To the point, their recent story is prefaced by its sensationalist headline: Welfare is Highest Paying Entry Level Job in All but Fifteen States. As you might be able to assume the direction this is going to go.
In a tradition I am used to the I'll give you the bottom line up front, for those with short attention spans, if you don't want to read any further.
If you haven't seen it, the article goes on to present a nice formatted chart how welfare benefits are a better income than minimum wage jobs in most states. All this information is based on a 2013 CATO institute study. This article has two glaring problems. Firstly it has unverified assumptions, which are both inaccurate and offensive, and uses these assumptions to over exaggerate the problem. Secondly it oversimplifies, ignores impending reality and distorts the conversation on the topic of government safety net programs with sensationalist garbage. Short version over.
Long Version Begins.
So the sourcing for the YoungCons article is from 2013 and the study, which is the only source, made a minor splash in 2013. However in case anyone is lost in time it is 2015. These guys are digging up old crap to fulfill whatever propaganda requirement they need to fill. So at the least, they weren't aware of the sources origin and the response to it, and at most, just drugging up old information to try and affect the 2016 election cycle. The date had me conflicted, yes they published it this week, but the original information is old and well covered. If they were going to dig up old crap to make it seem new, I felt it my responsibility to bring up facts and quash the stupidity.
So onto the meat and potatoes of my argument.
YoungCons is a disgusting mouthpiece to republish conservative propaganda with a hip young face on it. Their website and authors are worthless and should be ignored at all costs. So instead of focusing on their crap article I am going to focus on the main, and only, source of the article in question. The CATO institute, in 2013, conducted a study comparing the welfare benefits in each states to the minimum wage. We can discuss the CATO institute in a later post, but the study is clearly biased in its premise. There are so many things wrong with this CATO study I am only going to touch on a few.
Anyone who has read any academic research, beyond the executive summary, knows to take a brief look at the methodology. Firstly they use 7 different welfare programs to create their entire welfare 'package'. Very few people apply for all these befits and MEDICAID is included which encompasses large portions of the estimated cost of welfare benefits. MEDICAID is open to more than just unemployed welfare recipients and its inclusion in the 'welfare income' negates any objectivity in the study.
Secondly they consider an 'average welfare family', a single mother with two children, with no evidence to support that is statistically important to their research. Another program used in the study is SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to ten minutes of research, less than half of recipients had children had children. So the 'average welfare family' should not receive SNAP as half of recipients don't have children. And I'm sure with any basic research the 'average welfare family' concept would quickly fall apart. You can't use the 'average' and then use the maximum benefits, it is contradictory. And if that word is too big, its just stupid.
So I can continue from there but it can be assumed that the study, the organization and their assumptions are poorly done.
So the second major problem is, the conversation pieces like this attempt to stifle, Welfare, essentially paying people to not work, is understandably unpopular with those of us that work full time. The problem is that the future of government benefits and welfare need to be discussed with a more future minded focus. Given the current state and foreseeable future of the economy, i.e. the amount of workers needed will decrease as the amount of automation increases, It is easy to blast welfare recipients as lazy but as the future becomes reality, we need to address that universal employment may no longer be a reality.
I am by no means a fan of large entitlements to those that don't deserve it. Welfare programs should be attached to educational and job creation programs and have requirements for continuous effort to find employment or further education.
Welfare and any program that helps to assist the lower class is good for society. Income inequality in this country continues to rise, which is not a good indicator. A strong middle class is the cornerstone for a strong society and we are watching it fade away. The rich continue to get richer, all while convincing the poor and middle class to rally against their own interests.
The question of welfare isn't easy, cannot be answered quickly but needs to be discussed rationally. Allowing bigotry, ancient economic theories and vested political and economic issues run the conversation only serves
I am by no means a fan of large entitlements to those that don't deserve it. Welfare programs should be attached to educational and job creation programs and have requirements for continuous effort to find employment or further education.
Welfare and any program that helps to assist the lower class is good for society. Income inequality in this country continues to rise, which is not a good indicator. A strong middle class is the cornerstone for a strong society and we are watching it fade away. The rich continue to get richer, all while convincing the poor and middle class to rally against their own interests.
The question of welfare isn't easy, cannot be answered quickly but needs to be discussed rationally. Allowing bigotry, ancient economic theories and vested political and economic issues run the conversation only serves
