4 ms·

Again, I ask, why do you automatically assume paying for welfare "protects the weak and vulnerable"? If you've ever been to a strong welfare state like any coun

by drcode 13y ago

Again, I ask, why do you automatically assume paying for welfare "protects the weak and vulnerable"? If you've ever been to a strong welfare state like any country in Europe, etc, you'd know they also have homeless, broken people, as we see in the US. Where, I ask you, is the evidence that "lots of guaranteed welfare"->"better off poor people"? I'm just saying that by making these a priori assumptions we're arguing past each other- I can't respond to an argument that says "Anyone against welfare is a morally inferior person" because I am not arguing against the moral aspects of welfare, I'm just saying that poverty can't be solved by handing poor people a check every month.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I'm not calling you a morally inferior person (I set a very low bar anyway :-). I agree that "ending poverty" cannot be achieved by handing people a cheque each month. Ending poverty is (or should be) a long term cross governmental policy issue. How it is achieved is an important, possibly the most important question in economics. However "welfare" (note not the purely US term but a wider more European term) is in my view a smaller usually short term provision. IIRC The majority of non-retired welfare recipients recieve help for less than 14 months, and by far the biggest portion of welfare spend goes on retirees. I am suggesting that welfare is mostly either a short term handout to prevent a vicious spiral of debt / problems or is a long term care for elderly. Welfare is not a means to cure poverty but is a means to prevent the unlucky or vulnerable from falling into poverty. I see the "scrounger" as a cost to be paid for such a system. Perhaps means testing can remove that cost, or perhaps not. But I know we shall not fix poverty this way but then a surgeon will operate to save me from a heart attack, even if he knows the real solution is better diet and exercise. Edit: as for European countries having broken people, yes it's very true here in the UK as well as elsewhere. I also know from personal experience (and lots of well done studies) that the majority if the broken are either I eligible for help (often migrants) or far more common mentally unstable and often having substance issues. Giving them a cheque helps far far less then the same cheque to a welder and his family who just got made redundant after his wife fell ill. Lots of welfare in his case gives time to find new jobs or retrain and prevents a family joining the ranks of outcasts. That helps. We could even reduce the impact by extending welfare to immigrants (despite the likely consequences). But far and away, the biggest visible poor in our society are mentally challenged - and we have no fixes or cures there. Handing out welfare or withholding it is not going to help if the reason you can't hold down a job is the voices in your head.
- drcode 13y ago
  All good points, lifeisstillgood. But I'll point out this thread was mainly about "guaranteed minimum income" and this is the first time you stated that you consider "welfare" to be a short term provision :-)
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    Ok, so welfare as an ideal is enough to cover the life-altering disasters that afflict us all, some more than others. Cover as in ensure they can be dealt with, and life return to normal productive one in reasonable amount of time. That is the theory - in practise we have many muddled implementations of this - and I don't see a guaranteed minimum income as automatically bad. It will have market distorting effects but then the market has not historically been fast enough moving to help relieve people who have suddenly lost a job / limb. In fact a more laissez-faire period produced workhouses. So ideally welfare is a short term provision. The current implementations are all a bit crap and I see no major reason why minimum incomes would be automatically worse.

by drcode 13y ago

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I'm not calling you a morally inferior person (I set a very low bar anyway :-). I agree that "ending poverty" cannot be achieved by handing people a cheque each month. Ending poverty is (or should be) a long term cross governmental policy issue. How it is achieved is an important, possibly the most important question in economics. However "welfare" (note not the purely US term but a wider more European term) is in my view a smaller usually short term provision. IIRC The majority of non-retired welfare recipients recieve help for less than 14 months, and by far the biggest portion of welfare spend goes on retirees. I am suggesting that welfare is mostly either a short term handout to prevent a vicious spiral of debt / problems or is a long term care for elderly. Welfare is not a means to cure poverty but is a means to prevent the unlucky or vulnerable from falling into poverty. I see the "scrounger" as a cost to be paid for such a system. Perhaps means testing can remove that cost, or perhaps not. But I know we shall not fix poverty this way but then a surgeon will operate to save me from a heart attack, even if he knows the real solution is better diet and exercise. Edit: as for European countries having broken people, yes it's very true here in the UK as well as elsewhere. I also know from personal experience (and lots of well done studies) that the majority if the broken are either I eligible for help (often migrants) or far more common mentally unstable and often having substance issues. Giving them a cheque helps far far less then the same cheque to a welder and his family who just got made redundant after his wife fell ill. Lots of welfare in his case gives time to find new jobs or retrain and prevents a family joining the ranks of outcasts. That helps. We could even reduce the impact by extending welfare to immigrants (despite the likely consequences). But far and away, the biggest visible poor in our society are mentally challenged - and we have no fixes or cures there. Handing out welfare or withholding it is not going to help if the reason you can't hold down a job is the voices in your head.

drcode 13y ago
All good points, lifeisstillgood. But I'll point out this thread was mainly about "guaranteed minimum income" and this is the first time you stated that you consider "welfare" to be a short term provision :-)
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Ok, so welfare as an ideal is enough to cover the life-altering disasters that afflict us all, some more than others. Cover as in ensure they can be dealt with, and life return to normal productive one in reasonable amount of time. That is the theory - in practise we have many muddled implementations of this - and I don't see a guaranteed minimum income as automatically bad. It will have market distorting effects but then the market has not historically been fast enough moving to help relieve people who have suddenly lost a job / limb. In fact a more laissez-faire period produced workhouses. So ideally welfare is a short term provision. The current implementations are all a bit crap and I see no major reason why minimum incomes would be automatically worse.