If the poor get poorer why do they have more stuff than ever before? - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14977609
I note POD, that VS chose not to rebut a single one of my points even though he seems to have taken remarks I made to you personally. He presumes to lecture us on the finer points of debate forgetting that this is not our Alma Mater but an online forum. Tedious. No?
#14977615
Drlee wrote:I know all of that. Now get someone to explain my point to you. You are the one who said that the existence of welfare discourages work. Not me.

I did not say that welfare should not exist because it discourages work. You must be thinking of someone else. There is a place for welfare for temporary help. Like unemployment benefits are needed temporary while the out of work person is looking for another job. But it was never meant as a means to avoid working for a living. Some people get on welfare and never attempt to get off if they can keep getting it. Those type people are discouraged from working, not everyone that may need welfare for a short period of time.
#14977653
Some people get on welfare and never attempt to get off if they can keep getting it.


A few do. Vastly more of the long term welfare recipients are simply stuck there. For example a single father of two kids who lacks the training or experience to get a job that pays enough to house and feed his family leaving enough over to pay for daycare while he is at work. Or the person with SMI, or disability, or no education to speak of or a medical problem hampering their working. Or a myriad of other problems.

'Those type people are discouraged from working, not everyone that may need welfare for a short period of time.


What kind of welfare? If the person about which you feel so robbed takes a minimum wage job they may well qualify for food stamps and medical care for a very long time. 15% of Americans do. But understand that these people are not getting benefits because they do not work hard enough they are getting them because their employer is allowed to use these public benefits in lieu of paying a decent wage. If employers were required to pay employees a decent wage and provide benefits these programs would be very limited.

If I was a single parent and was faced with losing my public housing, my health insurance and that of my children and therefor even potentially loosing my children to the state because I want to fulfill your dreams for me and take a job as a hotel maid, I would not work either. You want to stop welfare? Make work pay the bills. It really is as simple as that.
#14977841
Drlee wrote:You want to stop welfare? Make work pay the bills. It really is as simple as that.

I don't want to stop welfare. That was not my point. The point is that long term welfare from cradle to grave discourages some from bettering themselves through work and job training to be able to get off welfare.
#14977889
Liberals want to remove all hardship from those on welfare. If there is no hardship, then there is no incentive to get off welfare. Socialism only works if it includes ‘tough love’.
#14977902
Yes, the people who can't afford to ever go on a vacation or have any stress relief aren't allowed to have a beer. :roll: So you prefer crime?

Yah... have that unemployed single parent picking up garbage so you have to pay for the day-care. Oh wait... that costs money too. :knife: :roll:

Get to work picking up garbage, @One Degree! You heard @Suntzu! Earn that government subsidy, you lazy Welfare scum!
#14977911
Godstud wrote:Yes, the people who can't afford to ever go on a vacation or have any stress relief aren't allowed to have a beer. :roll: So you prefer crime?

Yah... have that unemployed single parent picking up garbage so you have to pay for the day-care. Oh wait... that costs money too. :knife: :roll:

Get to work picking up garbage, @One Degree! You heard @Suntzu! Earn that government subsidy, you lazy Welfare scum!


You are conflating retirement with welfare. However, I would welcome the community assigning me a job to do within my ability. I already pick up garbage on my own when I see it. I have never felt any job is beneath me. They are all just jobs that someone needs to do. I had no problem doing some of the sweeping and bathroom cleaning as the boss. You seem to think ‘picking up garbage’ is some kind of insult. Why?
#14977949
Godstud wrote:Yes, the people who can't afford to ever go on a vacation or have any stress relief aren't allowed to have a beer. :roll: So you prefer crime?

Yah... have that unemployed single parent picking up garbage so you have to pay for the day-care. Oh wait... that costs money too. :knife: :roll:

Get to work picking up garbage, @One Degree! You heard @Suntzu! Earn that government subsidy, you lazy Welfare scum!


Folks living off the government teat can't afford beer or cigarettes. So we take four welfare sows, assign one to take care of the piglets, the other three get to pick up trash.
#14977960
How many people do this ⬆️ and how many fall into “idle hands are the devils workshop?” It is the same problem the very wealthy have. Too much free time has a tendency to bring out our worse inclinations. As much as many may despise going to work, chances are it is the reason you are not in jail or passed out on a street corner.
#14977967
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ ... l-evidence

    Cash transfers and temptation goods : a review of global evidence (English)
    ABSTRACT
    Cash transfers have been demonstrated to improve education and health outcomes and alleviate poverty in various contexts. However, policy makers and others often express concern that poor households will use transfers to buy alcohol, tobacco, or other "temptation goods." The income effect of transfers will increase expenditures if alcohol and tobacco are normal goods, but this may be offset by other effects, including the substitution effect, the effect of social messaging about the appropriate use of transfers, and the effect of shifting dynamics in intra-household bargaining. The net effect is ambiguous. This paper reviews 19 studies with quantitative evidence on the impact of cash transfers on temptation goods, as well as 11 studies that surveyed the number of respondents who reported they used transfers for temptation goods. Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on temptation goods. In the only (two, non-experimental) studies with positive significant impacts, the magnitude is small. This result is supported by data from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. A growing number of studies from a range of contexts therefore indicate that concerns about the use of cash transfers for alcohol and tobacco consumption are unfounded.
#14977969
Pants-of-dog wrote:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/617631468001808739/Cash-transfers-and-temptation-goods-a-review-of-global-evidence

    Cash transfers and temptation goods : a review of global evidence (English)
    ABSTRACT
    Cash transfers have been demonstrated to improve education and health outcomes and alleviate poverty in various contexts. However, policy makers and others often express concern that poor households will use transfers to buy alcohol, tobacco, or other "temptation goods." The income effect of transfers will increase expenditures if alcohol and tobacco are normal goods, but this may be offset by other effects, including the substitution effect, the effect of social messaging about the appropriate use of transfers, and the effect of shifting dynamics in intra-household bargaining. The net effect is ambiguous. This paper reviews 19 studies with quantitative evidence on the impact of cash transfers on temptation goods, as well as 11 studies that surveyed the number of respondents who reported they used transfers for temptation goods. Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on temptation goods. In the only (two, non-experimental) studies with positive significant impacts, the magnitude is small. This result is supported by data from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. A growing number of studies from a range of contexts therefore indicate that concerns about the use of cash transfers for alcohol and tobacco consumption are unfounded.


This is disingenuous which always happens when you treat the world’s poor as one group. What do the studies say about North America and Europe? How would they know this other than asking the people? How many are going to admit they use their cash for alcohol?
#14977979
Pants-of-dog wrote:If anyone wishes to claim that a guaranteed basic income would lead to higher levels of intoxication and criminality, please provide supporting evidence.


https://www.ibtimes.com/native-american ... ism-214046

The unemployment rate is 80% and alcoholism is epidemic. They blame the alcohol manufacturers. Lol.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]