Well here are the facts about the people on welfare.
First, of the nearly 14 million people receiving public assistance only 5 million are adults. That means that 9 million, or 64%, of those on welfare are not even of working age. But lets find out more about the 35% who can work. The vast majority of adults on welfare are women, 90%, and, contrary to racial stereotypes, the majority of recipients are white. Another interesting tidbit, it is correct that the women on welfare tend to be mothers, but there is no evidence that they are having large families in order to get more money. In fact, approximately 43% of welfare mothers have only one child and 30% have two children. Guess what, that's the same number of children that the average family has. There is simply no basis for the claim that welfare creates an incentive to have more children.1
So, now we know a bit about who is on welfare, but lets see what else we can dig up. Well, turns out that the average woman on welfare, again 90% of those on welfare are women, were legitimately employed, lost their jobs and were unemployed for four months before applying for welfare. 47% of them even had 2 or more jobs before going on welfare. And according to a study by the University of Michigan, those on welfare are more often than not use welfare to supplement the income they receive from a job. It also turns out that 19% of welfare recipients are on welfare for less than 7 months, 15% for 7 to 12 months, 19% for one to two years, and 26% in two to five years (if you haven't been counting that's 79%). And just because this is so interesting, the majority of people who receive unemployment insurance do so for only 4 months.2
And just for fun lets see how much these people are getting anyway. The average monthly payment that welfare families receive is actually on the decline, while the cost of living is increasing.3 Here are the numbers, "In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. (1) In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. (2) Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job." These people are definitely not living the high life. Another note of interest is that welfare programs only account for 1% of the federal budget, and 2 % of the state budgets.4 In fact, we spent $500 million on bailing out the Savings & Loan Industry when Bush was in office, and that was enough to fund welfare for 20 years.
In the end, the average welfare recipient is not the same person that people imagine they are. It's hard working mothers who can't make ends meet. The problem here is wages. The average hourly wage has been on the decline since the late 1970's. This of course effects the poor the most since they already make the smallest wages. On top of that, women get paid less than men on average, so their wages have seen an even steeper decline. With such a small paycheck it's no wonder that these women lose their jobs if they have children. Child care is expensive, and if you're struggling to make ends meet then there is little hope of keeping your job when you have to take of a kid. Then just imagine trying to find a new job when you have to take care of the child. The problem is not welfare, the problem is with the system that forces people into this situation.
To make real change in the welfare system we need to attack the cause. We need to make sure that every mother has access to quality affordable child care. We need to create more educational and training programs to help those on welfare to find higher paying jobs. We need to raise the minimum wage to an amount that a real family can actually live on. We need to make it easier for employees to join unions, which have proven to increase wages and better working conditions. These are simple ways to reduce the number of people dependent on welfare, and if we ever want to see a real change in this area they are necessary.
Posts
Alright Nathan, here's my Conservative opinion.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I like your research, but your blog failed to address the points of welfare that actually do bother me. I don't mind lending a helping hand to people who are struggling and making an attempt to get back on their feet.
What I have a problem with is the fact that the woman in front of me in the grocery line, who's paying with food stamps, is buying all name-brand items while my family, who works for our money (and presumably hers), buys generic.
What I have a problem with is people (like one of my own cousins) who obtained a MINOR injury at work (of his own fault, and he's since healed) and has been out of a job for two years awaiting a settlement case sitting on his ass collecting welfare, getting up only to recklessly ride his brand new couple-of-thousand-dollar fourwheeler.
What I have a problem with are the few people who I saw on TV after Hurricane Katrina, bitching and moaning that no one was feeding and housing them, but wouldn't lift a finger to help out the cause. Why on earth did so many volunteers have to be called in to help out and clean up after everyone after they left the shelters? When you're stuck on a deserted island with your family, you don't wait for a rescue plane, you build yourself a damn fire with your own two hands.
What I have a problem with is the people that think the rest of us owe them something.
Ultimately, I think a better investigation of the whole system and of welfare candidates should be mandated, not only while applying, but intermittently while receiving aid.
So answer me this: If we all got assistance with everything, who would be left to provide the assistance?
Also, I noticed the feminism in this article. Let me provide you with a scenario. You're an employer. A male and a female both applied for a job at your place of business. They have the same credentials, experience, and attitudes. Who do you hire? Undoubtedly, the woman, because you'd be far too scared to be considered a 'sexist' if you didn't. The point that I'm making is that when we're all on the same level of education and whatnot, women have the advantage because the rest of the world is too afraid to "offend" them. Same with minorities.
As for your last paragraph, I agree. :)
I understand your frustration with people who are not being so financially conscience when they are receiving financial aid, but the main point of the blog was to respond to some of the many myths about welfare and I believe that I did respond to those.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused by your question. I did not advocate for financial assistance for everyone.
Unfortunately employers are not hiring more women who are equally capable of doing the same job a man is. One study found that a women was 30 times less likely to get the job when they presented themselves in the same manner as a man with an identical resume. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3805400&page=1) Also, African American's with identical resumes as white men were less likely to get the same job as the white man. (http://www.urban.org/race/index.cfm?page=27). And don't forget that even if they get the job they will still make less money than white men. So actually women and minorities are not better off.
I'm glad you agree with my solutions. :))