The welfare industry is a right-wing circus

[Idaho]

Happy 2014 all.

This is an interesting article that looks at examples of giving money directly to poor people as a model of social welfare. What strikes me is that it is the political right who, through the incessant scape goating of the poor, create the complex, expensive, oppressive and ultimately ineffective means-test and socially controlling welfare industry. We are lead to believe that the vast numbers of our poor are undeserving and idle, and don't deserve pennies, but that the few rich deserve to have the state geared to their needs.

London, May 2009. A small experiment involving thirteen homeless men takes off. They are street veterans. Some of them have been sleeping on the cold tiles of The Square Mile, the financial center of the world, for more than forty years. Their presence is far from cheap. Police, legal services, healthcare: the thirteen cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Every year.

That spring, a local charity takes a radical decision. The street veterans are to become the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays for them. The men will get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. They'll each receive 3,000 pounds, cash, with no strings attached. The men are free to decide what to spend it on; counseling services are completely optional. No requirements, no hard questions. The only question they have to answer is:

What do you think is good for you?

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-w...50894-e44e2c00

[PanzerJaeger]

I would like to know how 13 homeless people cost the state hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. That may be where the real issue lies in regard to the welfare state.

[Idaho]

Managing the poor as a social menace requiring coercion and moral oversight is expensive. You, like most others, are keen to retain that as the standard operating model.

[HoreTore]

Nobody loves to expand the bureaucracy like a conservative.

[Fragony]

I think it's kinda interesting as an experiment. The amount of money is too low though, there aren't any choices to make with just 3.000 pounds, it will burn up too fast. Make it 10.000 or 20.000, otherwise it's kinda futile probably.

[Kadagar_AV]

I am also thinking the number is somewhat to low.

A place to LIVE and 3000 pounds to get them started however...

[Beskar]

A place to LIVE and 3000 pounds to get them started however...

You can live on that. You won't be cashing in on luxury, but this would supply a single-person for a year, as I know from my expensive as a university student, the biggest cost was the 'rent', if that wasn't a factor, it would have been less than £3000. Using that as a platform to do extra working and thus top-up your income, you would be able to at least do a part-time without starving.

[Fragony]

You can live on that. You won't be cashing in on luxury, but this would supply a single-person for a year, as I know from my expensive as a university student, the biggest cost was the 'rent', if that wasn't a factor, it would have been less than £3000. Using that as a platform to do extra working and thus top-up your income, you would be able to at least do a part-time without starving.

That certainly wouldn't be enough for a year here in the Neds, 3 months at best. A simple room already costs 400 euro at least. If you want to experiment with this give them a headstart to see what happens. It's a bargain if there comes anything good out of it. If they get 10.000 a person it's only 130.000, that's nothing, that's what local goverments spend on a simple new-years eve reception.

[Beskar]

That certainly wouldn't be enough for a year here in the Neds, 3 months at best. A simple room already costs 400 euro at least.

The room was also given for free in my calculation.

[Idaho]

I think you are missing the point. The idea is not to give money for maintenance, but so people can make choices for their long term. Living hand to mouth means that planning a future becomes almost impossible.

Alas it's important for the wealthy elite that there is a large pool of desperate people. In the UK the government are even pimping out the unemployed to work for free in wealthy corporations, while in the USA poor workers at Walmart are relying on food donations from other low paid Walmart workers to survive.

[Fragony]

Giving false hope is more cruel. 3000 pounds isn't enough to get them out of their situation, but I kinda like the idea. I think it's flawed though, it needs to be more I think. But as the Swedish ski instructor said, housing first.

After that good clothes and good shoes. It doesn't have to be ugly, but it needs some work.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Total US population (2013 estimate) c. 340M persons.
Total US wealth (2013 estimate) 43.6T USD.

So, evenly divided, each person in the USA should be worth $136,176.47

Is this enough?

[HopAlongBunny]

I don't think its a completely new idea.
Wasn't the initial idea behind "welfare" a simple cash transfer to people below a certain income threshold? The resulting "bureaucratic solution" came about from the usual bugbears=>cheaters (who would be cheating the IRS) and jobs for the "right class" of people.

[PanzerJaeger]

Managing the poor as a social menace requiring coercion and moral oversight is expensive. You, like most others, are keen to retain that as the standard operating model.

Incorrect. I am very concerned about the impact of ever increasing automation on the size of the workforce and have been interested in the basic minimum income for a long time from a demand side perspective. However, I'm interested in reading objective information and not rose-tinted puff pieces with questionable claims such as that which you posted. Hence my interest in accounting for the 'hundreds of thousands' of pounds the author claims can be traced to 13 homeless people.

In any event, I do not believe a minimum income would stifle productivity or innovation. Smart, industrious people would still be motivated to make their lives better than the low standard of living that such an income would provide. What the economy needs and will need even more of in the future are consumers with disposable income, and there will be less and less of them as automation takes off.

The problem I have with the basic income that never seems to be explained is how it will not simply be eroded via inflation. It assumes that prices would remain static, which is highly unlikely. A more likely scenario is that any increase in purchasing power would be offset to a large degree by currency devaluation. This is not something that can be accurately measured via the small experiments that have been conducted so far. Sure, giving a town of 3,000 people a basic income in a country where no one else gets it will dramatically impact their lives, but when everyone has the same basic income, the CPI will increase accordingly.

[Husar]

Yes, inflation is indeed a problem with minimum incomes IMO. But that should theoretically be countered by increasing the minimum income with the inflation. If that leads to faster cycles of increases and thus rampant inflation rates you have a problem again however.

[Lemur]

I think Panzer nails the essential, unanswered problem.

With increasing automation, and increasing global competition, we're going to see steep, stark divides between the "winners" of the economy and the "not-winners."

The obvious problem is that this creates depressed demand (as PJ notes) and dangerous levels of inequality. And if you don't think crazy inequality is bad for a nation's stability, there's a French and Russian revolution I'd like to introduce you to.

I do not have answers. I do not know how we can structure our economy to avoid the instability I see coming.

But it's a question that really needs to get asked, and a problem that we need to look at carefully.

[Idaho]

It would be nice to believe that a minimum income free of means testing, etc, could free us up to participate more in our communities, to learn and teach, to help the elderly, etc.

I think the precursor needs to be a feeling of trust and respect within our societies. The media are too successful at presenting fear and division, and our politicians follow suit.

[The Black Douglas]

The death of manufacturing in this country is the core issue.
It was that infrastructure that glued communities together, and provided a market for small business' and family owned shops etc.
Thousands of unskilled unemployed are fighting for the same dead-end retail jobs, thats all there is.
If you are not skilled or qualified you have no chance these days.
Even as a skilled tradesman I find competition fierce these days.

[Idaho]

I'm amazed at the political change in the US. If I'd posted this topic during the Bush years, it would have been dismissed out of hand.

Apologies to Panzerjager for assuming he was still stuck in the New America mindset.

[Beskar]

Apologies to Panzerjager for assuming he was still stuck in the New America mindset.

Panzer is far more 'liberal' in the broad sense of the term these days, which makes him likeable but still not 'liberal' enough in some subjects which make you frown in disappointment and go "Panzer, I know you can do better than that".

[The Black Douglas]

what with empire america being the new master race or whatever, is being liberal not the equivelant of being un-patriotic?

[Lemur]

is being liberal not the equivelant of being un-patriotic?

U.S. politics are a little more complex than that.

[Kadagar_AV]

U.S. politics are a little more complex than that.

Very, very little...

[HoreTore]

I think Panzer nails the essential, unanswered problem.

With increasing automation, and increasing global competition, we're going to see steep, stark divides between the "winners" of the economy and the "not-winners."

The obvious problem is that this creates depressed demand (as PJ notes) and dangerous levels of inequality. And if you don't think crazy inequality is bad for a nation's stability, there's a French and Russian revolution I'd like to introduce you to.

I do not have answers. I do not know how we can structure our economy to avoid the instability I see coming.

But it's a question that really needs to get asked, and a problem that we need to look at carefully.

I don't see increased automation or global competition as the problem. We have a far higher degree of employment now than we have ever had in the past, mostly because we used to think it was a splendid idea to exclude half the workforce due to menstruation.

The problem as I see it is that we have moved from pairing each unemployed(the woman) to an employed(the man), to pairing employed with employed and unemployed with unemployed. I don't subscribe to the "the economy is gonna tank TOMORROW!!!!"-nonsense, as we do have more people employed now than ever. The problem is that the way we share the produce of our labour is still done the same way as it was when we paired unemployed to employed.

The issue is the increasing gap between the have's and the have-not's, and as you say one would have to be extremely ignorant to believe that's a healthy thing for society.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It would be nice to believe that a minimum income free of means testing, etc, could free us up to participate more in our communities, to learn and teach, to help the elderly, etc.

I think the precursor needs to be a feeling of trust and respect within our societies. The media are too successful at presenting fear and division, and our politicians follow suit.

Nice concept, but with voters it would be doomed to boondoggle. This "Basic Living Allowance" would be the ultimate vote buyer, and the collective voter is rarely a long term thinker

[Fragony]

Talking about homeless people, temperatures in the US, oh dear. I hope anything has been done for them it would be inhuman to let them sleep outside.

[The Lurker Below]

Talking about homeless people, temperatures in the US, oh dear. I hope anything has been done for them it would be inhuman to let them sleep outside.

Do not fret Fragony. According to FOX NEWS we're in a pattern of global warming and these recent temperatures are not as common as our stronger, tougher homeless dealt with in the past.
_________________

Intriguing article, Idaho. I am suspect of some of the research and conclusions:

Then came that fatal discovery: the number of divorces in Seattle had gone up by more than 50%. This percentage made the other, positive results seem utterly uninteresting

The divorce rate nationwide DOUBLED between 1965 and 1975. I don't believe a similar spike in one test market was enough to be the sole cause of ending a program.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do not fret Fragony. According to FOX NEWS we're in a pattern of global warming and these recent temperatures are not as common as our stronger, tougher homeless dealt with in the past.

If you are going to go FOX news with us, you might as well stop it with the "homeless" label and give them their proper title: Urban Outdoorsmen.

[The Lurker Below]

i·ro·ny1
noun
1. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.


or maybe it's typical that Fox News is pointing out a pattern of global warming?

[Ironside]

Intriguing article, Idaho. I am suspect of some of the research and conclusions:

The divorce rate nationwide DOUBLED between 1965 and 1975. I don't believe a similar spike in one test market was enough to be the sole cause of ending a program.

You were dealing with conservatives that considered marriage as sacred and wanted to find any excuse to kill the program.

Any program that gives women some kind of independent economy will drive the divorces up.