# Welfare myths and the luck of life



## Warrigal (May 28, 2015)

Just came across this article http://insidestory.org.au/welfare-myths-and-the-luck-of-life that is based on a book  _Good Times, Bad Times: The Welfare Myth of Them and Us_, by British social policy researcher John Hills.

The writer of the article talks about some issues raised and draws comparisons with the Australian situation. I will be posting on an Australian site but it occurred to me that it could be of interest to Americans as well.

Here is a taste



> *Volatility *
> 
> A key theme of _Good Times, Bad Times_ is the volatility of poverty. Hills describes the week-to-week income received by a high-income family as fairly dull: regular pay cheques, and occasional blips from investment income. By contrast, the same graph for a low-income family “would look more like the hospital heart monitor of someone in trouble, with big jumps and falls from week to week.” This highly erratic pattern is partly due to life events (such as losing a job or finding a partner) but also a result of means-tested government payments starting or stopping. Since there is a delay in means testing, the result can be to add to the volatility of incomes, rather than smooth it out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 29, 2015)

Obviously no one wants to wade into the welfare debate again...


----------



## Warrigal (May 29, 2015)

Never mind. We're giving it the once over over 'ere.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 29, 2015)

Good.  No appetite for it here...nthego:


----------



## oldman (May 29, 2015)

I read the entire post and this one line, which happened to be the last line, made the most sense to me. *"By creating programs such as old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance, we give people greater confidence to live their lives – to have children, invest in their businesses, and try new jobs."

*_I have always been a huge advocate of giving people who work a back-up plan, (so to speak), in case of injury or loss of their job. People need to know that there is something that they can fall back on financially in case they do become injured, ill or lose their job. Heads of families should not have to worry about how they will pay their bills or mortgage, buy food and continue to support the family's needs due to unforeseen circumstances. As for the Seniors and their after work years, here in America we have all paid either into SS or some other government form of post work year's compensation plan whereby Seniors collect a monthly amount based on what they paid in over their work years. As we have all heard, SS was never meant to be the sole form of financial support when Seniors retired. It was expected that during our working years, we would have saved through company supported investment plans or other types of additional savings plans that we could fall back on and collect post retirement. Some did and some didn't. I fully understand that not all could afford to have huge amounts withheld from their paychecks and so some may not have have been able to save much for their retirement years while others may have fared much better. Each person's circumstances are/were different. _


----------



## Warrigal (May 29, 2015)

It's hard to put a money value on the benefits of a good social safety net.
Much easier to grumble about the expenditure side of the ledger.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 29, 2015)

Well of course everyone knows someone... or knows someone who knows someone who is gaming the system and totally underserving of help..  Just like everyone knows someone or knows someone who knows someone who has had 35 late term abortions.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 29, 2015)

Of course there should be safety nets but not generational cases...


----------



## Josiah (May 29, 2015)

The repeated mention of joblessness points to one glaring deficiency in the US and it's not a deficiency exhibited by the poor, it's a systemic deficiency in the job market. There are not enough jobs that pay a living wage in our economy. Most of these jobs have been sent over-seas. This is the way a free market economy works, but it has resulted a very unhealthy situation with a small number of very rich people and a very large group of people who have seen a long term decline in wages and serious amounts of unemployment. The culprit here is the free market economy.


----------



## Shalimar (May 29, 2015)

Go, QS!


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 29, 2015)

In my younger days I worked for an agency and met some of them as clients who were masters at gaming the system...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 29, 2015)

Josiah said:


> The repeated mention of joblessness points to one glaring deficiency in the US and it's not a deficiency exhibited by the poor, it's a systemic deficiency in the job market. There are not enough jobs that pay a living wage in our economy. Most of these jobs have been sent over-seas. This is the way a free market economy works, but it has resulted a very unhealthy situation with a small number of very rich people and a very large group of people who have seen a long term decline in wages and serious amounts of unemployment. The culprit here is the free market economy.



This is exactly why pure capitalism doesn't work.... neither does pure socialism.   There has to be a balance..  Capitalism exists solely for the manufacture of profit.  Capitalism does not have a social conscience.. nor is it altruistic..  Now before someone points out all the good things some corporations do for the community, do you seriously believe they would if there were not some payback for them? ...either in the form of tax write-offs or PR?   Of course not.  Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, and it does not matter how they do it..  They do it.    This is why 90% of all new income is going to the top 1% of Americans.  And this is where unfettered capitalism has taken us.  


Until we understand that there must be a balance of Social Safety nets,  regulations,  and progressive taxation,  things are only going to get worse for the bottom 99% of us.   No one is begrudging the success of those at the top... we only ask they  give back something to help others succeed..


----------



## Warrigal (May 29, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Of course there should be safety nets but not generational cases...


If you read my link in the OP you would see that the multi generational story is largely a myth.
At least it doesn't stack up in Australia (or in the UK).


----------



## QuickSilver (May 29, 2015)

Oh... but here, we have so many of...   "those" people.


----------



## Warrigal (May 29, 2015)

Aah... The 49%. Nuff said.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 29, 2015)

Yes, there were quite a few and they knew how to manipulate a young worker, not to mention the agency that also knew how to manipulate the worker, and the caseload to keep the numbers up and get the funding...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 29, 2015)

Let's see...  you don't want money spent on welfare,  or on DOJ investigations..... OR on pets..  Do moths fly out of your wallet when you open it?


----------



## Warrigal (May 29, 2015)

Breaking the welfare cycle. 
Keep your eyes on New Zealand.
Note that John Key is the Prime Minister of a centre right conservative government.



> Imagine a country in which a government of the centre-right decided to make it a top priority to tackle inherited disadvantage. Where much of its limited new spending is devoted to “social investment” to reduce deprivation and increase workforce participation. And where it’s chalking up impressive results.
> 
> You don’t have to go far to find it – just across the Tasman. Taking on disadvantage is rarely a priority for conservative governments, but it has become an increasingly important theme of the second and third terms of the National Party government under prime minister John Key.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (May 29, 2015)

DW, what a hopeful, inspiring article. I wish this mandate was enforced in Canada.


----------



## Warrigal (May 29, 2015)

The Kiwis regularly put us Aussies to shame.


----------



## Don M. (May 29, 2015)

Josiah said:


> The repeated mention of joblessness points to one glaring deficiency in the US and it's not a deficiency exhibited by the poor, it's a systemic deficiency in the job market. There are not enough jobs that pay a living wage in our economy. Most of these jobs have been sent over-seas. This is the way a free market economy works, but it has resulted a very unhealthy situation with a small number of very rich people and a very large group of people who have seen a long term decline in wages and serious amounts of unemployment. The culprit here is the free market economy.



Not Only is the "Free Market Economy" and Offshoring of good jobs hamstringing our people...But, Also, technology.  More and more good manufacturing jobs are being taken over by robotics and automation, while our population continues to increase.  Anyone who understands the basic "supply and demand" principles should see that this is a sure recipe for future problems.  In an environment where there are multiple applicants for every good paying job, the employers have NO incentive to offer anything resembling a living wage.


----------



## Debby (May 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This is exactly why pure capitalism doesn't work.... neither does pure socialism.   There has to be a balance..  Capitalism exists solely for the manufacture of profit.  Capitalism does not have a social conscience.. nor is it altruistic..  Now before someone points out all the good things some corporations do for the community, do you seriously believe they would if there were not some payback for them? ...either in the form of tax write-offs or PR?   Of course not.  Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, and it does not matter how they do it..  They do it.    This is why 90% of all new income is going to the top 1% of Americans.  And this is where unfettered capitalism has taken us.
> 
> 
> Until we understand that there must be a balance of Social Safety nets,  regulations,  and progressive taxation,  things are only going to get worse for the bottom 99% of us.   No one is begrudging the success of those at the top... we only ask they  give back something to help others succeed..




I think you hit the nail on the head in every point and Don's points about industry robotizing is also very accurate!  I heard of a manufacturer somewhere (maybe Japan because they love their robots) and that company was on the verge of switching over to a robot run factory which meant about 1000 people would lose their jobs!  What happens when they are all doing that?  You think the 'good' job market is bad now, wait fifteen years and see how much worse it is.  Our kids and grandkids will have to survive on part-time waiter jobs.


----------



## Don M. (May 30, 2015)

Nowhere in our major industries is automation and robotics more apparent than in our Automobile Plants.  Years ago, a major plant might have 4 or 5 thousand production employees...all members of the UAW, and making really good money.  Now, 80%, or more, of the production is done by robots, and the few people that remain are largely in quality control, and "detailing".  The Once Powerful UAW has been reduced to little more than an ineffective employee lobby.  25 years ago, a UAW member could make $30/hr., and today they are lucky to get $20.


----------

