1996-12-04 - Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy

Header Data

From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
To: Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com>
Message Hash: b7ba2ac4765f61a6dafe5dd3b97eda4b94688454acc42a7396edfb68d95e1bfa
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961203174456.15900B-100000@kinch.ark.com>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-04 01:48:55 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:48:55 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:48:55 -0800 (PST)
To: Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961203174456.15900B-100000@kinch.ark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

I hardly want to be known as the champion of welfare, despite my recent
posts ;-( I wonder, however, if these figures are to some large extent a
result of health care benefits (presumedly) being paid for whereas
ordinary folk in the states do not get such access.

Assuming these figures are accurate, there does appear to be a problem!
While I do believe that most people would rather work than not, there
really should not be any financial incentive to chose welfare over
honest work. FWIW, I don't *believe* these figures are representative of
Canadian welfare roles as we all get (more or less) free health care to
begin with, something I and most Canadians are proud of.

(Once again, I am back on cypherpunks talking about non-crypt related
subjects. This is my last public posting on this subject.)

cheers, kinch

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Jeff Ubois wrote:

> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 18:41:02 -0800
> From: Jeff Ubois <jubois@netcom.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy
> The numbers quoted in the press were based on a study by the Cato Institute,
> "The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare
> Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman,
> September, 1995.  It's at 
> <http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html>.  
> Extracts: 
> * To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would
> have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in
> Mississippi.
> * In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
> Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour
> job--or more than two and a half times the minimum wage. 
> * In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states
> the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job.
> * Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare
> provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York
> City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit.
> * In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a
> teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a
> secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in
> the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
> computer programmer.
> At 01:27 AM 12/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
> >At 4:06 PM -0500 11/27/96, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> >>At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>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.
> >
> >I can confirm the gist of Clay's point: I saw a table listing "effective
> >hourly welfare pay" for the 50 states and D.C. This was in the "San Jose
> >Mercury News," at least 8-10 months ago (and presumably elsewhere, as it
> >was a major story). I used it in one of my articles, and gave the reference
> >then (sorry, not handy, and my own welfare rate does not pay me enough to
> >spend hours sifting through past articles for something so minor, an old
> >cite, that is).
> >

Key fingerprint =  CE 54 C3 93 48 C0 74 A0  D5 CA F8 3E F9 A3 0B B7