An idea for sustainable welfare

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So the example you come up with is a dictator... nice.

Benevolent dictators are probably the ideal form of government. The problem is in getting and keeping one, power tends to corrupt people. Democracy is more of an ugly compromise.

None of that has to do with welfare though, and my opening premise that rather than giving people cash, we should be giving them assets. What ultimately determines a persons wealth in life, and ultimately their financial needs isn't how much money they have, it's how fast they can generate more money. Giving people assets that produce revenue, will ultimately get them off of assistance. Giving them nothing other than money, does nothing to change the rate at which they can produce more money, which keeps them on assistance.

...and we're back to slavery.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

When were slaves ever paid in assets?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Teikiatsu

When were slaves ever paid in assets?

Food & water, shelter, clothing, some skill sets, some even were given small stipends of cash or other recognitions for jobs well done.

Sounds familiar...

a reply to: Aazadan

Cash or assets ... it doesn't matter.

A lot of the "poor" people in our society are poor because they don't know how to manage money. Did no one read the story of the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs to you?

The goose was an asset. It was purely sustainable and provided a steady income, but the people who owned it could not manage their money and killed it. They did not manage their asset well.

How many welfare folks will be satisfied with an asset that provides them a fixed income. How long do you think it will be before some enterprising person discovers that they can cultivate the asset and deal people out of their shares for a one-time pay out that is more than the asset provides but less over the asset's lifetime? Thus, you again end up with a bunch of have nots and a few wealthy haves milking your wonderful, sustainable welfare assets.

The only way to get people off welfare is to give them incentive to get off welfare. There will also be some who will never be able to sustain themselves due to personality traits. All any nation can reasonably do is provide a social safety net (not a safety hammock) for those who need it and are willing to work their way back into society.

With that said, let's take a little trip down fantasy lane... assume for the moment there is no more welfare. Instead...

In each community, build a set of efficiency apartments. We're talking about one or two rooms plus a bath. Each one has a pull-out bed, a micro kitchen (mini-fridge and microwave) and outlets for phone, TV, all the amenities. Notice I said outlets for, not the appliance. Each apartment complex will also have a lobby... more on that later.

Allow anyone... ANYONE... to move in as long as they are not on an abuser list. No one initially is on that abuser list; only those who have been kicked out of a complex will be on the list. That right there solves the homeless problem. No questions asked, just a quick ID check and hand you the keys.

Once in, you have rules to follow. No one gets paid for general maintenance; residents are required to take turns mowing the grass, cleaning the grounds, etc. No illicit drugs and no alcohol... period. No loud noise after 10:00 PM. No overnight visitors. No felonies. No vandalism. Break the rules and you're out as fast as you got in, and your name goes on the abuser list for one year. Second offense and you made the list for 5 years. Third offense and you're out for life.

The magic happens in the lobby. There you have PCs with Internet access, and free landline phones. All of these are free to use for anyone living there. There are newspapers with want ads as well, all there to help someone find a job. There's also a van outside to take residents to and from jobs, interviews, stores, wherever (within reason) someone needs to go.

You're allowed to live there for 6 months. After six months, you can apply to stay longer if you: have a job, enroll in a training course, or enroll in a college or trade school. Training courses would be things like interview strategies, resume writing, social skills, that sort of thing, all provided on site. College/trade school courses would be restricted to fields identified as needing workers... no underwater basket weaving courses. Once completed, the six month clock starts all over again. If a person wants, they could stay for several years.

Training is free. If you have kids, free daycare in the lounge.

If you get a full time job, no more maintenance duty.

Once a week, distribute food... just the basics. You can figure in allergies, but nothing fancy. Beans, rice, bread, maybe some turkey for Thanksgiving or some ham at Christmas. Anything more is fine... if you can buy it! The same with a TV or a phone... pay the bill and you get the service, no problem. That's incentive to get a job.

Of course, for those truly disabled, amenities will have to be made.

The incentive to get back into society should be self-apparent. No one wants to live under those kind of restrictions. It's not fun to live under house rules. You can move out at any time (and even get help moving from other residents as a form of 'maintenance') and if you can't make it, move back in. If you run out of time, you have to wait three months.

It sounds expensive, but compared to what is now spent on welfare, it's pocket change. Plus you make a dent in the homeless problem, you actually both encourage and assist the indigent in getting back on their feet, and you stop the fear of success associated with welfare. Getting a job is rewarded with amenities instead of punished by removing them. One major problem welfare recipients have with getting a job is they lose so many benefits before their first paycheck comes in.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Add courses in money management and financial soundness to the list.

Then instead of the current welfare which is a bunch of managed sunsidies, make welfare a voucher that the resident is required to handle themselves like the rest of us do. It is designed to supplement their existing income, not replace it. It shrinks as the income grows until the it is gone altogether and the resident is income independent by which time the resident ought to also be no longer a resident and should be capable of holding down a life in the regular world.

This should eliminate most of the current bureaucracies surrounding most of the current welfare programs.

a reply to: ketsuko

Good idea on the financial management course!

Vouchers would be self-defeating though. The whole idea is if you want to live outside the complex, you should have to pay for it. Otherwise, it'll wind up being a welfare hammock by another name.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

It's an interesting idea, except for the bottom 10% of households. Currently there are > 10% of households on welfare.

The issue with welfare isn't how we're going to sustain it, it's how to reform it to make the people that have ambition get out of their comfort zone and make more of themselves instead of staying in the projects or section 8 with their friends and get them off of welfare.

Of course there are real economic issues that need to be addressed and societal and social issues that need to be addressed too, but that's what really needs to happen.

There are going to be people on welfare because they are happy with what welfare provides them. But welfare should be an uncomfortable experience and make people want to achieve more.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You wouldn't give them enough to be comfortable by a long shot, but the only way to learn to manage money is to have some. If they come in with nothing, they need something to manage.

So there needs to be an income cut off after which they can no longer live in the complex and that needs to be to the point where they can be making enough with enough supplement to sustain on the outside.

But money management needs to be learned by doing and I don't see how you do that without actually having your own. Maybe no supplement until they move out, but they need to have some sort of income from work of some type. Doesn't matter how much or how little in order for the money management to make sense.

a reply to: gpols

The issue with welfare isn't how we're going to sustain it, it's how to reform it to make the people that have ambition get out of their comfort zone and make more of themselves instead of staying in the projects or section 8 with their friends and get them off of welfare.

Right.

To use an analogy, you want everyone to have a bed, but if some won't provide their own (notice won't not can't) so that you have to do it for them, you want to make sure they do have a sparsely adequate bed, but you want to make sure there are just enough rocks in it to prod them to get out of it to make their own without those annoying rocks.

a reply to: ketsuko

The whole idea is to make the money precious by making them work for it. That in itself is the heart of financial management: money is worth something.

If you make money free, you encourage frivolous use of it. There's no real incentive to make the most of what you have, because someone will give you more. Even if it's a meager amount, that meager amount will be squandered and there will be cries to give more. That is exactly what has happened with the present welfare system. It, too, started off with the intent to be supplemental.

The only way to learn financial management is to reinforce the idea that money is a limited commodity. You can't reinforce that by making it a free commodity.

TheRedneck

I still maintain that the best option is to move away from currency and meet the needs directly with equipment and knowledge.

For instance, I'd much rather see someone with an actual aquaponics system than be given shares in some aquaponics company.

I'm a big fan of ideas that combine single investment events, decentralization, self sufficiency, etc.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Food & water, shelter, clothing, some skill sets, some even were given small stipends of cash or other recognitions for jobs well done.

Sounds familiar...

None of those are revenue producing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
A lot of the "poor" people in our society are poor because they don't know how to manage money. Did no one read the story of the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs to you?

A lot of society is bad at managing money, that's why we have such a debt problem in this country. The poor aren't poor because they manage money badly though. A recurring payment of 20% of your monthly income for a non shelter expense is considered financially devastating. Food alone can easily cost a person 25% of their monthly income. When you're living on $750/month, a grocery bill of under $200 is catastrophic. The sort of thing that's a major one time purchase like an engagement ring is 3 month's salary over 5 years, or 1/20 your income. The fuel bill for a car is recurring, and much higher than that.

If you're poor, there is no salvation through better money management. Poor money management might make you worse off, but good money management won't improve your situation because ordinary expenses make up too much of your income for your budget to be considered stable.

How many welfare folks will be satisfied with an asset that provides them a fixed income. How long do you think it will be before some enterprising person discovers that they can cultivate the asset and deal people out of their shares for a one-time pay out that is more than the asset provides but less over the asset's lifetime? Thus, you again end up with a bunch of have nots and a few wealthy haves milking your wonderful, sustainable welfare assets.

Easy to fix, don't let people manage it like wealthy individuals manage stock portfolios. Have a central agency do it, and dole out checks. If you let individuals manage their accounts, some are going to screw it up.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Then instead of the current welfare which is a bunch of managed sunsidies, make welfare a voucher that the resident is required to handle themselves like the rest of us do. It is designed to supplement their existing income, not replace it. It shrinks as the income grows until the it is gone altogether and the resident is income independent by which time the resident ought to also be no longer a resident and should be capable of holding down a life in the regular world.

They do that now. Every dollar you earn over something like $64 per month, reduces your benefits by $0.50, or as they phrase it, you get $1 less for every $2 you earn. What no one ever takes into account with that system though is that taxes don't care about supplemental income. If you were getting $750 in benefits, and you start working, and make $500/month. Now you'll get $500/month and $500 in benefits. Benefits are tax free though, that $500 will be subject to a 15% tax rate. Now you get $425 and $500 for $925. But you also have travel to the job, work clothes, bagged lunches, and any other work related expenses. The end result is that you end up in about the same place as if you didn't work at all.

originally posted by: gpols
There are going to be people on welfare because they are happy with what welfare provides them. But welfare should be an uncomfortable experience and make people want to achieve more.

I've been on disability for 12 years. I have put a lot of work (5 degrees, 400 credit hours) into learning how to do enough stuff that a company will hire me regardless of a disability. I'm not there yet, but I'm hopefully getting there some day.

I have never met someone who is content to sit and get a check. I don't think that stereotype actually exists. I've certainly never run into it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
To use an analogy, you want everyone to have a bed, but if some won't provide their own (notice won't not can't) so that you have to do it for them, you want to make sure they do have a sparsely adequate bed, but you want to make sure there are just enough rocks in it to prod them to get out of it to make their own without those annoying rocks.

I don't own a bed, I sleep on a carpeted floor, no padding. Just a sheet laid down so it's clean, and a single pillow. I actually like it to most peoples amazement. Why should I have to sleep in a bed full of rocks just for the express purpose of making it uncomfortable?

a reply to: Aazadan

That is exactly my take. Not counting the taxation and costs associated with getting and maintaining a job (negatives) there is also a loss of comfort level associated with having to get up early, get ready, go in to work, spend all day doing what others want done, driving back home... it's easier to sit around in your skivies and watch TV. There has to be a substantial reward for working, and our present system offers no such reward.

It is common knowledge out here that if you want a mule to move where you want it to go, you need a stick and a carrot. You use the stick to make the mule move, and the carrot to keep it moving in the right direction. Today's welfare throws away the carrot and uses the stick when the mule starts moving. The result is that the mule stays put and doesn't move.

Typical beaurocratic nonsense.

There are other issues that need to be addressed as well. A homeless person cannot receive benefits. They are the ones in most need, but the depth of their need prohibits them from getting help. The amount of time needed to maintain eligibility is staggering, taking time away from a job hunt or job attendance. This maze of paperwork also means we have an entire industry of 'professionals' able to maintain benefits due to their knowledge of the system, while those who need help for the first time are at a severe disadvantage.

The only way to eliminate those problems us to remove the paperwork issue: let anyone in who hasn't showed a reason to not be let in. The only way to get the mule moving is to use a small stick when they stop and give them a carrot when they move.

TheRedneck

Also an idea could be to design a database of employment.

A database were potential workers could access jobs available.
Not the usual various existing job searches, but one big database where anyone can log on enter their job interest, location they wish to work, how much they wish to work and even how many hours they want to work.
So if qualified you may be a resident in Alabama but might find a job in Oregon. You upload your work qualifications including time your interested in working on said job and once qualifications are passed. Your hired.
Welfare may pay for your tickets to reach destination & transportation and since your a worker welfare may help provide your temporary home associated with job location. You pay reasonable fee associated with your scheduled pay rate.
Then you kiss your family and go work for maybe 6 months or more on a great paying job. You feed your family and make good money. Pay healthcare tax, which generates free healthcare. And since its a national or even hybrid international database, THE EMPLOYEES ARE FREE FROM OFFICE POLITICS THAT MAKE A GREAT JOB NOT SO GREAT AND ALSO MAKE IT HARD TO FIND KEEP SAID JOBS long-term.
Especially if the hiring faculty are ethnically-gender-politically-racially-religiously motivated.
And yes it happens being in and out of employment in engineering firms I experienced it personally.
Ex- listening to a co-worker play say Gl. bk or H.s the whole work day why other coworkers ping in and wait for me to comment... Now if 80% of the comments lean the opposite direction of my coworkers, manager/supervisors. How do you think that works out? I know some would say deal with it, my response is, many didn't pay for college to deal with it? Just so money could be made on unaware students...

OT just an example of office politics that would be avoided if the common female or male had access to such a sophisticated work database (maybe government ran) were they can go work on a oil rig off the coast part of the year and be a crab fisherman another part of the year...

This saves better then just distributing money to the poor who may be ill minded, unmotivated, addicts from some clandestine operation put in play decades ago and or just discouraged.
It makes tax money.
Funds itself eventually.
Builds a new network of employment for this future world.
Instead allowing old networks to unprofessionally continue to delay NEW WAYS, due to ethnically-gender-politically-racially-religiously based ignorances...

Many of those "people" on welfare would probably work if they had NEW WAYS of access and knew they would make money.

Sort of like buying all the illegal guns back? If there was a chance I'm sure many would sell them with no questions asked. That would probably yield more weapons then any written policy (letting the worrying citizens in fear of losing their weapons keep their weapons for sports or whatever they supposedly do with them in the wild). And again save lives removing illegal weapons from problem areas where many die from them and saves money and time wasted in the judicial systems as these problem areas slowly calm down. Something to consider...
I think the big problem with the welfare system is its citizens are underestimated?

NAMASTE*******

a reply to: Aazadan

The end result is that you end up in about the same place as if you didn't work at all.

This the problem our children are facing. The cost of living is so punitive that they see no purpose in working at a job where at at the end of the day they are worse off than if they had no job at all.

In Florida the minimum wage us $8.05. Though $10.00 an hour may sound better, after taxes they are looking at about $700.00 take home pay every 2 weeks or about $1400.00 per month. A rat and roach infested dump in Florida is going to run them about $800.00 to $1000.00 a month. Utilities run about $100.00 a month if they are frugal. Transportation, food, clothes, hygiene, cell phone.....

You can see it just doesn't add up. After all the time, work, and effort, at the end of the month there just isn't enough money to keep their head above water and to them, their future looks impossible.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

No business would want to take the risk of hiring someone to move across country. The skilled labor positions where such a risk is worthwhile aren't having hiring problems right now.

Besides, that database already exists it's called LinkedIn. It's just not government owned.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

That may sound good, but it doesn't address the real issue. Not very many welfare recipients have a degree. Most are unskilled and permanently unemployed. That's a whole different dynamic. It might make sense to move across the country to work six months at a $100,000 job, but it makes no sense if those six months are spent making minimum wage.

TheRedneck