Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The unwelcome return of race science

#71
Syne Offline
(Mar 11, 2018 05:51 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Except the family only working half the year, combined, and one parent looking for a job once a month.

It's incentive to stay employed or to keep looking for work. So your lie that it provides no incentive is exposed.  

"Welfare recipients are often characterized as lazy, simply waiting for the next month's benefits to roll in. But nearly 73% of people receiving public benefits are members of working families."
Not incentive to be employed enough to leave poverty without the government assistance. Hence a band-aid, not a remedy.
Just incentive to do the minimum necessary to keep the benefits coming in.
Quote:
Quote:Not having the choice literally means they can't make better choices.
I think poor people are as capable as anyone else.

It also means they can't make bad choices, which you fault for them being in poverty. Once again, you blame the victims of poverty for their own condition. And that is hateful and cruel.
So now you're say poor people can't make any choice, period?
They have no agency at all?
If you think poor people can't even make bad choices you're literally insane.
Quote:
Quote:Programs based on need incentivize being in need.

Programs that require participants to be working incentivize working. We already went over this.
It doesn't incentivize working enough to get out of poverty on their own. Hence no a solution to poverty, and why the poverty rate has been relatively static for decades.
Quote:
Quote:Opportunity is the best remedy to poverty. Period. All else is a band-aid on a bullet hole. And guess whose policies create more jobs.

It's not an either/or. Govt programs lift millions out of poverty, and so do job opportunities. Both are effective means of fighting the poverty cycle.

"We live in a country where it is almost considered a crime to be poor. We demonize, stigmatize, and discriminate those who need help because they were dealt cards that were not as favorable as some of ours. A majority of these people have done nothing wrong: they work, buy the essentials, and take care of their families because many welfare programs make it impossible to not work and collect welfare. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act has enabled people on welfare to ween themselves off it once they are able to get back to working. Demonizing collectors of welfare will continue the path put forth that will eventually divide our country by socioeconomic statuses."--- https://www.theodysseyonline.com/women-s...aring-2018

No, jobs allow people to remain out of poverty on their own. Welfare only allows them to stay out of poverty as long as they remain dependent on government. One is teaching a man to fish, the other only giving him a fish. And Republican policies are the only ones effectively teaching people to fish. Democrats like to keep people dependent and voting for them.

Welfare still pays better than entry-level full-time work, so it still incentivizes staying on welfare.
Reply
#72
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Not incentive to be employed enough to leave poverty without the government assistance. Hence a band-aid, not a remedy.
Just incentive to do the minimum necessary to keep the benefits coming in.

Incentive enough to work to stay out of poverty. Also opens the door to more options which I already listed. Millions are lifted out of poverty every year with these programs. Obviously they're working.

Quote:So now you're say poor people can't make any choice, period?
They have no agency at all?

You can't make a choice you don't have. Govt programs give the poor more choices to pull themselves out of their poverty and change their lives for the better. Leaving them to struggle and blaming them for being poor accomplishes nothing.

Quote:It doesn't incentivize working enough to get out of poverty on their own. Hence no a solution to poverty, and why the poverty rate has been relatively static for decades.

It incentivizes working and getting into the work place where they can make connections or go to college or move or whatever they need to improve their lives.

Quote:No, jobs allow people to remain out of poverty on their own. Welfare only allows them to stay out of poverty as long as they remain dependent on government. One is teaching a man to fish, the other only giving him a fish. And Republican policies are the only ones effectively teaching people to fish. Democrats like to keep people dependent and voting for them.

Welfare incentivizes work and is only temporary, helping the poor with more options to get out of poverty and make it on their own. The programs work, as my stats have already proven.

"The overriding single piece of evidence showing that progress has been made on the agenda of helping mothers on welfare work is the dramatic increase in employment rates among single mothers in the last decade. Employment rates among single mothers, the group most affected by welfare reform, have been slowly increasing for over 15 years, but have jumped markedly since 1994 (figure 1). Employment rates rose from 60 percent in 1994 to 72 percent in 1999, a very large increase by historical standards. Among single mothers who have never been married (the group with the lowest levels of education and some of the highest rates of welfare receipt) employment rates rose even more, from 47 percent to 65 percent over the same period."----
https://www.brookings.edu/research/from-...nce-shows/
Reply
#73
Syne Offline
(Mar 11, 2018 10:39 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Not incentive to be employed enough to leave poverty without the government assistance. Hence a band-aid, not a remedy.
Just incentive to do the minimum necessary to keep the benefits coming in.

Incentive enough to work to stay out of poverty. Also opens the door to more options which I already listed. Millions are lifted out of poverty every year with these programs. Obviously they're working.
Yeah, incentivizes just enough work to stay on government benefits. Opens the door to learning how to work the system. People held out of poverty by continued government benefits, not free of poverty by their own efforts.
Quote:
Quote:So now you're say poor people can't make any choice, period?
They have no agency at all?

You can't make a choice you don't have. Govt programs give the poor more choices to pull themselves out of their poverty and change their lives for the better. Leaving them to struggle and blaming them for being poor accomplishes nothing.
No, you're just a bigot who assume some people are incapable of the degree of agency everyone else is.
Quote:
Quote:It doesn't incentivize working enough to get out of poverty on their own. Hence no a solution to poverty, and why the poverty rate has been relatively static for decades.

It incentivizes working and getting into the work place where they can make connections or go to college or move or whatever they need to improve their lives.
Prove it. How many people who work the minimum required hours for benefits go on to college and off of benefits altogether?
Quote:
Quote:No, jobs allow people to remain out of poverty on their own. Welfare only allows them to stay out of poverty as long as they remain dependent on government. One is teaching a man to fish, the other only giving him a fish. And Republican policies are the only ones effectively teaching people to fish. Democrats like to keep people dependent and voting for them.

Welfare incentivizes work and is only temporary, helping the poor with more options to get out of poverty and make it on their own. The programs work, as my stats have already proven.

"The overriding single piece of evidence showing that progress has been made on the agenda of helping mothers on welfare work is the dramatic increase in employment rates among single mothers in the last decade. Employment rates among single mothers, the group most affected by welfare reform, have been slowly increasing for over 15 years, but have jumped markedly since 1994 (figure 1). Employment rates rose from 60 percent in 1994 to 72 percent in 1999, a very large increase by historical standards. Among single mothers who have never been married (the group with the lowest levels of education and some of the highest rates of welfare receipt) employment rates rose even more, from 47 percent to 65 percent over the same period."----
https://www.brookings.edu/research/from-...nce-shows/

The only stats you've shown are that welfare pulls people out of poverty...while they're on welfare. Only more full-time jobs get people out of poverty on their own.
When employment of men drops, employment of women is likely to rise...which is what has happened over the last decade.

The 2008–2012 global recession has been called a "mancession" because of the disproportionate number of men who lost their jobs as compared to women.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_unemployment

Has nothing to do with welfare and everything to do with what jobs were more vulnerable to recession.
And you conveniently quit quoting your own source when it got to this:

Not all of this increase can be attributed to welfare reform. Part of the increase has been the result of the robust economy and the longest and strongest peacetime expansion in the last 50 years. Until the recent economic slowdown, employers, desperate for workers, dipped deep into the pool of single mothers and other disadvantaged individuals.

Reply
#74
Magical Realist Offline
"The broad strokes here shouldn't be particularly controversial. After all, a person who can get $500 a month for free is going to be a lot less desperate for work than someone who doesn't get $500 a month for free. Both people may still be quite desperate — $500 a month isn't exactly a ticket to Easy Street — but there should be no doubt about who is more desperate.

The real question is whether that effect actually produces any big effects, like being a cause of the falling labor force participation rate.

The best way to measure whether the unemployed are behaving lazily is by examining the ratio of job seekers to job openings. If the problem is that unemployed people are slacking off work to enjoy the fruits of government welfare, we would expect to see a shortage of labor in the economy. Employers trying to recruit workers to expand their businesses would come up against the fact that job seekers are in short supply. Job vacancies would go unfilled and wages would be bid upward as businesses fight to recruit scarce labor away from the easy option of free welfare money. In such a scenario, cutting welfare would incentivize work, and help businesses fill vacancies.

And here is where the evidence undercuts conservative attacks on welfare. The data shows decisively that the problem is not laziness at all, but a lack of job openings.
There are still three jobseekers for every job opening
. In the dark days following the 2008 recession, that ratio was as high as
seven people for every job opening
.
Wage growth remains weak
. Surely there are still people who would rather claim welfare than try to work, but with so few jobs available, these people don't make a real difference. Trying to nudge them off welfare won't expand the supply of jobs. It would increase the number of people looking for a job — and remember, there are already not enough jobs for those seeking employment.

Here's the counterargument to what I just laid out: The number of job openings does not accurately represent the amount of work that is potentially available in the economy. Without welfare, the poor would have to find a way to eat and put a roof over their heads without the assistance of government. They would make their own jobs. In many poor countries, for instance, those with nothing to eat must sell trinkets or food on the side of the road. Desperation forces them to scrounge up some sort of money-making enterprise. So, the argument goes, welfare is still a job-killer because there are lots of jobs that would be created if life were even tougher for welfare recipients.

I don't dispute that cutting welfare would make job-seekers more desperate. But that is not the same thing as creating more jobs. Without a strong enough supply of jobs for current levels of jobseekers, pushing more people into the job market is a recipe for desperation and misery rather than economic growth. It might lead to more trinket-sellers and window-washers at the roadside (as well as more thieves, hustlers, prostitutes, and beggars), but there is no guarantee that any of these people would make enough money to support themselves or their families.

Additionally,
as Frances Coppola and I argue
, the drop in labor force participation in recent years is explained by young people spending more years at school. Instead of starting work at 16 or 18, greater numbers of young people aren't starting work until after college — when they might be 22 or even 25 or 26 if they complete post-graduate studies.

It is foolish to enact measures that make the jobless more desperate for a job. There are three job seekers for each job opening. At some point in the future, if that ratio falls, and there are more job openings than job seekers, such welfare-constricting measures may well be appropriate. But we are a very, very long way from that."----- http://theweek.com/articles/449215/does-...eople-lazy
Reply
#75
Syne Offline
"Nearly half of unemployed Americans have quit looking for work, and the numbers are even worse for the long-term jobless, according to a poll released Wednesday that paints a grim picture of the labor market.

Some 59 percent of those who have been out of work for two years or more say they have stopped looking, the Harris Poll of unemployed Americans showed. Overall, 43 percent of the jobless said they have given up, according to the poll released in conjunction with Express Employment Professionals, a job placement service."
- https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-unemp...urvey.html


At a time of high national unemployment, it has become a truism that there are few worker shortages and employers have numerous applicants for every available slot. After all, that is the very definition of joblessness. High unemployment results when there are many more workers seeking positions than available jobs. Yet the paradox of the contemporary situation is that in this time of stubbornly high unemployment, a number of fields report a shortage of American workers and problems filling key positions. For example, even as the country as a whole experiences high unemployment, the Bureau of Labor has found that there are over 3.5 million open jobs – openings across the country and across sectors. In some specialized sectors, such as high-tech, advanced manufacturing, and medical specialties, unemployment rates are as low as three, four, or five percent. And on the labor-intensive side of the economy, agricultural companies report difficulty finding workers to pick vegetables and fruits, and hotels and restaurants indicate they have problems filling key positions.
- https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/upl...rtages.pdf


Entry-level and labor-intensive jobs are what the unskilled on welfare qualify for, but there's a shortage of participation there.
Reply
#76
Magical Realist Offline
Yeah poor single mothers in urban neighborhoods. Why aren't you out picking fruit in fields for 5 bucks an hour along side of illegal immigrants?
Reply
#77
Syne Offline
(Mar 12, 2018 04:08 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Yeah poor single mothers in urban neighborhoods. Why aren't you out picking fruit in fields for 5 bucks an hour along side of illegal immigrants?

"...and hotels and restaurants". Rolleyes
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article My letter to the "Washington Post" on race + SC research damaged by retractions C C 0 81 Oct 23, 2023 05:09 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Why race-based health care is bad medicine: from BiDil to kidney transplants C C 0 62 Mar 30, 2023 05:19 PM
Last Post: C C
  Aaronson: demise of Scientific American + Richard Dawkins on race & sex controversy C C 0 84 Jan 6, 2022 06:13 PM
Last Post: C C
  Medical bias: Our research found a way to curb it + What is critical race theory? C C 0 94 Nov 30, 2021 08:44 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why race science is on the rise again C C 1 445 May 31, 2019 11:31 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Will lawyers destroy science? + The Return of "Traditional" Astrology C C 1 744 Jan 7, 2018 05:00 PM
Last Post: Yazata



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)