> If American welfare is any indications you'll have generations of people who will live within this free money system, do nothing, learn nothing and demand more and more over time. They will all have iPhones, huge flat screen TV's and never work a day in their lives.

There has been a five-year over lifetime limit on welfare since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in '96 that replaced AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). And even before then, there was only scant evidence that such a phenomenon occurred.

Do you have a citation for that?

(EDIT: It also allowed states to redirect federal welfare funds to unrelated purposes. Try living on 110/mo in Mississippi, for example. Let alone affording an iPhone. Plus in all states, there is some work requirement. [1])

[1] http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/ea_tanf.html

Well, maybe i am wrong on it being purely a welfare effect. There are many other inputs in that system. Search youtube on how to make money for having babies as an example. Food stamps are another input. For quite some time Russian immigrants coming into Los Angeles had a reputation for piling into homes/appartments and milking every ounce of available government assistance, even to the extreme of keeping quiet when a relative died in order to retain benefits. In addition to that, they developed an extensive under the table cash black market. They would work for cash, earn government benefits, not pay taxes and make tons of money. They were quite fond of Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz. A couple of friends of mine were cops covering some of these areas of LA. They have stories that would make anyone's head spin.

My point, perhaps, is that people are resoursefull when it comes to these things and come up with amazing ways to game the system. Most recently the LAUSD has been handing out iPads to students. They quickly figured out how to unlock them. It also looks like some of them probably evaporated, surely making their way onto Craigs List or eBay.

What ends up happening is that those who actually live an honest life and end-up supporting untold layers of deadbeats created and empowered by the State.

My cop friends are Democrats to the bone but their "faith" regarding some of these programs was rocked a long time ago because they saw first hand what the programs can turn people into.

I really do want to understand your viewpoint. But in my state (Oregon) which typically ranks near the top of anti-poverty programs, the average one could receive from food stamps and welfare in a family of four is about 950 dollars per month. Assuming you were accepted (post AFDC, there's no guarantee of benefits: it's luck of the draw).

In Mississippi it's about 850 for a family of four with absolutely no income or assets (assuming you get accepted in a state that has one of the lowest acceptance rates).

Neither break 12K a year, and I honestly don't understand how that can be considered exorbitant or supporting the sort of excessive sedentary lifestyle that you suggest is common.

And I don't mean this to be offensive, but, are your cop friends sure that these "welfare" abusers that they witness aren't actually just using that as a front for an illegal pursuit (i.e. drug dealing, undeclared gifts/gambling/taxable proceeds?)

Edit: after five years of benefits, this would decrease to about 548 in Miss. and 558 in Oregon. However, I don't find either figure truly sustainable for that size of family in the long-ish term.

> And I don't mean this to be offensive, but, are your cop friends sure that these "welfare" abusers that they witness aren't actually just using that as a front for an illegal pursuit (i.e. drug dealing, undeclared gifts/gambling/taxable proceeds?)

No offense taken. The picture that was painted for me was one where a segment of welfare recipients seem to be engaged in gaming the system any way they can by tapping into every available program out there. For example, single mothers having multiple kids by different fathers because each kid represents a monthly paycheck. On top of that there's work for cash and, yes, potential criminal activity.

Does this apply to all welfare recipients? Of course not. The vast majority of them probably wish they could get out of the nightmare they fell into through whatever circumstance.

Perhaps my greater point is that simply giving money away with no goals or conditions isn't good at all. It changes the way people think and behave. The most extreme examples of this are lottery winners who's life's are ruined even after winning millions of dollars.

When it comes to welfare I am a proponent of actually investing MORE money on the poor. How? Provide them with a reasonable living wage. The condition would be that they'd have to go to school (for free). The idea is the proverbial "teach a man to fish" concept rather than giving them fish. A one to two year trade education would be a solid stepping stone from which these people could pull out of their circumstances. Of course, there are cases where this would not work. I firmly believe we have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of people who fall upon hard times and simply can't take care of themselves. We also have a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure that our help does not produce adverse effects (crime, abuse, dependency, devolution, societal decay). To be sure, the topic is wide and complex.

Do you remember where you read that most people on welfare in the US live with expensive hardware but do little work? I'm curious about different ways of providing welfare and the behaviour of people w under each.

The "welfare recipients with plasma TVs" is a common trope that comes up every election, but is (almost) entirely untrue.

I've actually lived on the wrong side of the tracks in a poverty-stricken industrial city.

The reality is that most people don't have big screen TVs. The home of the average poor person that I've seen, welfare or otherwise, is pretty damned frugal. The few that do - and they do exist - finance these luxuries via rent-to-own shops and loans.

You know you're in a poor part of town when suddenly all the payday loan places and rent-to-own places pop up.

As one might expect, these luxuries never actually last very long. Not only do these people not have the actual financial ability to afford them, but they acquired them on predatory rates (either loan or rent-to-own terms). These items are repo'ed quickly.

So, in summary, the bulk of the poor don't live on expensive hardware. There are some that (unwisely) acquire expensive hardware with the help of predatory lenders, but don't get to keep it.

The myth of the ever-idle welfare recipient, munching cheetos while hanging out in front of their big screen TV, is very much just that: a myth.

I haven't (yet) had the need to rely on government benefits, but I grew up in a rural town with a "gilded" quality of class division. The most poor people I knew would honestly save up two weeks to eat out at Subway. It gave me a lot of perspective to see that what was my staple lunch-break food could actually be a luxury to another family.

Obviously, anecdotes don't prove the point, but of the families I've known in that situation, you are completely right. They were far more focused on getting their kids to school with full stomachs than fancy electronics or other status symbols.

This is one of the arguments against Basic Income and related topics i find most biased against lower income workers.

If your goal is to make everyone work, you have to fight wealth accumulation.

You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money, so you have to keep working. Your parents made rich money? tough luck. No inheritance. Get to work.

But I have yet to hear someone propose something like that. Why would you put higher strains on poor people than on rich ones.

My 0.02$

"If your goal is to make everyone work, you have to fight wealth accumulation."

Wealth accumulation is the reason businesses thrive in the first place. Without businesses, who is going to provide jobs for those lower-income workers? The government?

"You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money"

If I knew this would happen, I would most likely move my company overseas. There is a reason IKEA is a non-profit organization and many actors renounce their European country citizenship.

"Your parents made rich money? tough luck. No inheritance. Get to work."

Now you just sound bitter and jealous.

And you sound foolish. He wasn't proposing any of these things. Read his post again, this time properly.

You are a perfect example of why I mostly stay out of HN discussions.

Because when you call people "bitter and jealous", based on misreading their post, you get called "foolish" in return?

Stop whining.