On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:55:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

>Nancy Young wrote:
>> Meghan Noecker wrote:
>>
>>> The welfare system actually holds people down even though it is
>>> intended to be a helping hand. I wish it were more of a hand up
>>> instead of a hand out. Help people with eductaion, job training,
>>> cooking classes, finance classes, etc, And have limits so that people
>>> know they really must get off the system. And once they were free of
>>> the system, they could really be proud of themselves.
>>
>> They imposed time limits on welfare eligibility in the 90s in NJ.
>> You have a 5 year lifetime cap. When it was put into effect, there
>> were job training programs to help people get back into the work
>> force, which is ongoing.
>
>Few object to a hand up. Many object to a hand out. Is it really
>better to support a family forever on taxes than to let them sink or
>swin? Which is more beneficial to society in the long run? No easy
>questions to answer.
>
>The simplist approach would seem to be to reduce benefit payments by
>$0.50 for every earned $1.00. It means any attempt at work that
>produces pay helps the recpient. Even a minimum wage job improves their
>life. I've never quite gotten why that's not the standard practice.


Same here. If somebody works, they lose that amount of pay from the
benefits. So, unless they earn more than the welfare payment, there is
no gain. And if they spent money on travel expenses (gas or bus) and
had to pay for childcare, then they had a net loss, possibly a large
loss. In terms of finances and now, then it makes more sense to stay
home and take the welfare.

Since a lot of people on welfare are not likely to get hired at a full
time good paying job, it is simply not realistic to expect them to
start off with a job that pays higher than welfare. That works for
people who had a good job, lost it, and can get a new good job. But
for the tons of people with no specialized skills, it is not
practical.

It is also teh reason than many people will accept unemployment until
it almost runs out. They won't bother to apply for lower paying jobs
because they can get more via unemployment. So, they only accept the
plower job when it is financially better than the welfare or
unemployment payments.

here in il and i think other states welfare is reimbursed partly but the
point is well taken, Lee
"Meghan Noecker" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:55:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > wrote:
>
>>Nancy Young wrote:
>>> Meghan Noecker wrote:
>>>
>>>> The welfare system actually holds people down even though it is
>>>> intended to be a helping hand. I wish it were more of a hand up
>>>> instead of a hand out. Help people with eductaion, job training,
>>>> cooking classes, finance classes, etc, And have limits so that people
>>>> know they really must get off the system. And once they were free of
>>>> the system, they could really be proud of themselves.
>>>
>>> They imposed time limits on welfare eligibility in the 90s in NJ.
>>> You have a 5 year lifetime cap. When it was put into effect, there
>>> were job training programs to help people get back into the work
>>> force, which is ongoing.
>>
>>Few object to a hand up. Many object to a hand out. Is it really
>>better to support a family forever on taxes than to let them sink or
>>swin? Which is more beneficial to society in the long run? No easy
>>questions to answer.
>>
>>The simplist approach would seem to be to reduce benefit payments by
>>$0.50 for every earned $1.00. It means any attempt at work that
>>produces pay helps the recpient. Even a minimum wage job improves their
>>life. I've never quite gotten why that's not the standard practice.
>
>
> Same here. If somebody works, they lose that amount of pay from the
> benefits. So, unless they earn more than the welfare payment, there is
> no gain. And if they spent money on travel expenses (gas or bus) and
> had to pay for childcare, then they had a net loss, possibly a large
> loss. In terms of finances and now, then it makes more sense to stay
> home and take the welfare.
>
> Since a lot of people on welfare are not likely to get hired at a full
> time good paying job, it is simply not realistic to expect them to
> start off with a job that pays higher than welfare. That works for
> people who had a good job, lost it, and can get a new good job. But
> for the tons of people with no specialized skills, it is not
> practical.
>
> It is also teh reason than many people will accept unemployment until
> it almost runs out. They won't bother to apply for lower paying jobs
> because they can get more via unemployment. So, they only accept the
> plower job when it is financially better than the welfare or
> unemployment payments.
>

Meghan Noecker wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>The simplist approach would seem to be to reduce benefit payments by
>>$0.50 for every earned $1.00. It means any attempt at work that
>>produces pay helps the recpient. Even a minimum wage job improves their
>>life. I've never quite gotten why that's not the standard practice.
>
> Since a lot of people on welfare are not likely to get hired at a full
> time good paying job, it is simply not realistic to expect them to
> start off with a job that pays higher than welfare. That works for
> people who had a good job, lost it, and can get a new good job. But
> for the tons of people with no specialized skills, it is not
> practical.

In a down economy it is not practical for people on unemployment either.
There's a conundrum in the design of unemployment - It's intended that
people on unemployment take jobs similar to the one they lost but for
many there are no such jobs anywhere.

> It is also the reason than many people will accept unemployment until
> it almost runs out. They won't bother to apply for lower paying jobs
> because they can get more via unemployment. So, they only accept the
> lower job when it is financially better than the welfare or
> unemployment payments.

When you've spent decades building your career I sympathize. By the
time the unemployment runs out the choice becomes go into business for
yourself or take any job you can find. When the times turn bad tons of
people start businesses out of desparation. Some go completely bust
others thrive and fuel the growth in the cycle economic cycle.

On 2011-09-07, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> people on unemployment take jobs similar to the one they lost but for
> many there are no such jobs anywhere.

Much of this is due to the fact jobs during the last boom cycle (dot
com) became absurdly unrealistic. I knew twenty-something secrataries
pulling down 60K yr 2 yrs outta comm colledge and one buddy with a 2
yr degree was getting $120K fer babysitting a govt server terminal.
My buddy was horrified when his job went away and he lost $300K
starting his own business, then hadda settle going back to IT work at
half his former pay.

People who were lucky enough to get those high paying jobs also spent
like the sky was raining money, buying 2.5K sq ft cathedral ceiling
homes and 2 $30-40K cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. Worse, the economy
ratcheted up to take advantage of the craziness. All of a sudden new
cars were no longer $5K, but $30K!, homes no longer $75K, but $350K!!
Now, that half pay job you hadda settle for after a 1 yr search wasn't
enough to even pay taxes.

Welcome to hard times.

nb