From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:45:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Clay Olbon II <olbon@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961127200939.006d71c0@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961127123103.550D-100000@kinch.ark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> 
> The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the
> other myriad programs) is $10/hr.  Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr.
> Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your
> face.  (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several
> $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled).

I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts.
My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it
sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that
minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least
it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out. 
> 
> >> More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
> >> motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  
> >
> >But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black
> 
> I don't claim to know the motives.  I am examining empirical evidence.  As

Sure you do: "economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
going to work". It seems to me that you are claiming their motives are
econmic, is there some other way we should read that sentence?

> the welfare benefit increases, more go on welfare, as it decreases, less go
> on welfare.  Someone is making economic decisions, consciously or
> unconsciously.  

It takes an awful lot to prove a causal relationship, empirical evidence
notwithstanding. You haven't made your case, as far as I am concerned
(not that you need to convince me), there are a myriad of other factors
involved. I have no doubt that given two (or three) poor choices, most
will choose the lesser evil and that *may* mean choosing welfare over
working, but I seriously doubt that this is anything but a small
minority of the cases of people who are actually using the system.

You suggest that what ought to be done is give less welfare. If your
thesis is correct, I suggest that better paying jobs is the real answer
(assuming you agree that minimum wage is too little for most to live
on). Shrinking welfare payouts may serve to get people off welfare but
it won't make it any easier to live on low wages. We DO have a duty to
help our neighbours, do we not? Or has greed taken over entirely?

I repeat, however, I do not know enough about your system and I am going
to just shut up about it now.

cheers, kinch