Welfare pays better than teaching ???

[cx3]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-22/if-you-could-make-more-money-going-welfare-instead-working-would-you-do-it

Just want to hear what some of you think of this. I'm not trying to bait anyone.
I'm on the low income side of things. I've been unemployed for a year while actively looking for work.I just got a job at a distribution center for $11hr. I'll be working my tale off and I probably won't have it as good as the person sitting at home waiting for the welfare checks to arrive in the mail.
I'm not being judgemental. I often think that the quality of life for the welfare recipient may be better than my own and I'm a little jealous. For example,I often drive by a pizza place that builds you a pizza and you take it home to bake. They except EBT. I like their pizza,but have only eaten there once because I can't afford it.Just saying.Sometimes,the grass does look greener across the fence.

[reader99]

I suspect it's the value of the health care, Medicaid, that makes the biggest difference. When I was working and making $9.50 an hour that was great except I had no health insurance. If I'd bought health insurance it would have reduced my real standard of living well below the poverty level. For the working poor, healthcare is the big gap. Right now if I had no assets I could get Medicaid. Because I have more than $2,000 in assets, I can't. Also keep in mind that unless you have dependent children it's not a simple matter to just go sign up for welfare. The article is referring to the whole package of possible benefits to a single parent with children. That's apples and oranges to a single adult or a couple with no kids.

[Gregg]

I think reader99 is correct about it not being a straight across the board comparison. The original study (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare) was from the Cato Institute so I think you also have to consider the spin that will go along with that. The one thing I do think anyone should be able to take away from this is a sense that our priorities are mixed up. In all the years of these discussions I've never heard anyone here say that we shouldn't help someone who's in a rough spot and I believe that, too. The problem is the same as it ever was, we just don't do a good job of providing people with opportunities to get out of those rough spots. In typical American fashion we continue to treat the symptoms without ever looking for a cure for the disease.

[iris lilies]

Income payments aren't available to able bodied adults without children. Children get you that meal ticket, so I don't think that anyone is sitting around collecting the money, they've got children to care for, though they could sit around during the hours that the kids are in school.

[creaker]

Income payments aren't available to able bodied adults without children. Children get you that meal ticket, so I don't think that anyone is sitting around collecting the money, they've got children to care for, though they could sit around during the hours that the kids are in school.

Children are the primary beneficiaries of welfare. Until we start implementing policies of yanking children away from people who can't afford to raise them, or making it crime to have children you can't afford, that really needs to be a consideration.

[iris lilies]

... The original study (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare) was from the Cato Institute so I think you also have to consider the spin that will go along with that...

I hope that by "spin" you don't mean the audacity to even conduct that pricing study. ;)

[ApatheticNoMore]

If I just wanted to engage in random jealousy, quite honestly teaching also seems like the good life compared to my working for a living (summers off? What!?! I get two lousy weeks! I think I'd almost sell my soul for summers off. Meaningful work that makes a difference? Waaaa :( I have to do deeply alienated wage slavery). And frankly meaningful work that makes a difference might be even more tempting than pure idleness. All my daydreams of not having to work contain that as part of them. But my own experiences in the classroom as a kid were bad, and that's enough reason to never go back, plus not having the natural talents to deal with difficult kids which I'd expect plenty of.

But back to the actual topic: really nothing good actually comes of just being jealous for jealousies sake. It doesn't even help your situation from a direct economic analysis perspective. If you pay some income taxes (very hard to avoid entirely even at low incomes), a very very tiny miniscule portion of those taxes go to welfare. But if all those welfare recipients were in the labor market then wages (especially at the lower end) would probably fall A LOT MORE than the taxes you are paying. It's supply and demand and it's what flooded labor markets do. It's not even likely to your economic benefit to complain about welfare recipients. Very different policies than just blaming welfare recipients are needed if the point is to improve the condition of low wage earners.

And what people have said is true. Benefits of any sort for people without kids are pretty sparse (so you really have to have kids to get them - which just doesn't occur to most people if they weren't considering kids anyway).

[Zoebird]

It is important to note that the Cato Institute (whose policy papers I enjoy reading immensely) is a libertarian think tank. It's no different than "consider the source" when it comes from another political perspective. There's nothing wrong with "consider the source" as a concept. It's not necessarily cynical, it's good common sense to *always* check the source of a study. For me, it tempers the final opinion of the piece because I understand the underlying POV. And, could provide further insight into that original POV.

I do this a lot with nutritional studies; it's been like that in my life for over a decade. :) When Physicians Committed for Responsible Medicine (a vegan organization) puts forth an opinion piece and/or a student, I always "consider the source." Usually, their pieces aren't wrong, they just might not be the whole picture or their conclusion might not be exactly linear from the research. It doesn't mean it's not worth reading, or that the point isn't well taken or worthwhile to consider in terms of behavioral patterns (moving forward in diet, for example). It just means it's tempered by the source. Likewise, when I read something from the Weston A Price Foundation, I behave the exact same way.

So the same is true with political articles, because it is important to consider the source.

Now, to the point, I agree with several things:

1. I don't think it is at all linear. An individual may qualify for these benefits and therefore not those, etc.

2. Some of those prices are amazing, but cost of living does come into play. It costs a lot to live in HI as compared to other places, and so that explains why the benefits may be higher, and one would expect that -- perhaps -- other things keep pace such as what teachers earn (i'll need to read the original paper, btw, which I haven't).

3. I think that the underlying reasons for the social security net is -- most simply -- to abate poverty. As a previous poster pointed out, it does benefit children the most, and I think that's valuable. I agree that the adults in the situation can be truly and deeply annoying when they are able bodied, educated, and their children are in schooling 35 hrs a week. To be sure, one can find work -- even part time work -- which would pay well enough (particularly if you are educated or self-employed) to at least match the benefits.

I mean, I just did my business plan for our move and basically if I work 10 hours a week, I can support our family entirely: housing, food, transportation, health insurance, private education for the kiddo. Yes, living simply, but that's nothing new. So, I do get seriously peeved with the excuses that I hear about how hard it is to find meaningful work that pays enough or whatever. :P

And for that matter, DH is looking at temp position that he got through his network as a starter position for November to cover costs while I grow the business to 10 classes. The guy who is hiring him is generous and flexible about it -- if DH gets a full time position before we land, then it's no problem to just let this guy know and he can hire another temp through an agency. It's not going to be a ton of cash, but it'll definitely be enough to cover us, and the sale of the business and other savings should provide a decent buffer (even though I'd prefer not to touch it).

4. I know that it is tempting to go on benefits when you look at it from a purely cost/benefit analysis process. Personally, I find work to be valuable for me. That is, it edifies me as a person. I also like being a productive member of society who is giving back (both through financial means and through volunteering, etc), and so I'd much rather support myself frugally than go on benefits (and technically, we qualify for several benefits when we return to the US). Call it a matter of personal pride.

And honestly, I know a lot of people who feel this way -- it's truly a last resort.

5. I really think the great things about these sorts of papers is how they become great spots to talk about what living wages are (which I think is a valuable conversation), and also what people consider an appropriate amount of money to live on truly is.

6. I forgot what I was going to say now. . . LOL