Re: wealth and property rights

At 10:54 AM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
>> 
>> This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
>> country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
>> going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
>
>I don't know how much people get on welfare in your country but I
>suspect that it is even less than in this country (Canada). Anyone who
>truly believes that people make the `economic decision to do nothing and
>go on welfare vs. going to work' has, in my opinion, no &^%* idea what
>they are talking about. Just try to *live* on a welfare wage for a few
>months to see how silly this thought is. While there may well be a few
>`welfare-moms' (which is not necessarily a bad thing, taking care of
>children is an investment for society), the vast majority of people on
>welfare (at least here)  would *much* rather get a decent job and work
>for their money. There are, perhaps, a few people who would rather not
>work for minimum wage (who find it impossible to feed their family on
>that) but I suspect that those folks are few and far between. 

The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the
other myriad programs) is $10/hr.  Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr.
Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your
face.  (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several
$$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled).

>> More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
>> motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  
>
>But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black

I don't claim to know the motives.  I am examining empirical evidence.  As
the welfare benefit increases, more go on welfare, as it decreases, less go
on welfare.  Someone is making economic decisions, consciously or
unconsciously.  

        Clay


*******************************************************
Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
**********************************************tanstaafl

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> 
> The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the
> other myriad programs) is $10/hr.  Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr.
> Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your
> face.  (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several
> $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled).

I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts.
My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it
sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that
minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least
it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out. 
> 
> >> More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
> >> motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  
> >
> >But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black
> 
> I don't claim to know the motives.  I am examining empirical evidence.  As

Sure you do: "economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
going to work". It seems to me that you are claiming their motives are
econmic, is there some other way we should read that sentence?

> the welfare benefit increases, more go on welfare, as it decreases, less go
> on welfare.  Someone is making economic decisions, consciously or
> unconsciously.  

It takes an awful lot to prove a causal relationship, empirical evidence
notwithstanding. You haven't made your case, as far as I am concerned
(not that you need to convince me), there are a myriad of other factors
involved. I have no doubt that given two (or three) poor choices, most
will choose the lesser evil and that *may* mean choosing welfare over
working, but I seriously doubt that this is anything but a small
minority of the cases of people who are actually using the system.

You suggest that what ought to be done is give less welfare. If your
thesis is correct, I suggest that better paying jobs is the real answer
(assuming you agree that minimum wage is too little for most to live
on). Shrinking welfare payouts may serve to get people off welfare but
it won't make it any easier to live on low wages. We DO have a duty to
help our neighbours, do we not? Or has greed taken over entirely?

I repeat, however, I do not know enough about your system and I am going
to just shut up about it now.

cheers, kinch

Dave Kinchlea wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> > The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the
> > other myriad programs) is $10/hr.  Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr.
> > Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your
> > face.  (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several
> > $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled).

> I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts.
> My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it
> sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that
> minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least
> it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out.

[snip]

Sorry for the extra mail, but I couldn't resist.  At age 12, in a family
of 7, my father lost his salaried job at Goodyear corporate HQ, and we
went on welfare for awhile.  I can tell you for a fact that both then and
now, welfare is worth *more* than $10/hour, if you have a family.

We not only got lots of food free from the govt. food warehouse, but they
took care of the other annoyances to some extent.  Some help was county
welfare, some federal.  Then, when my father didn't go back to the gravy
job, my mother got a good job with (you guessed it) the county welfare
dept., got a good supervisor position, and has retired with a nice pension.

Today I'm a well-paid computer programmer, and yet once again I'm on the
receiving end of welfare benefits (you would not believe how many there
are) in a round-about way, which I can't explain for obvious reasons.

Problem is, even though I can see billions going to people who don't need
the money, I can't think of a solution that could be evaluated as *fair*
by the people who pay for the system.  To suggest that we could support
people only when they *really* need the help would be to suggest what,
bread lines, maybe, instead of a check in the mailbox every so often?