Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Wages or Welfare?

According to Michael Tanner at Cato Institute:
(S)omeone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare.That’s more than the average statewide entry-level salary for a teacher.

Plus, going to work means added costs such as paying for child care, transportation and clothing.Not to mention that, even if it’s not a money-loser, a person moving from welfare to work will see some form of loss — namely, less time for leisure as opposed to work.
Of course, life is better yet in Paradise:
the wage-equivalent value of benefits for a mother and two children (has) a high of $60,590 in Hawaii
Do tell. Good for us.

The churls at Cato point out:
To be clear: There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy. Indeed, surveys of them consistently show their desire for a job. But they’re also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work.

While this makes sense for them in the short term, it may actually hurt them over the long term.
When did that ever stop the bleeders from encouraging disfunctional behavior?

My enlightened opinion: If you want less of something, stop subsidizing it. Stop subsidizing bastardy and you will get less of it. I bet a lot less. Stop subsidizing teenage retirement, and you will get less of it. A lot less.

And if we were to stop subsidizing unwed parenthood, more people would either get married or at least not bring fatherless children into the world.

That might even reduce the astonishing crime rate.

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home