When Welfare "Pays Better Than" Work - the Newest Welfare Queen Myth by CATO Institute

[RadiationTherapy]

The welfare wars are about to pick up in the news, social media, and ALL-CAPS COMMENTS everywhere. My question:

If welfare is attached to cost of living and welfare and wages begin to draw close or invert, is that a problem with welfare being too high or wages being too low? Why is this the welfare recipients' faults?

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-welfare-pays-better-work

"Welfare is slightly more generous in Connecticut, where benefits are worth $38,761; a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn $21.33 per hour to be better off. And in New Jersey, a worker would have to make $20.89 to beat welfare.

Nationwide, our study found that the wage-equivalent value of benefits for a mother and two children ranged from a high of $60,590 in Hawaii to a low of $11,150 in Idaho. In 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states and DC, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job.

Of course, not everyone on welfare gets all seven of the benefits in our study. But, for many recipients — particularly the “long-term” dependents — welfare clearly pays substantially more than an entry-level job.

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."

[RockaFowler]

1. I would like to know how anyone can live on Food Stamps alone

Do these people even understand what they write anymore?? My husband was on unemployment for awhile (2 years to be exact) and we could hardly get by with that $500 every 2 weeks. Are these people insane?? Don't you think people would rather have a job that actually gives them real money so they can buy what they want and not have to live paycheck to paycheck!! Or month to month.

[tsuki]

2. They haven't renamed it the Koch Institute yet? Or how

about Sociopaths 'R Us? Night of the Living Brain Dead? A Paler Shade of White?

[reformist2]

3. I'm sure it does in many cases - this only makes our case for a living wage!

Any time people focus (accurately) on the working poor, it can only help our cause, imo. I would simply turn around the Cato Institute spin - simply ask how it is at all acceptable for us as a society to let someone who works full time receive $15,000 a year in wages - which is what you get if you make minimum wage. The more you think about how little money that is, the more it feels like we're living in 1913, not 2013.

[ejpoeta]

4. like i said in another post about a facebook post claiming that

welfare recipients in 11 states get the equivalent of $30/hr. which is of course bullshit. i posted a snopes link regarding this email going around. or post. or whatever it is.

[edhopper]

5. I am very sure that within

their calculations is a gross over estimation of benefits like medicaid or child assistance.

This sentence alone screams "bullshit":

"Of course, no individual or family gets benefits from all 72 programs, but many do get aid from a number of them at any point in time."

[magical thyme]

6. well, IF welfare pays more than work, there is a very simple fix...

raise minimum wage to a living wage. Then it will pay to work again. Problem solved.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. The solution to this "problem" is to raise wages.

Workers of the world unite.

[RadiationTherapy]

8. I agree. I posted this to bring that realization to the fronts of our minds.

I was a bit caught off this morning when I came across it on FB and had to do some research to fend the hate off.

[Zoeisright]

9. Answers to the CATO lies:

http://www.alternet.org/story/7473/hightower%3A_cato%27s_welfare_lies

http://www.acsh.org/publications/a-critical-assessment-of-lies-damned-lies-400000-smoking-related-deaths-by-robert-levy-and-rosalind-marimont-published-in-regulation-fall-1998/

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-flawedcato.htm

[hunter]

10. I think good government jobs and welfare should compete directly with the crappiest jobs out there.

Society should make it easy for a low wage worker to tell an abusive boss "Take this job an shove it!"

Companies that currently pay less than living wages to workers they abuse couldn't survive. To attract workers they'd have to increase wages and improve working conditions.

That would be a positive thing for society in general.

[RadiationTherapy]

11. We need something. 70% of workers are emotionally disconnected from work.

20% are actively sabotaging their workplace.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/70_percent_of_americans_emotionally_disconnected_at_work_partner/

[winter is coming]

15. That sort of thing can happen when you treat people like disposable machine parts. n/t

[RadiationTherapy]

16. Absolutely. The departure of business and corporations from responsibility to community

has devastated this country.

[Marrah_G]

12. The only reason they can get those numbers is to add in healthcare

No one is getting rich or living well off welfare.

[JoeyT]

13. If welfare pays better than work,

it's time to raise the minimum wage by a considerable amount.

Man, it sure is awesome of CATO to make that point.

[meow2u3]

21. If welfare pays better than work

It's high time to pay workers enough money so they don't have to rely on public assistance. Problem solved, unless you're a greedy bastard who'd rather have slaves than proud workers.

[Initech]

14. Hey CATO Institute! We get paid or we don't.

So stop with this bullshit talking point of "wage equivalent" nonsense. There is no such thing! It's just another excuse for our billionaire overlords not to pay us sustainable wages.

[PETRUS]

17. You might like this:

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

(I found it posted on DU here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10243604)

It's sort of an oblique response to your OP, but it establishes some needed context for the welfare/work discussion.

[RadiationTherapy]

19. Yeah, I have read and shared that one. You guessed correctly. I definitely agree.

[alp227]

18. the think tank formerly known as the Charles Koch Foundation is right with civil liberties,

PERVERSELY wrong on welfare state issues.

[meow2u3]

20. CATO Institute = Koch Bros. propaganda

The only way welfare would pay better than work is if work pays so little that the money you have left over after taxes and transportation expenses amount to practically nothing. That's because welfare is not as generous as the Kochroaches and RWNJ's would have you believe.

[jmowreader]

22. I looked into this, and it's really heavily distorted

Second paragraph: "...in the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities would have a package of benefits worth $38,004."

Problem 1: TANF. Apparently the word "temporary" doesn't mean the same thing to us that it does to Cato. Here are the TANF work requirements, right off the federal government's website:

Highlights of TANF
Work Requirements:
With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
To count toward a State’s work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six. Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.
Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefits.
States cannot penalize single parents with a child under six for failing to meet work requirements if they cannot find adequate child care.
States must engage a certain percentage of all families and of two-parent families in work activities or face financial penalty. These required State work participation rates are 50 percent overall and 90 percent for two-parent families; however, States can reduce the targets they must meet with a caseload reduction credit. For every percentage point a State reduces its caseload below its FY 2005 level (without restricting eligibility), the credit reduces the States target participation rate by one percentage point.

Second problem: SNAP benefits can be received by people who have income. So can food stamps, WIC, public housing and utility assistance.

Third problem: the New York State free commodities program isn't available to people on WIC.

I found out also that the TANF benefit, which can only be received for two years anyway, is $300 for "recurring needs," $53 for energy assistance and then a chunk of your rent which can be between $250 and $450 depending on where in New York you live. And if you run into money, they want it back...figure on signing over your tax refunds and lottery winnings for the rest of your life if you accept TANF.

So let's see...working a low-paying job gives you access to almost all the benefits an unemployed welfare recipient gets (and remember, none of those benefits are available to you if you are able-bodied and childless) but the employed person makes more money because jobs do that. So who's stupid, the person who applies for all these benefits or the dumbass at the Cato Institute who wasted all those ones and zeros writing this?

[hfojvt]

23. I see one fairly large problem with their methodology

They calculate the cash value of medicaid.

For Kansas, they figure this as the equivalent of $8,467 worth of insurance premiums. Their total for benefits in Kansas is $30,826.
So medicaid is 27% of the total.

Probably close to that in most other states too, although oddly low in California.

This ignores the fact that for many people, they do not pay for all or most of their insurance premiums. For example, at my job, a family health insurance policy costs $1,292.39 a month. However, the employer pays $969.29 of that. So the employee is only paying $323.1 for health insurance or $3,877.20 per year, less than half of what they estimate.

And, thanks to IRS regulations, that $3,877.20 can be pre-tax. That is, the employee pays ZERO FICA taxes and Zero federal or state income taxes on that $3,877.20 - a tax savings of at least $295.

[otohara]

24. Trashing The Disabled Is In Vogue Too

we're the takers, not the tax exempt Koch Bros and Walmart family.

[RadiationTherapy]

26. My father is blind and my brother is disabled from high radiation doses for cancer in his 20s.

They are both on disability and in poverty and hearing people bash disability payments takes me out of my head completely. My brother lives in a shack with no water and tilted floors. It would probably be condemned if anyone knew.

[hfojvt]

25. another thing they note is the decline in the value of TANF

compared to 1995, TANF benefits are down by 30 to 40% in many states, except in Maryland where they are exceptionally low and they went up by 2% (but are still exceptionally low $565 a month compared to $628 in Wisconsin).

Speaking of Wisconsin the real value of TANF in 1995 was $781 a month and is now down a mere 20% to the $628 a month. Vermont down from $964 to $665. Minnesota down from $803 in 1995 to $532 today. And those numbers are per MONTH.

And the CBPP has reported the same thing http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022581099