Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By Babba

Thread: Work Requirements Donít Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows

  1. #1
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,951
    Thanks
    49416

    From
    So. Md.

    Work Requirements Donít Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows

    I always figured work requirements were just another way to punish the poor.

    Work requirements rest on the assumption that disadvantaged individuals will work only if theyíre forced to do so, despite the intensive efforts that many poor individuals and families put into working at low-wage jobs that offer unpredictable hours and schedules and donít pay enough for them to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads without public assistance of some kind. Too many disadvantaged individuals want to work but canít find jobs for reasons that work requirements donít solve: they lack the skills or work experience that employers want, they lack child care assistance, they lack the social connections that would help them identify job openings and get hired, or they have criminal records or have other personal challenges that keep employers from hiring them. In addition, when parents canít meet work requirements, their children can end up in highly stressful, unstable situations that can negatively affect their health and their prospects for upward mobility and long-term success.

    Rather than instituting or expanding work requirements, policymakers should maintain a strong safety net that can help individuals and families weather hard times ó and invest more in programs that help public benefit recipients build the skills and acquire the work experience they need to succeed in todayís labor market. They also should institute employment policies that open doors for individuals with criminal records or other personal challenges and expand subsidized jobs for the long-term unemployed and those with significant work limitations who otherwise canít secure employment (or canít get a first job through which to acquire skills and experience and show their worth as employees).
    Finding #1: Increases in employment among recipients subject to work requirements were modest and faded over time.


    Finding #2: Stable employment among recipients subject to work requirements proved to be the exception, not the norm.
    Finding #3: Most recipients who had significant barriers to employment never found employment, even after participating in programs otherwise deemed ďsuccessful.Ē
    Finding #4: Over the long term, the most successful programs supported individuals who were subject to the work requirements in efforts to improve their education or build their skills, rather than simply requiring them to work or find a job.
    Finding #5: The vast majority of individuals subject to work requirements remained poor, and some became poorer.
    Finding #6: Voluntary employment programs can significantly increase earnings and employment for very disadvantaged individuals without the negative consequences associated with mandatory work requirements.
    Work Requirements Don?t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    Each finding is explained extensively at the link along with several charts in the appendix.
    Thanks from RosieS

  2. #2
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    53,875
    Thanks
    19117

    From
    america
    Making people work is "punishment?"

    What about Government TAKING money from people who...work, in order to give it to people who...don't?

    Do we have a Constitutional RIGHT to not work, and still be taken care of?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Meursault's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,226
    Thanks
    5299

    From
    Bay Area
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    Making people work is "punishment?"

    What about Government TAKING money from people who...work, in order to give it to people who...don't?

    Do we have a Constitutional RIGHT to not work, and still be taken care of?
    Yes, corporations have placed an extremely lopsided burden on the middle class.

  4. #4
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    53,875
    Thanks
    19117

    From
    america
    Quote Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
    Yes, corporations have placed an extremely lopsided burden on the middle class.
    I did not realize that Corporations had the ability to "tax" the middle class......

    (Only to pass the cost of higher taxes down to the consumer......)

  5. #5
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,066
    Thanks
    30767

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    Making people work is "punishment?"

    What about Government TAKING money from people who...work, in order to give it to people who...don't?

    Do we have a Constitutional RIGHT to not work, and still be taken care of?
    Don't be like Trump. Release your tax returns. You're receiving lots more than your paying in...or we would not be in this debt.

    Once I'v seen you paid your $41,000 portion of the debt to the federal government...then I'll take your.."I'm taxed too much" seriously.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,225
    Thanks
    4064

    From
    AK & ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    I always figured work requirements were just another way to punish the poor.

    Work Requirements Don?t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    Each finding is explained extensively at the link along with several charts in the appendix.
    While CBPP is utter crap, I do agree with their incoming agenda on this particular issue, and would go farther to say that even purely in principle, more closely tying social welfare benefits to government-ordered work is Orwellian. I would sooner loosen or even break the ties between work and welfare, completely disqualifying employees from welfare. This would have the potential to do a few things. 1) force people to decide whether they're going to be societal dependents and live off a government ration versus choose not to and work for a wage, 2) it would make the level of welfare benefit the de facto minimum wage without government needing to explicitly set any prices, and 3) it could potentially create full employment by definition, if the level of welfare benefit were administered like a guaranteed "federal employment" sort of minimum guaranteed income.

    It appears liberals have grown extremely discontented with the corporate welfare state they've created, so let's switch it up. Create work disincentives intentionally. Let people be complete societal dependents if they so choose, and send them money to spend to basically live a modest retired lifestyle for as long as they want. But for people who aren't satisfied with that and want to sell something, whether their own labor to a buyer of labor, or something else they produce, well fine, but cut them off from the federal dependency wage once they're ready to do that. This way liberals have no place left to whine about the so-called "corporate weflare" they created by filling in the needs of low-skilled workers with means-tested benefits.

    Make it a clean break. If you want to dwell in the nest, dwell in the nest, no big deal. If you want to leave the reservation and stake out a self-sufficient economic existence of your own, then by all means, that's fine too, you're on your own, and congratulations on your independence.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 23rd June 2016 at 07:22 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 30th July 2013, 07:36 AM
  2. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 8th August 2012, 11:03 AM
  3. Breaking: new evidence shows Hillary a mastermind behind Gunwalker
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 20th October 2011, 06:54 PM
  4. Replies: 207
    Last Post: 1st November 2010, 01:40 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed