If there are a finite amount of economic niches, then why demonize or berate the poor/unemployed?

Question

There is a lot of political rhetoric, mostly (read, exclusively) coming from the right, that plays on the middle and upper class' disdain for the poor - or, more specifically, recipients of government social assistance; buzz words/phrases like, "makers and takers," "welfare queens," and "parasites" dominate the right-wing sphere.

I suppose, on some intellectually detached level, I can understand why a self-sufficient, working individual would resent the recipients of their tax dollars; but when I hear people say things like, "the poor are just too lazy to work," or "why should I work to support those who refuse to work?," I have to cringe.

Statements like that would *only* make sense if the unemployment rate were 0%. But the unemployment rate is nowhere near 0%, and probably never will be. Realistically, there is always going to be *some* discrepancy between the size of the labour pool and the amount of labour necessary to produce the goods/services that will clear within any given economy; this will only become more true as technology and globalization continue to increase human productivity.

It doesn't seem sensible, to me, to berate those who are boxed out of the production process and unable to provide for themselves - even if they are, in a sense, "living off of the production of others" via social assistance - when it's inarguable that you're better off making upwards of 27K / year and paying federal income tax than you are collecting government assistance as an unemployed/working poor person.

At the end of the day, there are people fortunate enough to have found an economic niche with which to support themselves, and those who aren't. I'm not trying to downplay the baseline level of gumption and ambition it surely takes to wind up in the former category; but, really, people should be *thankful* they aren't in the latter camp and stop living life in ironic resentment of those less fortunate than themselves.

? · Accepted Answer

Your beating the drum for the wrong reasons. Your
looking for a social problem with economic influences.
You want to help stop some of that. Call the white 
house and tell the man who is all about social 
programs to stop his wasting of time. And get America
back to work.

darren m · Answer

National Guard job is said to protect nation so untill National Guard shuts down corporatios tthere will be greed .i think that defending the u.s. was not desired by corporate interests and so soldiers suspected of being that way were labeled communist.what is inttesting is the oath to upholdd the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic.greed is the onlyenemy the u.s. really has .greed is the enemy. but i suppose only mercenary black water u.s.a. exists and no national gusrd .anyway i heard male soldiers u.s.a. were rapists and women afraid to serve.to bad .maybe just women guards defend u.s.a.

WW - BHN · Answer

Most of the ones heavily dependent on the welfare system choose to be there.
Choice.
It is all about choice.

They make a choice to go ten years after high school graduation, and never work a job, live off food stamps and the generosity of others.
They make a choice to live off he child's income from SSI or child support instead of working.
They make a choice to quit a job, with no job to go to.
They are where they want to be, for the most part, always some exceptions.
~~~~~~~~~

Myth: Most welfare recipients are on benefits a short time. Let me make that clearer. At any one time 80% of any given caseload is chronic, repeat for one or more lifetimes. 80% of the money being spent at any one moment in time, is for the chronic, constantly needy, needy by choice, more than circumstances. The other 20% comes and goes on a regular basis, in one door, out the other, never to be seen again. At any moment in time, only 20% of the total, but over a long stretch (say five years), most of the ones helped were short timers, came and went, just like the myth says, most of the recipients on a short time,. . . . . . . but they only use 20% of the total funds available. 80% of the financial help available, goes to those ‘few bad apples.’ That does not sound like a good taxpayer investment to me. It seems to me the lion share of the money should be spent on the temporarily poor, the poor by circumstances, more than choice.http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html

How much does a welfare family of 3 have in income?
$21,996 per year.
 If she were working she would have to earn at least $30,000 per year - probably more.
 That is $14.40 per hour. 
 There are a lot of variables.
 I choose Washington state, and have the children both under age five. The woman is paying $250 rent, and I did not count anything for HUD or section 8. 
I assumed that the woman lived with family members and paid them $250 rent and help with the utilities a little - maybe $50 per month.
 If she were getting housing help, it could easily increase another $5000 per year.
 If she were in a work program, she would have day care, and that would increase her welfare benefits.
 To keep it simple, I assumed the woman is claiming a disability and exempted from the work program.
 
A family of three, with no income, would receive a monthly TANF grant of $478.
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/onlinecso/tanf_support_services.shtml
Based on subsidized rent of $250…………….food stamps would be $526.00
http://foodhelp.wa.gov/bf_benefit_estimator.htm
LIHEAP (energy assistance would be $1000 per year, $83.00 per month.
http://www.liheap.ncat.org/profiles/WA.htm
WIC (children to age 5) Washington average monthly benefit $41.64 x 2 = $83.28
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/25wifyavgfd$.htm
The average cost of Medicaid for one adult and two children $663.66
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=4&sub=47&rgn=49
 
The total of these benefits is $1833 per month.
Net of $21,996 per year.
Someone earning $30,000 per year, (plus full medical insurance – employer paid), who nets 74% would have this income.


 
 Today’s antipoverty safety net is dramatically different from the one in place two decades ago when welfare reform was enacted. Rather than a safety net primarily dependent on cash assistance programs, as is the common perception, the current system is highly reliant on social service programs funded by government and delivered through community-based nonprofits. Annual public and private expenditures for social service programs today exceed total federal outlays for cash assistance programs like welfare, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).| 
https://ed.stanford.edu/events/out-reach-place-poverty-and-new-american-welfare-state

? · Answer

There are lots of sadists and psychopaths around, who enjoy tormenting their fellow humans.  That's why the US has the social system it has and that's why the US is constantly starting wars, funding dictators, etc., in the developing world.

? · Answer

It's just the same old red herring.

xpatinasia · Answer

Conservatives feel it necessary to do so.

Trending News

If there are a finite amount of economic niches, then why demonize or berate the poor/unemployed?

6 Answers