Coming from Belarus, the relatively poor country, I would never imagine that there are could be poor people in the United States, where even the least skilled job is paid at a rate, which allows the working individual to cover the cost of his living necessities. So, when I started to work at a home health care agency as a supervisor and first met personal care workers, whose job was to take care of older people, I was nearly shocked. Most of these workers did not have a car and could not afford taking a bus if a pay date happened on a federal holiday when the banks are closed and the payroll transactions are postponed. They lived in shelters from time to time and could not afford cell phones. However, all of them had free health insurance, received food stamps and were writing “exempt” in their tax forms. What was puzzling me the most is the fact that we lived so differently while my per hour pay was only $1 higher than theirs.
In his article, “The Theory Of The Leisure Class,” Steven Landsburg discusses the study that was done by Mark Agular and Erik Hurst, which indicated that along with rising gap in income distribution in the United States, there is another gap that rises – the gap in leisure time. Not surprisingly those two gaps are strongly correlated and the individuals who became poorer over the last four decades are also those, who gained a lot of leisure time and vice versa. However, the gap in leisure does not seem to concern the politicians. The only problem that they see is the redistribution of the income, so that everyone would earn more equal wages. The author believes that in the case of such redistribution, it would be fair enough to expect the redistribution of leisure time as well.
In the article “DC Councilmember Wants To Cut Off Welfare Benefits When Kids Skip School” by David Schwartzman, the author is outraged by Councilmember Catania’s proposal to take welfare benefits away from parents, whose children are skipping school. While Catania believes that it is the responsibility of the welfare recipients to make sure that the children for whom they are receiving these welfare benefits are growing up following the norms of the society, Schwartzman equates Catania with a monster who is trying to take the last slice of bread from the poor people.
While Catania may look as a cruel oppressor, I believe his proposal is absolutely justified. As the study discussed in the first article had proven that poor people have more leisure time, it would be reasonable to expect the minimal effort on their side, while they prefer to rely on welfare earned by others. But as the first article describes poor as people who would “rather watch a TV”, their unwillingness to take care of their own children can only emphasize this point. Therefore, I believe that Landsburg’s article looks much more logical.
“Don’t give me more working hours – I can not earn more than… or I will lose my rent assistance.” Although it is always thought that poor people deserve pity along with some financial support, such financial support can only encourage them to remain poor and use their lifetime for the more pleasurable activities than working, as discussed by Landsburg.1,4 While the economic theory clearly shows how cash benefit discourage people from working, there are number of states, where such benefits are still provided.9As indicated on the graph, cash grants raise the consumption level of an individual to the point he would otherwise get by sacrificing his leisure time. As those benefit are often provided on the “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, there is no reason for its recipient to work for the sum that is not much higher than the grant and, therefore, he stays home and continues to be accounted as a poor who needs even more help.
“I can’t work more than 15 hours a week or they will cut my child support benefits.” Another group of welfare benefits is designed in the way that the benefits are taken away step-by-step as the individual earns more. Although the advocates of welfare programs are desperately fighting against any cuts in such programs, arguing that the cuts will damage the society, the very existence of such programs harms the society much more.3As economic theory suggests, welfare programs discourage individuals from working, moving their work hours from point P(40) to point R(10) as shown on the graph, which uses change in taxes as an example. And the empirical evidence presented by William Niskanen in his article “Welfare And The Culture Of Poverty” demonstrates the effects of another welfare program – Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). 1% increase of the personal income eligible for AFDC benefits increases the number of AFDC recipients by 3%, of people in poverty by 0.8%, of births to single mothers by 2.1%, of not employed adults by 0.5%, of abortions by 1.2% and violent crime rate by 1.1%. I believe that the violent crime rates are strongly correlated with leisure time as “busy” people do not have time to attack others on the streets or break into someone’s property. So, while “rich” people sponsor welfare programs with their taxes, they have to be alert as the tired of leisure recipients may violently attack them.
“I can’t work on Sunday – I’m going to church… No, on Wednesday we are going to Wisconsin Dells… No, Monday is my sister’s birthday… Saturday?! No, I can’t work on the weekends at all…” While the defenders of welfare benefits are so concerned with the fates of the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries do not seem to suffer much, as even the question of the welfare programs is discussed by others. So while the supporters of Schwartzwan such as Timm Hardt, who is angrily opposing the proposal of cutting welfare benefits to the poor, fool the masses by either not understanding the basic economic theories themselves or for some other political reasons, poor people continue to enjoy their lives.3,10 As was revealed by an investigation, the beneficiaries of the welfare programs were able to cash their state issued debit cards in more than a half of California casinos.10While one could be confused trying to figure out what do welfare recipients do in casinos, this fact can only prove that the study discussed by Lansburg is correct and Schwartzwan’s complaint is just an absurd. While welfare beneficiaries have time and money to spend in casinos, it would be quite reasonable to expect them to take a little interest in the lives of their children other than how much support will be paid for having them.
“I’ve got food stamps today, come over for a party…” Although food stamps programs are designed to assist poor individuals to buy food, the recipients often
use them differently, saving the money by obtaining free food in various community organizations. According to the statistics brought by Annual Hunger Report, the recipients of food stamps are those poor individuals who cannot afford Thanksgiving dinner and cannot afford to eat much in general.8 Such statistics looks pretty sad, but it is far away from the truth. While the food stamps benefits are usually provided in the amount that is absolutely sufficient for maintaining a healthy diet, most of the beneficiaries prefer to use this money differently. While food stamp card is only accepted as payment for food, there are multiple ways around it. One of such ways that I often heard of at work is to purchase alcohol from the familiar store owner, who would charge the card as if it was a payment for the food. Another very popular concept is food stamps exchange rate, when one exchanges his food stamp benefits to the other for a smaller amount of cash. So, while the statistics reports dramatic situation, an on-site research can come up with the different data.
While there are many countries where people are dying from hunger and where the level of poverty is enormous, being poor in the United States may not be considered as anything other than a conscious choice of an individual which is reinforced by welfare programs. While the defenders of welfare programs point out the suffering that poor people have to go through, poor people watch TV, hang out with the friends and go shopping.1,4 At the same time the government spends 25% of its budget each year on the various welfare programs, while taxing people who prefer work over the leisure. As mentioned by Cameron Taylor, welfare programs are against the Constitution.2 So, why do we still have them? Because as soon as someone as Councilmember Catania, who understands the situation, proposes any adjustments to the welfare benefits that do not favor the beneficiaries, he gets attacked so desperately that the consequences of such proposal may turn out to a disaster to him.
Reference
1. ---. “Study Proves Poor Lazy.”Kuro5hin. 12 Mar. 2007. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/3/12/15326/0956>
2. Clever Dude. “Is Welfare Unconstitutional And Bad For Society.” Clever Dude Personal Finance And Money. 15 May 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2010 <http://www.cleverdude.com/content/is-welfare-unconstitutional-and-bad-for-society/>
3. Herdt T. “Welfare-To-Work Program A Target For State Budget Cuts.” Vcstar.com. 9 Jul. 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jul/09/governor-targets-welfare-to-work-program-for/>
4. Landsburg S. “The Theory Of The Leisure Class.” State Magazine. 9 Mar. 2007. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/>
5. Niskanen W. “Welfare And The Culture Of Poverty.” Cato Journal. Vol. 16 No. 1. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html>
6. Roth J.D. “What’s The Difference Between High-Income Earners And Low-Income Earners?” GetRich Slowly. 19 Aug. 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2010 <http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/08/19/whats-the-difference-between-high-income-earners-and-low-income-earners/>
7. Schwartzman D. “DC Councilmember Wants To Cut Off Welfare Benefits When Kids Skip School.” WordPress. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dc-councilmember-wants-to-cut-off-welfare-benefits-when-kids-skip-school/>
8. Stat House. “Annual ‘Hunger Report’ Shows Poor Families Cannot Afford Nutritious Food.”Salt Of The Earth. Dec. 2005. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2005/12/sh0512.html>
9. Suede M. “Welfare Programs Increase Poverty.” Fascist Soup. 25 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://fascistsoup.com/2010/08/25/welfare-programs-increase-poverty/>
10. Surber D. “Welfare Cards Good At California Casino.” Daily Mail. 24 Jun. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/16492>
11. Zbigniew M. “Welfare Spending Is The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.” WordPress. 26 Jun. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/welfare-spending-is-the-largest-item-in-the-federal-budget/>
In his article, “The Theory Of The Leisure Class,” Steven Landsburg discusses the study that was done by Mark Agular and Erik Hurst, which indicated that along with rising gap in income distribution in the United States, there is another gap that rises – the gap in leisure time. Not surprisingly those two gaps are strongly correlated and the individuals who became poorer over the last four decades are also those, who gained a lot of leisure time and vice versa. However, the gap in leisure does not seem to concern the politicians. The only problem that they see is the redistribution of the income, so that everyone would earn more equal wages. The author believes that in the case of such redistribution, it would be fair enough to expect the redistribution of leisure time as well.
In the article “DC Councilmember Wants To Cut Off Welfare Benefits When Kids Skip School” by David Schwartzman, the author is outraged by Councilmember Catania’s proposal to take welfare benefits away from parents, whose children are skipping school. While Catania believes that it is the responsibility of the welfare recipients to make sure that the children for whom they are receiving these welfare benefits are growing up following the norms of the society, Schwartzman equates Catania with a monster who is trying to take the last slice of bread from the poor people.
While Catania may look as a cruel oppressor, I believe his proposal is absolutely justified. As the study discussed in the first article had proven that poor people have more leisure time, it would be reasonable to expect the minimal effort on their side, while they prefer to rely on welfare earned by others. But as the first article describes poor as people who would “rather watch a TV”, their unwillingness to take care of their own children can only emphasize this point. Therefore, I believe that Landsburg’s article looks much more logical.
“Don’t give me more working hours – I can not earn more than… or I will lose my rent assistance.” Although it is always thought that poor people deserve pity along with some financial support, such financial support can only encourage them to remain poor and use their lifetime for the more pleasurable activities than working, as discussed by Landsburg.1,4 While the economic theory clearly shows how cash benefit discourage people from working, there are number of states, where such benefits are still provided.9As indicated on the graph, cash grants raise the consumption level of an individual to the point he would otherwise get by sacrificing his leisure time. As those benefit are often provided on the “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, there is no reason for its recipient to work for the sum that is not much higher than the grant and, therefore, he stays home and continues to be accounted as a poor who needs even more help.
“I can’t work more than 15 hours a week or they will cut my child support benefits.” Another group of welfare benefits is designed in the way that the benefits are taken away step-by-step as the individual earns more. Although the advocates of welfare programs are desperately fighting against any cuts in such programs, arguing that the cuts will damage the society, the very existence of such programs harms the society much more.3As economic theory suggests, welfare programs discourage individuals from working, moving their work hours from point P(40) to point R(10) as shown on the graph, which uses change in taxes as an example. And the empirical evidence presented by William Niskanen in his article “Welfare And The Culture Of Poverty” demonstrates the effects of another welfare program – Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). 1% increase of the personal income eligible for AFDC benefits increases the number of AFDC recipients by 3%, of people in poverty by 0.8%, of births to single mothers by 2.1%, of not employed adults by 0.5%, of abortions by 1.2% and violent crime rate by 1.1%. I believe that the violent crime rates are strongly correlated with leisure time as “busy” people do not have time to attack others on the streets or break into someone’s property. So, while “rich” people sponsor welfare programs with their taxes, they have to be alert as the tired of leisure recipients may violently attack them.
“I can’t work on Sunday – I’m going to church… No, on Wednesday we are going to Wisconsin Dells… No, Monday is my sister’s birthday… Saturday?! No, I can’t work on the weekends at all…” While the defenders of welfare benefits are so concerned with the fates of the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries do not seem to suffer much, as even the question of the welfare programs is discussed by others. So while the supporters of Schwartzwan such as Timm Hardt, who is angrily opposing the proposal of cutting welfare benefits to the poor, fool the masses by either not understanding the basic economic theories themselves or for some other political reasons, poor people continue to enjoy their lives.3,10 As was revealed by an investigation, the beneficiaries of the welfare programs were able to cash their state issued debit cards in more than a half of California casinos.10While one could be confused trying to figure out what do welfare recipients do in casinos, this fact can only prove that the study discussed by Lansburg is correct and Schwartzwan’s complaint is just an absurd. While welfare beneficiaries have time and money to spend in casinos, it would be quite reasonable to expect them to take a little interest in the lives of their children other than how much support will be paid for having them.
“I’ve got food stamps today, come over for a party…” Although food stamps programs are designed to assist poor individuals to buy food, the recipients often
use them differently, saving the money by obtaining free food in various community organizations. According to the statistics brought by Annual Hunger Report, the recipients of food stamps are those poor individuals who cannot afford Thanksgiving dinner and cannot afford to eat much in general.8 Such statistics looks pretty sad, but it is far away from the truth. While the food stamps benefits are usually provided in the amount that is absolutely sufficient for maintaining a healthy diet, most of the beneficiaries prefer to use this money differently. While food stamp card is only accepted as payment for food, there are multiple ways around it. One of such ways that I often heard of at work is to purchase alcohol from the familiar store owner, who would charge the card as if it was a payment for the food. Another very popular concept is food stamps exchange rate, when one exchanges his food stamp benefits to the other for a smaller amount of cash. So, while the statistics reports dramatic situation, an on-site research can come up with the different data.
While there are many countries where people are dying from hunger and where the level of poverty is enormous, being poor in the United States may not be considered as anything other than a conscious choice of an individual which is reinforced by welfare programs. While the defenders of welfare programs point out the suffering that poor people have to go through, poor people watch TV, hang out with the friends and go shopping.1,4 At the same time the government spends 25% of its budget each year on the various welfare programs, while taxing people who prefer work over the leisure. As mentioned by Cameron Taylor, welfare programs are against the Constitution.2 So, why do we still have them? Because as soon as someone as Councilmember Catania, who understands the situation, proposes any adjustments to the welfare benefits that do not favor the beneficiaries, he gets attacked so desperately that the consequences of such proposal may turn out to a disaster to him.
Reference
1. ---. “Study Proves Poor Lazy.”Kuro5hin. 12 Mar. 2007. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/3/12/15326/0956>
2. Clever Dude. “Is Welfare Unconstitutional And Bad For Society.” Clever Dude Personal Finance And Money. 15 May 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2010 <http://www.cleverdude.com/content/is-welfare-unconstitutional-and-bad-for-society/>
3. Herdt T. “Welfare-To-Work Program A Target For State Budget Cuts.” Vcstar.com. 9 Jul. 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jul/09/governor-targets-welfare-to-work-program-for/>
4. Landsburg S. “The Theory Of The Leisure Class.” State Magazine. 9 Mar. 2007. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/>
5. Niskanen W. “Welfare And The Culture Of Poverty.” Cato Journal. Vol. 16 No. 1. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html>
6. Roth J.D. “What’s The Difference Between High-Income Earners And Low-Income Earners?” GetRich Slowly. 19 Aug. 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2010 <http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/08/19/whats-the-difference-between-high-income-earners-and-low-income-earners/>
7. Schwartzman D. “DC Councilmember Wants To Cut Off Welfare Benefits When Kids Skip School.” WordPress. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dc-councilmember-wants-to-cut-off-welfare-benefits-when-kids-skip-school/>
8. Stat House. “Annual ‘Hunger Report’ Shows Poor Families Cannot Afford Nutritious Food.”Salt Of The Earth. Dec. 2005. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2005/12/sh0512.html>
9. Suede M. “Welfare Programs Increase Poverty.” Fascist Soup. 25 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://fascistsoup.com/2010/08/25/welfare-programs-increase-poverty/>
10. Surber D. “Welfare Cards Good At California Casino.” Daily Mail. 24 Jun. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/16492>
11. Zbigniew M. “Welfare Spending Is The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.” WordPress. 26 Jun. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/welfare-spending-is-the-largest-item-in-the-federal-budget/>