Re: wealth and property rights

At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> 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.

Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The
Detroit News).  The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies
from state to state, I remember that number as being about average.
 
>> >> 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?

You got me there :-)

>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 don't mind helping my neighbors.  Of course, they live next door and I
know them!  The problem is that the welfare creates a system where behaviour
that is generally bad for society is subsidized.  The incentives are all
wrong.  And no, I don't think the minimum wage should be increased either.
Increasing the minimum wage at a time when you are pushing people off of
welfare is the wrong action, because it decreases the number of jobs
available.  

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

At 4:06 PM -0500 11/27/96, Clay Olbon II wrote:
>At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> wrote:

>>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.
>
>Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The
>Detroit News).  The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies
>from state to state, I remember that number as being about average.

I can confirm the gist of Clay's point: I saw a table listing "effective
hourly welfare pay" for the 50 states and D.C. This was in the "San Jose
Mercury News," at least 8-10 months ago (and presumably elsewhere, as it
was a major story). I used it in one of my articles, and gave the reference
then (sorry, not handy, and my own welfare rate does not pay me enough to
spend hours sifting through past articles for something so minor, an old
cite, that is).

The interesting thing was that New York had an effective welfare pay rate
of $14 an hour, and New York City was more than that (due to higher
benefits and higher taxes dragging down the income of actual workers). By
"effective" the idea is to add up direct welfare benefits, food stamps, WIC
payments, AFDC payments, and then correct for the various tax treatments
(e.g., some or all of these benefits are untaxed). A worker would have to
be earning $14 an hour, or about $30 K a year, to get the same amount of
effective take home pay that a welfare recipient with two children receives.

Given that the worker has to get up at, say, 6 a.m., get on a bus or train
or in a car to get to work, put up with hassles, and, basically, _work_,
the welfare alternative looks pretty good. Which is of course the problem
so-called democratic societies are having--increasing numbers of layabouts,
slackers, and leeches.

The "list relevance" of this is this: crypto provides means of hiding
income, or arbitraging income sources and regulations, and of basically
undermining the welfare state.

Many of my tradtionally libertarian friends dispute my beliefs, but I
believe income disparities will grow with time, not decrease. The top tier
of fiction writers, for example, can easily earn several million dollars or
more a year, while the second tier sees their stuff remaindered and the
third tier never makes it into print. Ditto for programmers and others.
With the "force multiplication" seen in modern economies, there are vast
riches to be had for the best few percent in any field, and much less for
the drones. Those with no skills to hire out face the prospect of zero
income, with not even there physical labor in demand.

I basically see no hope for the bottom 30% of the population, and less and
less hope for the bottom 70%.

Fortunately, my ethical system is such that I see this as just the nature
of things, evolution in action. Crypto anarchy will do a more efficient job
of culling than many imagine.

--Tim May



Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> The interesting thing was that New York had an effective welfare pay rate
> of $14 an hour, and New York City was more than that (due to higher
> benefits and higher taxes dragging down the income of actual workers). By
> "effective" the idea is to add up direct welfare benefits, food stamps, WIC
> payments, AFDC payments, and then correct for the various tax treatments
> (e.g., some or all of these benefits are untaxed). A worker would have to
> be earning $14 an hour, or about $30 K a year, to get the same amount of
> effective take home pay that a welfare recipient with two children receives.

I wonder if the study took medical insurance into account? I used to pay $8K/
year for a pretty skimpy family medical insurance plan. (They cost so much
in NYC because of AIDS.) People on welfare get Medicaid.

> Given that the worker has to get up at, say, 6 a.m., get on a bus or train
> or in a car to get to work, put up with hassles, and, basically, _work_,
> the welfare alternative looks pretty good. Which is of course the problem
> so-called democratic societies are having--increasing numbers of layabouts,
> slackers, and leeches.

Can you blame people like Igor Chudov? I happen to think that I can obtain
more wordly goods by working hard; but if someone prefers to subsist on
my taxes, more power to them. If you don't like the present system, don't
blame the people who take advantage of it, change it.

Of course Tim May is incapable of doing anything to help bring about his
beloved "crypto anarchy" except whining.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps