Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.29.19.123 (talk) at 15:29, 17 September 2006 (Unemployed don't have a choice anymore.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some people advocate dramatically cutting welfare payments or eliminating them entirely, but this would leave the very poor no protection from starvation and death, therefore it arguably creates a bigger problem than it solves.

It is simply not true that without a government funded welfare system in place, the poor will die of starvation. This completely ignores the thousands of privately financed charity organizations that assist the needy.

Since the poor did die of starvation before government-funded welfare was created, it is reasonable to assume that they will do so again if welfare is removed. Private charities have existed for thousands of years, and they've never been able to prevent all the poor from starving to death. Sure, charities make a difference, but it's a small difference. And even if that weren't the case, charities are inherently unreliable, since they depend on people's good will. If, for some reason, there is a decrease in public good will, charities fail. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's definately not neutral POV then. Considering that $241 billion was given to charity in 2003 in the United States , there's absolutely no reason to believe that charity donations will not increase if people were able to keep more of their money. Charity donations also seem to increase over time on a stable basis. It shouldn't be stated as fact that once government funded welfare is cut, people will have absolutely no protection from starvation and death. The statement is seriously loaded and definately not neutral.

Again, I'd like to point out that people did starve before welfare was introduced. For the vast majority of poor people living during the 5000 years before the welfare state was created, charity offered no protection from starvation and death. Is there any proof that the same thing will not happen again if government welfare was cut? I have 5000 years of history to support the fact that people will starve without welfare. What proof do you have to support your belief that they wouldn't?

And by the way, $241 billion may sound like a big number, but how much of a difference did it make when compared to welfare? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that people starve now, welfare or no! And it's odd that everyone assumes that the abolition of welfare would mean lower taxes. There's always an agency that needs more money... -- CMoorhouse 9:35, 15 Sep 2005

Howdy!

Made some changes to this thing, tried to reorganize and reflect everyone's point of view with sentences like: "some argue that X, others argue that Y." No reason why both points of view can't coexist in an article like this. Also added another example with some simple mathematics to further illustrate the issue and give it individual recognizability. I also codified the different approaches to the problem by the dominant theory in various countries. RiseAbove 07:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I still have no idea where to post this! It's in the wrong place! It's in relation to the beginning of the article.Hello, I'm not sure about this. In England if you are unemployed you can't choose if you want to take a job. You either take it regardless of how much it pays or your benefits stop. Maybe you only mean Americans have the right choose? It's a small nit picking comment but if English people understood the fact that those people can't choose there may be less class discrimination. I don't even know if you think that's relevant either lol! I can't do computers!

Neutrality and verify

The verify tag was added because the article is unsourced. The neutrality tag was added because of sections like this:

In short, the welfare trap demonstrates the way that social welfare systems can create a perverse incentive. Although such systems are intended to reduce unemployment and poverty, they often create a situation whereby the welfare recipient has an incentive to avoid raising his own productivity because his net income gain after benefits and taxes is not enough to compensate for the effort he must expend at work.

Surely welfare systems are intended to reduce poverty not unemployment. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted criticism

I deleted the criticism paragraph at the bottom of the page, because I'm not certain there's a meaningful distinction in this instance between "psychological" and "economic" decisions. That is, economics is, to a large degree (especially where political economy and economic policy are concerned) nothing more than psychology on a mass scale. It is nothing more, that is, than the study of human action and the reasons (psychological and otherwise) for that action. Thus, I think the final paragraph may serve more to confuse readers than clarify a very subtle distinction. Anyway, that's my two cents, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.RiseAbove 08:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unemployed don't have a choice anymore.

I still have no idea where to post this! It's in the wrong place! It's in relation to the beginning of the article.Hello, I'm not sure about this. In England if you are unemployed you can't choose if you want to take a job. You either take it regardless of how much it pays or your benefits stop. Maybe you only mean Americans have the right choose? It's a small nit picking comment but if English people understood the fact that those people can't choose there may be less class discrimination. I don't even know if you think that's relevant either lol! I can't do computers!