16th March 2017, 07:29 PM
|
 |
Prince of Dorkness
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Down in the valley, the valley so low
Posts: 11,826
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Squid with Goggles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anacanapuna
Why should they work for minimum wage when public assistance pays so much more?
|
Politifact rates that one as "Mostly False"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Politifact
But there's a problem: There's nothing typical about this amount because very few poor people are eligible for -- or take advantage of -- all these programs.
The Cato report acknowledges that most people won't be getting close to the $38,632. For example, welfare recipients aren't eligible for WIC benefits unless they have children under age 5. Another example: Many poor people can't get a housing subsidy -- only 1 in 4 Rhode Islanders receiving cash welfare are also receiving housing assistance.
Anticipating such criticism, Cato did another calculation, looking only at the welfare, food stamp and Medicaid programs that, they said, nearly all poor people would be eligible for. Cato found that the value of just those benefits was equivalent to being paid $17,347 a year, or $8.34 an hour.
That's a far cry from $20.83 an hour.
On the other hand, $8.34 an hour is still only 66 cents below the current Rhode Island minimum wage, with no need to punch a time clock, find child care, or arrange for transportation to and from a job.
|
Numbers may vary state-by-state, but in general, the line that the poor won't work because they make too much money doesn't pass the smell test. |
My point wasn't that welfare is a a boon. My point is that wages for all but the highly-skilled, well-educated or fortunately-sired are embarrassingly low. Single moms in my town are lucky to make between $9 and $10 an hour. Subtract cost of living and day care and you have to make a decision -- food or electricity?
|