass etc but it really does feel like the system was designed to fail, and trap us into this false choice of a broken welfare system vs. no welfare at all. UBI and/or UBS (universal basic services) would be so much better but there was a sustained propaganda campaign to tell people that free things are communism and therefore bad. Now Western countries are becoming ungovernable due to regulatory capture, tax evasion and industrial-scale manipulation of opinion by the elites, so fixing these problems within the current democratic system is an extremely uphill battle. At least Mamdani's election gives us some hope in the US, but there's only so much one city or even one country can do on its own without worldwide changes.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    There is no propaganda campaign needed to tell people that free things are bad. Nobody likes a freeloader. Western nations are ungovernable because they have universal suffrage, not because of some conspiracy. The fact is that a sizeable majority of people just don't have the intelligence to wield the political power given to them. A quick look at our present government is all that you need to tell that we are ruled by the stupidity of the common man, not some shadowy billionaires.
potato3732842 11mo ago
>probably not intentional All the current results were foretold by people screeching warnings about them 50+yr ago. > deeper and more systemic. Nobody's budget ever got bigger or headcount grew or government contract got more lucrative because people got off welfare.
- Arainach 11mo ago
  What "current results" are you referring to? No, people 50+ years ago weren't arguing that cliffs can lead to disincentives, they were arguing that the whole system is "socialism" and bad - something that has been repeatedly disproven. There are few things more evil in our society than the breed of conservative that will talk about how their family needed social welfare growing up to survive, how it worked and they did survive, but how "ashamed" they feel so they thing we should tear everything down and remove the ladder now that they've climbed it.
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    > What "current results" are you referring to? No, people 50+ years ago weren't arguing that cliffs can lead to disincentives, they were arguing that the whole system is "socialism" and bad - something that has been repeatedly disproven. In fact, we have disincentives like that because they were arguing that having a flat benefit for everyone would be socialism. If you don't reduce benefit with income level, these disincentives vanishes and that's how all post-war systems worked in Europe (can't talk about the US) before the neoliberal crew started dismantling everything in the name of “reducing public spendings” for greater economic efficiency.
    - rob74 11mo ago
      A flat benefit for everyone that doesn't reduce with income level would be universal basic income, which has many supporters in theory, but has never been implemented in practice so far, not even in the most socialist countries of the 20th century...
      - 11mo ago
paulddraper 11mo ago
I used to think the welfare system had a few bad apples. Later, while working for a charity, I realized the truth. Literally no one is immune to the character-destroying nature of entitlement programs.
- abnercoimbre 11mo ago
  Destroying the character of those administering the programs?
- TimorousBestie 11mo ago
  How does an executive such as yourself find empathy and compassion for people who did not simply lift themselves up by their bootstraps?
  - paulddraper 11mo ago
    FWIW, charity and voluntary assistance differ from legal entitlements.
- estearum 11mo ago
  Were you somehow exposed to a random sampling of welfare recipients through your work? If no, how did you account for this sampling bias as you came to form your beliefs?
- kannanvijayan 11mo ago
  A considerable part of this is the fact that in a society where utilizing these programs is stigmatized to the degree that the USA does, people who see themselves as honest tend to avoid utilizing them. And even those who are less than honest, but have a sense of propriety, would understand that the correct, culturally approved time to engage in these activities is AFTER one acquires a significant amount of wealth, when entitlements are knighted to become "economic incentives".
  - paulddraper 11mo ago
    > entitlements are knighted to become "economic incentives" I have no patience for corporate welfare and bailouts.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
>I know it's probably not intentional but I believe welfare in the US absolutely is rife with negative outcomes and negative incentives for people receiving support, it doesn't uplift and enable success, it keeps people trapped in poverty and a mindset of helplessness. That's the best way to ensure their vote in the next election for the welfare party.
ProllyInfamous 11mo ago
I haved lived the majority of my life in working class communities (as an electrician). Despite sporadic eligibility, I've never applied for the benefits that many of my near poor neighbors receive (I am a simple homebody, with zero dependents). >negative incentives for people receiving support, it doesn't uplift and enable success, it keeps people trapped in poverty and a mindset of helplessness. For the majority of my recipient neighbors, I would disagree: [single] parent households simply are too expensive to operate without temporary community support. Conversely, I have a few childless neighbors that simply ride out "disability" payments while working cash jobs part-time, typically along the lines of handyman and/or dealer. This bothers me. Few of my neighbors are incentivized to work harder (at least on paper), out of fear of losing healthcare/housing/dining benefits. Several of my wealthier clients had PPP loans "pre-emptively forgiven," and pay my neighbors cash for housework, so I know all sides are gaming this system... ---- But it just seems so obvious that single-payer healthcare and subsidized childcare would solve most of society's problems (much more simply than our current failures of welfare). These are the legitimate grievances of my working class neighborhood.

by N_Lens 11mo ago

HarryHirsch 11mo ago

The decision to implement benefit cliffs is absolutely intentional, because income requirements that cause people to fall of medicaid or SNAP completely are sharp, and maybe 10 % of the population rely on those. Obamacare subsidies are phased out gradually, because half the country relies on Obamacare, and if there were issues around Obamacare, that would have repercussions at the ballot box. It serves to have an underclass that politicians can dump on, it seems.

themafia 11mo ago
> because income requirements that cause people to fall of medicaid or SNAP completely are sharp How often do pay increases perfectly keep someone in the gap? Presumably some of them will be large enough, through changes of jobs for example, that the family would completely jump that gap. > because income requirements that cause people to fall of medicaid or SNAP completely are sharp Why would it? This is perhaps intentional as well. Only allow the program to benefit half the country. I'm sure you can predict how that political split occurs and insulates politicians from the ballot box. > It serves to have an underclass that politicians can dump on, it seems. It helps keeps wages suppressed. Politicians want money. They don't care about "dumping" on you, they'll make any excuse they need to keep the money coming in.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
faidit 11mo ago
Maybe it's just incompetence, bureaucratic morass etc but it really does feel like the system was designed to fail, and trap us into this false choice of a broken welfare system vs. no welfare at all. UBI and/or UBS (universal basic services) would be so much better but there was a sustained propaganda campaign to tell people that free things are communism and therefore bad. Now Western countries are becoming ungovernable due to regulatory capture, tax evasion and industrial-scale manipulation of opinion by the elites, so fixing these problems within the current democratic system is an extremely uphill battle. At least Mamdani's election gives us some hope in the US, but there's only so much one city or even one country can do on its own without worldwide changes.
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  There is no propaganda campaign needed to tell people that free things are bad. Nobody likes a freeloader. Western nations are ungovernable because they have universal suffrage, not because of some conspiracy. The fact is that a sizeable majority of people just don't have the intelligence to wield the political power given to them. A quick look at our present government is all that you need to tell that we are ruled by the stupidity of the common man, not some shadowy billionaires.

potato3732842 11mo ago

>probably not intentional All the current results were foretold by people screeching warnings about them 50+yr ago. > deeper and more systemic. Nobody's budget ever got bigger or headcount grew or government contract got more lucrative because people got off welfare.

Arainach 11mo ago
What "current results" are you referring to? No, people 50+ years ago weren't arguing that cliffs can lead to disincentives, they were arguing that the whole system is "socialism" and bad - something that has been repeatedly disproven. There are few things more evil in our society than the breed of conservative that will talk about how their family needed social welfare growing up to survive, how it worked and they did survive, but how "ashamed" they feel so they thing we should tear everything down and remove the ladder now that they've climbed it.
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  > What "current results" are you referring to? No, people 50+ years ago weren't arguing that cliffs can lead to disincentives, they were arguing that the whole system is "socialism" and bad - something that has been repeatedly disproven. In fact, we have disincentives like that because they were arguing that having a flat benefit for everyone would be socialism. If you don't reduce benefit with income level, these disincentives vanishes and that's how all post-war systems worked in Europe (can't talk about the US) before the neoliberal crew started dismantling everything in the name of “reducing public spendings” for greater economic efficiency.
  - rob74 11mo ago
    A flat benefit for everyone that doesn't reduce with income level would be universal basic income, which has many supporters in theory, but has never been implemented in practice so far, not even in the most socialist countries of the 20th century...
    - 11mo ago

paulddraper 11mo ago

I used to think the welfare system had a few bad apples. Later, while working for a charity, I realized the truth. Literally no one is immune to the character-destroying nature of entitlement programs.

abnercoimbre 11mo ago
Destroying the character of those administering the programs?
TimorousBestie 11mo ago
How does an executive such as yourself find empathy and compassion for people who did not simply lift themselves up by their bootstraps?
- paulddraper 11mo ago
  FWIW, charity and voluntary assistance differ from legal entitlements.
estearum 11mo ago
Were you somehow exposed to a random sampling of welfare recipients through your work? If no, how did you account for this sampling bias as you came to form your beliefs?
kannanvijayan 11mo ago
A considerable part of this is the fact that in a society where utilizing these programs is stigmatized to the degree that the USA does, people who see themselves as honest tend to avoid utilizing them. And even those who are less than honest, but have a sense of propriety, would understand that the correct, culturally approved time to engage in these activities is AFTER one acquires a significant amount of wealth, when entitlements are knighted to become "economic incentives".
- paulddraper 11mo ago
  > entitlements are knighted to become "economic incentives" I have no patience for corporate welfare and bailouts.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago

>I know it's probably not intentional but I believe welfare in the US absolutely is rife with negative outcomes and negative incentives for people receiving support, it doesn't uplift and enable success, it keeps people trapped in poverty and a mindset of helplessness. That's the best way to ensure their vote in the next election for the welfare party.

ProllyInfamous 11mo ago

I haved lived the majority of my life in working class communities (as an electrician). Despite sporadic eligibility, I've never applied for the benefits that many of my near poor neighbors receive (I am a simple homebody, with zero dependents). >negative incentives for people receiving support, it doesn't uplift and enable success, it keeps people trapped in poverty and a mindset of helplessness. For the majority of my recipient neighbors, I would disagree: [single] parent households simply are too expensive to operate without temporary community support. Conversely, I have a few childless neighbors that simply ride out "disability" payments while working cash jobs part-time, typically along the lines of handyman and/or dealer. This bothers me. Few of my neighbors are incentivized to work harder (at least on paper), out of fear of losing healthcare/housing/dining benefits. Several of my wealthier clients had PPP loans "pre-emptively forgiven," and pay my neighbors cash for housework, so I know all sides are gaming this system... ---- But it just seems so obvious that single-payer healthcare and subsidized childcare would solve most of society's problems (much more simply than our current failures of welfare). These are the legitimate grievances of my working class neighborhood.