Male Povery and Welfare Reform

[DemSigns]

And Now, 'Welfare Reform' for Men

And Now, 'Welfare Reform' for Men

By Lawrence Mead
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; A19

Reforms in the 1990s shifted more than 60 percent of mothers off the welfare rolls, mostly into jobs. The changes used both "help and hassle" -- new subsidies for wages and child care coupled with stiffer demands to work as a condition of aid. So, how could we do the same for low-income men?

Low-income men, often the absent fathers of welfare families, got little attention from the reforms because they are seldom on welfare themselves. Like mothers on welfare, they seldom work regularly, and this helps to keep families poor. In 2005, there were more than 7 million poor men ages 16 to 50 in the United States, and only half of them worked at all. Among black men in poverty, nearly two-thirds were idle, and their employment has fallen steadily in recent decades.

...

Mandatory work for 1.5 million men would cost $2 billion to $5 billion a year. In return, governments would collect more in child support and spend less on incarceration. Prison is hugely expensive -- in 2005, the average state cost per inmate was $25,487. Prison work programs could more than fund themselves if they functioned well enough that more ex-offenders could be released early.

The nation needs work requirements not just for mothers on welfare but for nonworking men who owe debts to society. Like welfare reform, that policy might appear severe, but its aim is integration. Through steadier work, these men can come in from the cold.

[Faux pas]

1. Sounds like a great idea! It would help all the way around.

They should have thought of this long ago. K-ing and R-ing.

[Naturyl]

6. You must be smoking something, too.

What the OP proposes IS SLAVERY. You think that's a good idea deserving of a K&R? As Mike Gravel might say, "my god, stop and think." You sure you want to endorse this?

[Extend a Hand]

2. sounds like a precursor to debtor's prison

I just don't know about that. So if a man gets in debt he might be required to work at some government specified job? I'd be extremely leery of such a program. Sounds like guaranteed cheap labor for our corporate overlords.

[Daedelus76]

3. I don't favor "workfare"

because invariably it becomes a system to enrich corporations and small business, especially ones dependent on service workers. They don't have to bother paying a living wage, then, they can just hire somebody who is on workfare.

Much better to just give people money and access to vocational and educational resources. Perhaps if a person has child support and alimony payments to make, then maybe we can start talk about work requirements. But simply to punish somebody for being poor, is wrong.

At some point the concept of the negative income tax is going to have to come up. There just aren't enough jobs out there to support everybody at a living wage

[Naturyl]

7. The main objection to mandatory work of any kind is...

IT's SLAVERY, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Jeez... sorry to go off my meds here, but I really don't get how anyone at DU can even discuss this idea. It's just so obviously wrong. And it's not that it's impractical (although it is) - that's an issue of virtually no significance in comparison to the overwhelming MORAL issue - forced work is wrong!

Even if this would work perfectly and completely eliminate all poverty, it would be WRONG.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

8. I don't want to give any able-bodied healthy person money who can work

and find a job. And if he can't find a job, we should have better government resources to help. That money is better spent on education, healthcare, childcare, infrastructure, finding answers to global warming, etc.

And, yes, the minimum wage should be raised, but it's not practical to expect that a family of four, for instance, will be supported on minimum wage. Two workers should be able to support a family of four ABOVE the poverty level on minimum wage (and not the ridiculously low poverty level the government now uses) if we have things like childcare and healthcare. Single parents will need help, but with more and more single parent homes, I don't think it's practical to think that minimum wage will lift them out of poverty. If my daughter actually made a living wage at the coffee shop where she works, the coffee shop would have to close down because no one could afford the coffee.

[Naturyl]

10. What's the difference between you saying

"I don't want to give any able-bodied healthy person money who can work and find a job" and the Republican position on welfare?

Does the difference lie in "more assistance finding jobs?" I don't think it can. Putting aside the fact that it's just a more palatable way to say "forced work," Republicans have been on board with that sort of thing for years. And how is "finding answers to global warming" going to feed someone who is hungry? Global warming is definitely a serious problem, but we're talking about poverty here - and specifically the question of whether forced work (of any kind) is a morally acceptable solution.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

12. So you are saying that an abled bodied person who "can" work but doesn't want

to should be supported by our taxes with a guaranteed living income?

Ridiculous.

No one should be forced to work at a PARTICULAR job, but if he doesn't want to work and jobs are available but he doesn't want to take them, he can live under a bridge. Yes, I did say that.

By the way, I don't include people with mental illness in that category. I realize mental illness is a problem with many homeless people, and the way we treat people with mental illness in this country is a disgrace.

[Naturyl]

15. Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.

I'm saying that we need to make a commitment that NO ONE will go homeless or hungry in this country for ANY reason whatsoever, and until we do that, we aren't going to make any serious progress on poverty.

This issue of people being unwilling to tolerate a few "free riders" is precisely what fueled the GOP "welfare queen" ploy of the 80's and it is precisely what is continuing to make welfare a losing issue for Democrats.

Go ahead and call it "ridicuous." I've been advocating for this for years and I'm used to that. All highly progressive ideas are seen that way at first, and I understand that it is to be expected.

[Nikia]

4. I can see a few reasons for men being idle poor

Many employers do not hire undesireable applicants under any circumstances. Undesireable applicants include those who use or have used drugs (hence drug tests for employment), been fired from multiple jobs, have been incarerated for some or any offenses, have not held a job for a period of time, or a varity of other reasons. Men may be unwilling to do hard work for low wages. Men also seem to be more suseptible to dropping out of the work force entirely or willfully being underemployed when they have experienced employment hardship perhaps because of how men and boys are socialized. I do think that there should be programs for men who may need help entering or reentering the workforce. These programs should serve both particuliar groups such as men who have recently been released from prision or sought drug treatment as well as organizations that help all people who have had chronic employment problems.

[Naturyl]

5. "Mandatory work?" Are you out of your mind?

I can't believe I'm reading this. SLAVERY is not a viable solution to any problem! That isn't how you address this issue. This is apalling and has no place at DU or even Free Republic. Its only legitimate place is at Auschwitz and Treblinka. That is how strongly I oppose this idea.

The proper, humane, effective, and civilized solution to poverty is a Gauranteed Minimum Income program, not "forced work." Outrageous!

[midlife_mo_Jo]

9. Guaranteed income for someone who can't work or unwilling to work?

[Naturyl]

11. The question contradicts the meaning of "gauranteed"

Gauranteed minimum income. Period. For all American citizens who need it, no questions asked.

That's what I favor. Given the politcal will, we could pass it tomorrow and wipe out poverty in this country instantly and permanently.

Using a "negative income tax" system, the entire program would cost about $60 billion a year. That's a tenth of the Pentagon budget.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

13. No questions asked? Need or want?

I do believe you have reacted to the republican talking points by moving completely in the opposite direction.

Why in the HELL should we pay a guaranteed minimum income to people who WON'T work?

So they can loafe around and smoke weed? So they can stay home and work on their "art?" So they can sit at the beach all day? That is what you are saying. Guaranteed. No questions asked. Available jobs beneath them so we're all suppose to support them? No thanks. If my daughter can do menial work at a coffee shop, so can most other healthy persons.

Do you really think most Americans would support this kind of "progressive" - cough, cough - idea?

IMO, progressive ideas are healthcare, childcare, education, public transportation, higher minimum WAGE, guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed paid time off to care for babies and sick family members, higher living incomes to those who can't work due to disabilities, physical or mental illness, or being caretakers to people in those categories, education programs for those who can't find work or whose jobs have been displaced, affordable higher education, money spent on the environment, etc.

Some people act like they're allergic to the concept of work. Too bad.

[Naturyl]

14. Bill Kristol couldn't have said it better.

Sorry to pull that out, but there it is. What's the difference between the lecture above and what I might get at Free Republic?

Yes, a gauranteed minimum income with no questions asked is exactly what I'm proposing. And no, I don't think most Americans are ready for it at all. But with any luck, they will be eventually. In the meantime, somebody has to advocate for it.

With all due respect, what you've just spouted at me is nothing but the legacy of the Reagan era and decades of media and cultural indoctrination.

Believe me, a guaranteed minimum income is a VERY progressive idea. It doesn't get much more progressive than saying "we will not allow anyone to go hungry or homeless for ANY reason." In fact, it's a little too progressive even for most of the progressive community.

But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. 100 years from now, this will be mainstream. But for now, I'll keep crying out in the wilderness.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

16. Sure Bill Kristol agrees wtih all of this:

"MO, progressive ideas are healthcare, childcare, education, public transportation, higher minimum WAGE, guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed paid time off to care for babies and sick family members, higher living incomes to those who can't work due to disabilities, physical or mental illness, or being caretakers to people in those categories, education programs for those who can't find work or whose jobs have been displaced, affordable higher education, money spent on the environment, etc. "

Show me where Reagan agreed with the above. Show me where Kristol agrees with the above. Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't make me a freeper, and you DAMN well know it. The fact is that I support progressive ideas, not pie-in-the-sky ideas. "Oh, gee. My job isn't fullfilling, and I'm only making a little more than the taxpayer's living income, so I think I'll stay home" is not my idea of progressive. It's stupid. (Hey, if you can compare me to Reagan and Kristol, I figure I can throw that in there.)

[Naturyl]

17. I didn't say you were a freeper.

And no, Kristol wouldn't agree with the part you quoted. But he WOULD agree with your points about how people who refuse to work can go live under a bridge and so forth, and that's something you know damn well.

Like I said, go ahead and call it stupid. "Ridiculous" would have sufficed, but adding "stupid" in there is no biggie. I'm used to all of that. But the fact is, I support never allowing anyone to go homeless or hungry for ANY reason, and you do not support that. I'm quite satisfied with where I'm standing on this issue. Maybe you are too, and that's fine.

If you can justify letting your own ideas about morality and the "work ethic" dictate whether people live or die, that's your business. Personally, my conscience doesn't allow me to rationalize letting anyone fall by the wayside - even those who might not share my values.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

18. My morality would never dictate whether people live or die

If someone chooses not to work who can truly work, they can go to a homeless shelter and visit a food pantry. My conscience is absolutely clear that I would be in no way responsible for someone choosing not to work WHO IS CAPABLE OF WORKING. I am talking about a person who is making a deliberate choice not to work - not a choice hindered by a disability, a disabled loved one, mental illness, lack of jobs, etc. That is his/her choice, and no amount of guilt tripping is going to make me feel responsible.

We don't need a bunch of people living at the beach on the government dole for a few years until they decide to grow up. No thanks. That's not how I envision our taxes promoting the common welfare. If we have that much money, how about let's sending that money to some truly poor people in Africa? Most people in this world are not truly poor by choice.

And by the way, you asked what was the difference between my lecture above and someone at Free Republic. In fact, I would say there is a world of difference in my response. You chose not to see it, however.

[Naturyl]

19. Let's examine your words

"And by the way, you asked what was the difference between my lecture above and someone at Free Republic. In fact, I would say there is a world of difference in my response."

"We don't need a bunch of people living at the beach on the government dole for a few years until they decide to grow up. No thanks."

--------------------------

No "world of difference" in that part, though, is there? And that's the only part that is relevant to this discussion.

Like I said, if you don't think that every human being is entitled to the basic necessities of life, that's your decision. For me, allowing anyone to go hungry or homeless is not acceptable. For you, it is. No amount of rationalization or spin is going to make that go away.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

20. I absolutely believe everyone is entitled to the basic necessities of life

For those who can't acquire those through work, we should be compassionate enough to provide them. That's not rationalization. That's simple common sense.

You believe in rewarding irresponsibility. That is where we differ. However, I suspect that you don't think living on the dole BY CHOICE is irresponsible, and is just another choice in life. C'est la vie. I say if we have gotten to the point where we can grant a living income to people who choose not to work, we should instead be using that money for the truly starving people in this world. Contrary to some opinions, resources are finite.

[Naturyl]

21. Everyone means everyone, right?

If "everyone" is entitled to the basic necessities of life, then it's not possible to support denying anyone those necessities for any reason, including personal choice. "Entitled" means "owed" - if everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, then they have a right to them and we do not have a right to attach conditions, caveats, or strings.

I think what you may have meant to say is that "everyone --deserving-- is entitled to the basic necessities of life." And that's a very different statement, of course.

"Irresponsibility" is a value judgement. Others may not share your values, or mine. I do not believe that law-abiding citizens are obligated to spend their lives doing things they do not wish to do. If you're interested, my views on why people should not be forced to choose between employment and homelessness are outlined in this essay:

http://naturyl.humanists.net/work.html

For the record, I can respect your point about using resources to help other starving people. It shows a genuine concern with poverty, which is admirable. But I don't think people here in our own nation should have to suffer simply because they do not share mainstream values about employment. Don't Americans come first in America?

That said, I'd definitely like to see a program to wipe out Third World poverty as well - and I'd like to see it structured the same way, as an unconditional income grant. Resources are finite, but we do have the money to get these things done if people who have been fortunate are willing to sacrifice.

None of it will happen today or next year, of course. But as technology continues to liberate resources and develop economies, I think we are going to gradually and incrementally move toward a world where every human being is gauranteed the right to a decent standard of living, no strings attached. And I can't imagine a much better world than that.