I understood your post. Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment. I was simply stating that our economy isn't currently structured for full employment. It hasn't been since the end of the WWII era. There are demand gaps and structural unemployment built into the economy which have to be addressed if we expect to move forward in any meaningful fashion as a country. In other words, until we create some type of national employment buffer stock, there will continue to be unemployment problems.
I do agree that there's a social stigma attached to be on welfare and unemployed.
"Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment."
Now, why would you claim that....when item #4 in the OP
clearly proves that the opposite is true.
Tends to remove any possibility that you have cachet or expertise in the area.
No, it doesn't prove anything. I'm more than familiar with Robert Rector and the Heritage Foundation. I read that paper years ago, it's full of problems to say the least. Remember, correlation is not causation.
HereÂ’s the problem: There arenÂ’t enough available job openings for the current number of people looking for jobs. WeÂ’re not even factoring in the disabled, elderly or discouraged workers. If the government were to toss these people off welfare, the number of job seekers would massively increase in an economy which isn't creating a sufficient amount of jobs. The problem isnÂ’t people dropping out of the labor force, but rather an economy which is structurally not equipped to create more jobs. In other words, welfare isnÂ’t acting as some disincentive to find a job. Welfare is basically functioning as supplementary income for people who cannot secure employment due to changes and the overall structure of the labor market.
Nonsense.
Covered in chapter five of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”
1. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money. In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.
2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.
3. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population
stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf
a. By 1991, this number was down to only one thirdÂ….and only
11% working full time.
Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.
4. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with
government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.
5. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or
SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
a. Further results:
dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.
Perhaps you'd best stick to 'wax on, wax off.'
