Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy

The numbers quoted in the press were based on a study by the Cato Institute,
"The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare
Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman,
September, 1995.  It's at 
<http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html>.  

Extracts: 

* To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would
have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in
Mississippi.

* In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour
job--or more than two and a half times the minimum wage. 

* In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states
the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job.

* Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare
provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York
City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit.
            
* In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a
teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a
secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in
the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
computer programmer.


At 01:27 AM 12/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>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).
>

I hardly want to be known as the champion of welfare, despite my recent
posts ;-( I wonder, however, if these figures are to some large extent a
result of health care benefits (presumedly) being paid for whereas
ordinary folk in the states do not get such access.

Assuming these figures are accurate, there does appear to be a problem!
While I do believe that most people would rather work than not, there
really should not be any financial incentive to chose welfare over
honest work. FWIW, I don't *believe* these figures are representative of
Canadian welfare roles as we all get (more or less) free health care to
begin with, something I and most Canadians are proud of.

(Once again, I am back on cypherpunks talking about non-crypt related
subjects. This is my last public posting on this subject.)

cheers, kinch


On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Jeff Ubois wrote:

> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 18:41:02 -0800
> From: Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy
> 
> The numbers quoted in the press were based on a study by the Cato Institute,
> "The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare
> Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman,
> September, 1995.  It's at 
> <http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html>.  
> 
> Extracts: 
> 
> * To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would
> have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in
> Mississippi.
> 
> * In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
> Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour
> job--or more than two and a half times the minimum wage. 
> 
> * In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states
> the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job.
> 
> * Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare
> provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York
> City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit.
>             
> * In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a
> teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a
> secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in
> the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
> computer programmer.
> 
> 
> At 01:27 AM 12/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
> >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).
> >
> 

Key fingerprint =  CE 54 C3 93 48 C0 74 A0  D5 CA F8 3E F9 A3 0B B7

Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com> writes:
> secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in
> the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
> computer programmer.

Igor may be in a better position to comment on welfare benefits in Oklahoma,
but I find the above statement highly questionable. New York is one of the
most generous states. An entry-level computer programmer with a B.S. and
no work experience fetches 45K on the average. Sure beats welfare.

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com> writes:
> > secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in
> > the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
> > computer programmer.
> 
> Igor may be in a better position to comment on welfare benefits in Oklahoma,
> but I find the above statement highly questionable. New York is one of the
> most generous states. An entry-level computer programmer with a B.S. and
> no work experience fetches 45K on the average. Sure beats welfare.
> 

I am not an entry-level computer programmer, sorry.

	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com> writes:
> > > secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, i
> > > the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
> > > computer programmer.
> >
> > Igor may be in a better position to comment on welfare benefits in Oklahoma
> > but I find the above statement highly questionable. New York is one of the
> > most generous states. An entry-level computer programmer with a B.S. and
> > no work experience fetches 45K on the average. Sure beats welfare.
> >
>
> I am not an entry-level computer programmer, sorry.

Too bad. It's a well-paying job. :-)

Instead of trying to hack sites in Norway (quite ineptly) and getting caught,
why don't you finish the misc.jobs.* robomoderator and run the proposal.
I guess writing code is un-"cypher punk".

"Eiffel programmer" is an oxymoron. Read Bertrand Meyer's Web page.

---

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

Jeff Ubois wrote:
> The numbers quoted in the press were based on a study by the Cato Institute,
> "The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare
> Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman,
> September, 1995.  It's at
> * To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would
> have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in
> Mississippi.
> * Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare
> provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York
> City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit.

[snip]

Why bother with theory?  By January sometime, I ought to have my own
personal set of numbers finalized. My mate and I are caring for three
orphaned children, we both work (good paying corporate jobs), yet it
appears we'll be collecting at least $1400 per month tax-free for the
kiddies, from various agencies, not including medical/dental benefits.

I'd guess the medical/dental will be worth $300, so $1700 divided by
172.5 (or 173.33) work hours is $9.80 to $9.85 per hour after taxes.
Imagine what it would be if we were also collecting for the grownups.

This is in the greater L.A. area.  It looks like the bigger the family,
i.e., the more dependents, the bigger the income.  Does this hold true
elsewhere?

> "The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare
> Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman,
> September, 1995.  It's at <http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html>.  

actual report is at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html

offhand, I don't have a basis for grokking the numbers,
because I've never been an unwed mother with two children
under 5yrs old.  if they had done numbers for a single male
with no children, I'd have a better chance of knowing how
attractive welfare would be over random lowpaying jobs I
used to have.

I find it very odd that the study does an elaborate benefits
calculation for a mother without a job, but doesn't do a
similar calculation for a mother with an entry-level job.
this would be a directly meaningful comparison.

instead, it tries to convert welfare benefits to "pretax
wage equivalent", which is just silly.  people with a pretax
income of $30k/yr probably have a health plan paid for by
their employer, which invalidates the comparison being made.

something else that's iffy is inclusion of median housing
assistance paid out by agencies, rather than median received
by the sample population.  this means the model individual
is a nonworking unwed mother of two infants who gets housing
assistance, rather than just any nonworking unwed mother of
two infants on welfare.

report rejected:
  meaningless numbers
  thesis not supported by the evidence
--