I think the primary problem with this discussion is it implies that a social safety net has to be earned. That's fuckin' weird and progressive countries don't do it that way. You want to have a discussion about "welfare." That covers everything from SNAP (food stamps) to WIC (food stamps for parents of babies) to disability (cash payments to the injured or otherwise unable to work) to Medicare (reduced-cost medical treatment for the elderly and infirm) to school lunch programs to Stafford loans. Yet the onus is so deep that _wage went and threw "unemployment" in there, too. I have friends and acquaintances on just about every form of government benefit there is. Most of them paid in in some way or another. I have a friend who is considered 90% disabled because he has Lyme Disease. This means two things: (1) he is given enough money to live at 90% of the poverty level in the United States - that's $10,000 a year. (2) He is not allowed to work or he jeopardizes even that. And sure - if you can work, you shouldn't be on disability. But if you can only work a few days every couple of months because you're busy with fuckin' Lyme Disease the rest of the time, make hay while you can! So he gets paid through his dad. It's pretty fucked up. Me? I got a tip from a friend that California pays unemployment when you have a kid for paternity leave. So even though it was my dead season I got a phatty check for $5600 just for having a li'l taxpayer. More than half what my buddy made - but it was money I paid into the system. Doesn't mean they don't try their damndest to make you feel guilty about it. Even now I'm defending withdrawing $5600 from a fund that, by my seat-of-the-pants calculation, I've paid over $10,000 into. So when you phrase the question like this: I don't even think you're touching on the issues that matter. The basic problem is the United States insists on making people feel bad for getting money from anyone but a direct employer. It's fucking stupid. If I've got to subsidize four inner city moms in order to help their kids graduate high school and gain meaningful employment so they can pay taxes into the system rather than suck down funds through incarceration, it's a fucking bargain whatever it costs. "Merit" and "employment" are not related. We need to stop talking about it like it is.Do you think that the welfare system helps people get back on their feet in the US or does it mire them in a perpetual cycle of dependance? Or, perhaps it does both and it's impossible not to do one without the other...?
When I was in college I had bouts if poverty. I couldn't afford food and could barely make rent. I utilized a "food pantry" and was able to get pasta, veggies, canned goods etc. It was nice having that help, but the guilt I associated with it was intense. Why should it have been? I was a poor college kid and I now pay heavily in to that system. I'm signing my family up for a Food Gatherer organization that once a month will pick up a box of food/canned goods from your doorstep. It's a nice program.I think the primary problem with this discussion is it implies that a social safety net has to be earned. That's fuckin' weird and progressive countries don't do it that way.
this is true. Not only that, but regardless of what or how government assistance is consumed, it's always implied that there should be shame attached. Whether you have paid in to the system or not.
There was a story on "The World" the other day where they highlighted an NGO in India whose mission was to provide LED lanterns to people in areas without electricity. These people mainly use kerosene lamps after dark, which are expensive to operate and dangerous, besides. They were stunned to find that giving them away was not as easy as they thought it would be, but that selling them for $25 has been a smash hit. $25 is a ton of money for someone who lives on $2/day. Anyway, I guess the point is that the psychology of earning vs. charity falls squarely on the side of earning. I think that a similar thing might do well here. In urban areas I would love to see small business loans made available easily and cheaply. Not huge loans, but something where a person can start a food stand, open a lawn care business, etc. Small one or two person operations that the proprietor can feel proud of. There's no access to credit for most people who live in ghettos, and giving them a couple hundred bucks per week does very little to help their mobility, although it adds up to a lot of money in the long term. I would also like to see a WPA style program specifically targeted at inner cities. There are roadblocks to this from the right and the left, unfortunately (which probably means it's an awesome idea). We spend an unconscionable amount of money "helping" the poor in relation to the benefit we actually get to society for all that cash. I think a fundamental problem is that we think of "poor people" instead of "people who happen to be poor". The latter is a state of being, and the former is a moral judgement.
Micro-lending is a viable alternative. Organizations like Kiva.org have had great success rates. As Americans, I think we are quick to rally round kickstarter as though it were a micro-lender, but there are other options available.In urban areas I would love to see small business loans made available easily and cheaply. Not huge loans, but something where a person can start a food stand, open a lawn care business, etc. Small one or two person operations that the proprietor can feel proud of. There's no access to credit for most people who live in ghettos, and giving them a couple hundred bucks per week does very little to help their mobility, although it adds up to a lot of money in the long term.
Got a friend who works in sound. She grew up in Guadalajara. Dual Mexican/Swiss citizenship. She loves Unemployment. She thinks it's amazing that you get money for not working. No matter how many times I point out that it's money she's paid into the system, the idea of "something for nothing" blows her away.
Perhaps it is working, I don't know. It's a sincere question.If I've got to subsidize four inner city moms in order to help their kids graduate high school and gain meaningful employment so they can pay taxes into the system rather than suck down funds through incarceration, it's a fucking bargain whatever it costs.
Is this how it works? Are those kids growing up educated, exiting the welfare system, and paying back in to the system that benefited them?
Thought experiment time! Say you have 100 kids in an inner city school. You (Personally, some government org, charitable group) have resources, you think, to appropriately feed, clothe, transport, and educate them through high school. You follow up with them 1 year after, 5 years after, and 10 years after, and see how many of them are employed, how much they make, how much gets paid 'back' into the system. What if after 10 years, only half of them are employed? Less? What if most only have part time employment? What if only one kid has any meaningful job after 10 years, but he's a high paid (And assuming incredibly charitable) executive who donates orders of magnitude more than it cost to help him get to that position? It's a hard thing to establish a metric for.Is this how it works? Are those kids growing up educated, exiting the welfare system, and paying back in to the system that benefited them?
It's not really a sincere "question" though - it's a whole line of questioning that forms the fundamental liberal/conservative battle over social programs. You're really talking about lower-case-w welfare vs. prisons. I think, just like capitalism vs. socialism, the answer is somewhere in the middle, that answer entirely different depending on culture and entirely up to debate every time there's an election.