From: Clay Olbon II <olbon@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:10:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961127210637.006e33c4@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> wrote:
>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.

Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The
Detroit News).  The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies
from state to state, I remember that number as being about average.
 
>> >> 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?

You got me there :-)

>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 don't mind helping my neighbors.  Of course, they live next door and I
know them!  The problem is that the welfare creates a system where behaviour
that is generally bad for society is subsidized.  The incentives are all
wrong.  And no, I don't think the minimum wage should be increased either.
Increasing the minimum wage at a time when you are pushing people off of
welfare is the wrong action, because it decreases the number of jobs
available.  

        Clay
*******************************************************
Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
**********************************************tanstaafl