walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Actually, without Walmart there probably wouldn't be any jobs for them. :)
if big box retailers weren't around, I wouldn't buy shirts, underwear and computers at some other place that doesn't nickel and dime its employees? Interesting economic theory.
No anger at all - some lack of patience when people on here Â
misrepresent or use extreme examples, but IMO it's just recognition of an untenable situation. Something has to give, at some point the people receiving aid will outnumber the people working and paying taxes into the system and then what happens.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
misrepresent or use extreme examples, but IMO it's just recognition of an untenable situation. Something has to give, at some point the people receiving aid will outnumber the people working and paying taxes into the system and then what happens.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe.
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
when did I say it would solve all the problems. or even be a major part of the solution. f-ing people on here live to inflame. Ted Williams was before his time when he coined the "Knights of the keyboard" some of you are just out to troll.
But the goal IMO should be make sure the fund are getting to the people who need it most (the kids, people who can't provide for themselves).
if a parent has a suspicious background (prior drug conviction) and in their welfare application has agreed not to use drugs while on welfare (as most states require) then drug testing them is appropriate IMO.
why do you think so many states are introducing legislation to do this? No reason? Because they don't think it will help? because they want to waste even more money?
Here is what Tennessee has to say about it:
Quote:
After observing that “persons who are not under the pernicious influence of illegal drugs [are] less disruptive of the social fabric, persons and neighborhoods around them are safer as well,” that ” tax dollars should go to persons who are trying to better themselves rather than to persons who violate our state and national laws and support a network of illicit purveyors of misery and disappointment,” and that “the public image of TANF recipients will be enhanced by removing the stigma that is too often attached to such recipients that they use government funds to purchase illegal drugs,” the legislature mandated “suspicion-based drug testing for each applicant” otherwise eligible for TANF.
my apologies if you thought I was addressing you. I admit I didn't read many of the posts. I also admit that I automatically expect a discussion on drug testing welfare recipients to center around the 'right' of being free from testing vs the ability to test. I don't think there's anything wrong with testing. I recognize that logistics may be a concern, that testing is just a waste of time/money. but the ability to test should be on the table.
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe.
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
More likely, I would think, they weren't able to find another job (or take the low-level job s that were there) and got desperate. I really don't think everyone, or even more than a very small minority, are on the make.
The problem I have with the theory that it is the over Â
50 age group is that employment trends for the older age cohorts into and through the Great Recession were still reasonably solid...it was the 18-35 age group that was really hollowed out in terms of employment opportunities.
my apologies if you thought I was addressing you. I admit I didn't read many of the posts. I also admit that I automatically expect a discussion on drug testing welfare recipients to center around the 'right' of being free from testing vs the ability to test. I don't think there's anything wrong with testing. I recognize that logistics may be a concern, that testing is just a waste of time/money. but the ability to test should be on the table.
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
You seriously expect someone from the bottom opf the economic heap who is also doing drugs to exhibit "life responsibility?"
It's this kind of thinking that killed more than a million Irish during the first famine.
But the fact is that decent society shouldn't just cast off and discard those with less well developed "life skills". For most, collecting welfare, unemployment, etc. isn't fun - it's a way to eat. Google long-term unemployment and suicide - I know sitting on the couch and eating bon-bons sounds like a good gig, but most people want to provide for their families through work, with the possibility of advancement. The sad fact is we just don't create enough jobs with that profile.
RE: I don't doubt that some people game the system Â
But the fact is that decent society shouldn't just cast off and discard those with less well developed "life skills". For most, collecting welfare, unemployment, etc. isn't fun - it's a way to eat. Google long-term unemployment and suicide - I know sitting on the couch and eating bon-bons sounds like a good gig, but most people want to provide for their families through work, with the possibility of advancement. The sad fact is we just don't create enough jobs with that profile.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
RE: I don't doubt that some people game the system Â
But the fact is that decent society shouldn't just cast off and discard those with less well developed "life skills". For most, collecting welfare, unemployment, etc. isn't fun - it's a way to eat. Google long-term unemployment and suicide - I know sitting on the couch and eating bon-bons sounds like a good gig, but most people want to provide for their families through work, with the possibility of advancement. The sad fact is we just don't create enough jobs with that profile.
from what I've read is not about people gaming the system, which I agree is probably a small percent. I also never claimed living on government aid is glamorous.
From what I have read the proponents of drug testing those people with "suspicious cause" or whatever they call it is about changing behavior and making sure the funds available get to the people who will use it the most effectively.
If you had a choice of providing $800 a month (or however much it is) to a parent of three children who is going to use at least part of it to buy drugs, or a similar person who is not, I don't see anyone picking the drug user.
I don't see it being disenfranchising or any more stigma to require those people with drug histories to prove they are clean (at least that day) to receive their tax payer dollars.
Does this kind of thing backfire? Maybe, but I understand the intent and I find it hard to argue with, if a way to implement it fiscally responsibly works.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
I think you'd do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading about Sir Charles Trevelyan and his involvement. Get beyond the quotes attributed to him and look at his politics (laissez-faire/market cures all/personal responsibility) combined with his disdain for the Irish and you'll see that it pretty much dovetails with your above statement. The Brits started out well, providing public works-type jobs to the indigent, but got tired of seeing no "gratitude" from the Irish.
It's a sordid tale, and a sordid act, and it's right on point.
The majority of my post wasn't directed toward you, as you correctly point out some positions you didn't take. That said, collecting public assistance is often dehumanizing, and I don't see the advantage of making it more so on the margin to prevent some dollars from being wasted on those that can't stay clean.
I am not sure how the thread drifted in this direction, but if the goal is to cut government spending, there are far richer veins to tap - agricultural subsidies, military spending, streamlining the corporate tax code, etc, etc.
Probably the majority find it humiliating to be on public assistance. However, I do think a significant percentage think it's fine to put one over on the man, and a significant percentage think it's just a way of life, being neither good, nor bad. Still, it is wrong to paint with a broad brush and say they're all loafers.
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
Probably the majority find it humiliating to be on public assistance. However, I do think a significant percentage think it's fine to put one over on the man, and a significant percentage think it's just a way of life, being neither good, nor bad. Still, it is wrong to paint with a broad brush and say they're all loafers.
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
I think you need to define this significant amount and provide more than opinion.
From what I understand, studies have shown that the idea of a large amount of people gaming the system and welfare queens are pretty much myth. I could be wrong, though.
forget the byzantine maze of programs and requirements Â
I've come to prefer the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Send people a check, and let them make their own choices on how to spend it. Some will use it wisely and get ahead, others will squander it and suffer, but either way it would be more efficient and less wasteful than a large welfare bureaucracy.
Between 2003 and 2013, Bush gave 1.5 percent of his income to charity, according to the lists of charitable deductions in the tax returns. That's about half the national average of 3 percent, according to Charity Navigator.
to show welfare abuse.
I have only anecdotal evidence.
people I know who are willing to work under the table. who are willing to take advantage of the liberal NY child healthcare laws. people who know how to work the system.
I can't prove it. I can only offer you a very gently used bridge I have for sale if you don't think plenty of people take full advantage of an easy system to take advantage of.
I prefer bridges with Any form of solid foundations. Â
anecdotes defense. Typically a wonderfully lucid analysis.
And when did I say that everyone on it is honest? Perhaps you can re-read; a small minority is about 5-10%. And, by the way, I prefer not to rely on anecdotes since, you know, it kinda makes one sound a wee bit stupid.
But, yeah, this certainly does fall under my specialty and purview. I'd bet my life savings and retirement I have a much better grasp of this than you ever have.
But, why should I argue with you? You have anecdotes! And a blinding incomprehension that minority does not mean 0 (unless Webster's has been changed very recently).
So, yeah, I'm safe in assuming I'm very smart in this area.
you will never, ever believe me, but search again.
you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
you don't know your clients as well as you think you do.
you are enamored with charts and graphs. read by someone who doesn't have a clue. you dismiss out of hand anything that counters your pov.
you don't know your clients.
I don't care what you think of me. I'm never going to convince you. nothing I've said is a lie.
but you would serve your profession much, much better if you honestly examine the seedier side and not just accept the side you choose to see. it's not all seedy. but there is that side.
Go up to any reputable scientist and tell them that, instead of Â
looking at the evidence, you have decided that anecdotes suffice. After you've been dismissed by the uproar of laughter, maybe you will learn.
I've never stated that there is no welfare abuse. Again, I can't help it if people don't want to read. A small minority means that there is a shadier side. Good call, though; top notch analysis. You must make a super worker.
If you want to be ignorant, go for it. But I will continue to call out the vapid "thoughts" you call forth, making you no better than a Jenny McCarthy blowhard.
It's ok; at some point, you may learn. We all wish for that to happen. Until that point, I'll continue working with my "clients" (not sure what the fuck this means, but OK), doing research on this very subject, and teaching future generations that will swamp your dinosaur mentality.
At least they will look for evidence. Even if it, eventually, is contrary to mine. But, such is science (I really wish you knew that).
Oh yes, and yet again, only on BBI are statistics, charts, and Â
evidence shit on. I mean, what a wonderful scientific process; you fit in perfectly with the anti-vaxxers.
Here's a hint about economic science (and most other sciences). Anecdotes are only useful in generating research questions. They become invalid once evidence comes in.
You know, the whole correlation does not equal causation?
And, because evidence. Here are a variety of studies Â
that show results, including some evidence that suggests that there is some welfare dependency (which, of course, I've never disputed).
Mark Plant, "An Empirical Analysis of Welfare Dependence"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805132
Blank, "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the US"
Borjas, "Food Insecurity and Public Assistance"
Kearney, "Is There an Effect of Incremental Welfare Benefits on Fertility Behavior"
Meyer and Sulliva, " The Effects of Welfare and Tax Reform"
Blank and Ruggles, "When do Women Use AFDC..."
Gruber and Yelowitz, "Public Health Insurance and Private Savings"
Gruber, "Cash Welfare as a Consumption Smoothing Device for Single Mothers"
Gueron, "Work and Welfare - Lessons on Employment Programs"
Hotz, Mullin, and Scholz, "Welfare, Employment, and Income..."
Hoynes and MaCurdy, "Has the Decline in Benefits Shortened Welfare Spells"
Meyer, "Do the Poor Move to Receive Higher Welfare Benefits"
Moffit, "Incentive Effects of the US Welfare System"
Nichols and Zeckauser, "Targeting Transfers through Restrictions on Recipients"
Powers, "Does Means-Testing Welfare Discourage Savings..."
efficiency of public programs, such as educational training, green spaces, and health awareness programs, and on occasion have spoken to a group of individuals in the programs.
I also do work with public groups to improve health outcomes and decrease welfare dependence with job training and resume programs.
so you don't know shit, and you're teaching others about it.
Insert huge smiley here to show that I'm making a joke
or am I? (insert another smiley face)
seriously, you need to tune in a little more to the dark side. I know I'm a little too dark, but nothing you've ever posted indicates you have any darkness to you. you need a little dark. not as much as I have, but you need some. don't dismiss real anecdotes (I've never stated anything that isn't reasonably verifiable) . don't be so wed to statistics (there are real reasons to under report abuse, and when it's not caught, it's not reported, amazing that none of my anecdotes involve being caught). stats seem real, but someone wrote a whole book about how to lie with statistics. I work in science, and when physics can be manipulated, so too can the socio sciences. there is real to overall trends, no doubt. they don't tell the whole story. more learning the trenches. less quoting scholars.
By definition, an anecdote is verifiable. Because, you know, it's based on personal experience.
But, um, you do realize that, should you work in science, there is absolutely no internal nor external validity to anecdotes. At least statistics can provide it. Perhaps you have heard of necessary and sufficient conditions?
Statistical analysis is necessary for determining causation, but is not sufficient. Anecdotes are neither necessary, nor sufficient. That's the basest of scientific truths.
And, please, enlighten me. What trenches have you worked in (that you're able to see over, at the very least?). Real ones; not make-believe based on speaking to people. So easy to dismiss scholars when you likely have no outside experience in dealing with any of these programs.
The only reason you need darkness is because you have no first-hand experience that's meaningful. Let me tell you something; when you actually set foot in this area, then you can come back and tell me something. Blowhards don't pass any sort of a smell test. And you're full of it.
By the way, for someone who thinks there is no point in going back and forth, you sure seem to be doing a lot of it. Unless, again, there is some magical "fkap" definition of back-and-forth that differs from the rest of humanity (you know, like minority).
But, beyond all that, how do anecdotes pass even the giggle Â
but since you asked, I think it relevant that you know I grew up in a multi generation poverty family. I've lived in the trenches. I built a ladder and climbed out of them. that fact is why I always preach personal responsibility, because we are each responsible for ourselves and our decisions. every single one of us have options. not all of us have equal options. it the choices we make that define us.
the anecdotes I tell aren't giggles. they're reality. you can dismiss them as non-representative, but they are real. they're data points that you should pay attention to. ask yourself, do you know anyone who has ever cheated the system? don't answer me. answer yourself. is the evidence just a giggle because you didn't read it in a book? and if you don't know at least several people who've cheated, you don't know the group of people who claim to be working for.
Because we have to deal with someone with acute reading issues, I'll Â
Little evidence of any wide scale welfare
kicker : 7/1/2015 12:34 pm : link : reply
abuse. A very small minority abuse it.
Where, in here, is it even intimated that the abuse is 0? Listen, we get that the deal on BBI is to double down on the stupid, but it's such a weird stance to take when it's clearly written, and doesn't support your stupid.
I even mentioned that it's roughly 5-10% (again, non-zero; surprisingly, 5 does not, and cannot, equal zero). 1:23 PM on 7/1/2015.
You seem to be a very astute scientists that still doesn't wrap your head around proper experimental procedures, and why you're little causation argument is, at best, a boat with like 45 holes in it. But, sure, I never dismissed them as data points (in fact, I agreed that they were).
By the way, unless you were born in 1970, you must have zero personal experience with the modern day welfare system, since there were substantial reforms in the late 1980's through the 2000's. So, the answer must be "no", that you have no experience with the trenches.
Good to know.
I expect some witty rejoinder about "I climbed out, others can", "don't read a book, listen to people", or "anecdotes". Yippee. Science.
All this based on a very mistaken notion that I've claimed Â
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Quote:
60% of people on food stamps have jobs
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Actually, without Walmart there probably wouldn't be any jobs for them. :)
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
So the solution is to drug test the Poors?
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
Not to mention most Mom & Pop shops don't have "greeters". Seems like an easy position to replace with a robot.
But the goal IMO should be make sure the fund are getting to the people who need it most (the kids, people who can't provide for themselves).
if a parent has a suspicious background (prior drug conviction) and in their welfare application has agreed not to use drugs while on welfare (as most states require) then drug testing them is appropriate IMO.
why do you think so many states are introducing legislation to do this? No reason? Because they don't think it will help? because they want to waste even more money?
Here is what Tennessee has to say about it:
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
Quote:
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe.
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
More likely, I would think, they weren't able to find another job (or take the low-level job s that were there) and got desperate. I really don't think everyone, or even more than a very small minority, are on the make.
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
You seriously expect someone from the bottom opf the economic heap who is also doing drugs to exhibit "life responsibility?"
It's this kind of thinking that killed more than a million Irish during the first famine.
On the money!
yes, I believe in it.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
Very well said.
From what I have read the proponents of drug testing those people with "suspicious cause" or whatever they call it is about changing behavior and making sure the funds available get to the people who will use it the most effectively.
If you had a choice of providing $800 a month (or however much it is) to a parent of three children who is going to use at least part of it to buy drugs, or a similar person who is not, I don't see anyone picking the drug user.
I don't see it being disenfranchising or any more stigma to require those people with drug histories to prove they are clean (at least that day) to receive their tax payer dollars.
Does this kind of thing backfire? Maybe, but I understand the intent and I find it hard to argue with, if a way to implement it fiscally responsibly works.
yes, I believe in it.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
I think you'd do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading about Sir Charles Trevelyan and his involvement. Get beyond the quotes attributed to him and look at his politics (laissez-faire/market cures all/personal responsibility) combined with his disdain for the Irish and you'll see that it pretty much dovetails with your above statement. The Brits started out well, providing public works-type jobs to the indigent, but got tired of seeing no "gratitude" from the Irish.
It's a sordid tale, and a sordid act, and it's right on point.
I am not sure how the thread drifted in this direction, but if the goal is to cut government spending, there are far richer veins to tap - agricultural subsidies, military spending, streamlining the corporate tax code, etc, etc.
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
His charity donations and such were pretty impressive. This may give him a bit of a push.
His charity donations and such were pretty impressive. This may give him a bit of a push.
Did they find the emails he took with him yet?
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
I think you need to define this significant amount and provide more than opinion.
From what I understand, studies have shown that the idea of a large amount of people gaming the system and welfare queens are pretty much myth. I could be wrong, though.
I have only anecdotal evidence.
people I know who are willing to work under the table. who are willing to take advantage of the liberal NY child healthcare laws. people who know how to work the system.
I can't prove it. I can only offer you a very gently used bridge I have for sale if you don't think plenty of people take full advantage of an easy system to take advantage of.
if you truly don't know anyone who has cheated the system, you don't know those around you.
And when did I say that everyone on it is honest? Perhaps you can re-read; a small minority is about 5-10%. And, by the way, I prefer not to rely on anecdotes since, you know, it kinda makes one sound a wee bit stupid.
you also think you're a smart fellow.
keep on thinking. you don't know as much as you think you do.
But, why should I argue with you? You have anecdotes! And a blinding incomprehension that minority does not mean 0 (unless Webster's has been changed very recently).
So, yeah, I'm safe in assuming I'm very smart in this area.
Plenty out there. I can provide a 5 page syllabus, if you would like. As easy or hard as you would like.
you will never, ever believe me, but search again.
you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
you don't know your clients as well as you think you do.
you are enamored with charts and graphs. read by someone who doesn't have a clue. you dismiss out of hand anything that counters your pov.
you don't know your clients.
I don't care what you think of me. I'm never going to convince you. nothing I've said is a lie.
but you would serve your profession much, much better if you honestly examine the seedier side and not just accept the side you choose to see. it's not all seedy. but there is that side.
I've never stated that there is no welfare abuse. Again, I can't help it if people don't want to read. A small minority means that there is a shadier side. Good call, though; top notch analysis. You must make a super worker.
If you want to be ignorant, go for it. But I will continue to call out the vapid "thoughts" you call forth, making you no better than a Jenny McCarthy blowhard.
It's ok; at some point, you may learn. We all wish for that to happen. Until that point, I'll continue working with my "clients" (not sure what the fuck this means, but OK), doing research on this very subject, and teaching future generations that will swamp your dinosaur mentality.
At least they will look for evidence. Even if it, eventually, is contrary to mine. But, such is science (I really wish you knew that).
Here's a hint about economic science (and most other sciences). Anecdotes are only useful in generating research questions. They become invalid once evidence comes in.
You know, the whole correlation does not equal causation?
Mark Plant, "An Empirical Analysis of Welfare Dependence"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805132
Blank, "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the US"
Borjas, "Food Insecurity and Public Assistance"
Kearney, "Is There an Effect of Incremental Welfare Benefits on Fertility Behavior"
Meyer and Sulliva, " The Effects of Welfare and Tax Reform"
Blank and Ruggles, "When do Women Use AFDC..."
Gruber and Yelowitz, "Public Health Insurance and Private Savings"
Gruber, "Cash Welfare as a Consumption Smoothing Device for Single Mothers"
Gueron, "Work and Welfare - Lessons on Employment Programs"
Hotz, Mullin, and Scholz, "Welfare, Employment, and Income..."
Hoynes and MaCurdy, "Has the Decline in Benefits Shortened Welfare Spells"
Meyer, "Do the Poor Move to Receive Higher Welfare Benefits"
Moffit, "Incentive Effects of the US Welfare System"
Nichols and Zeckauser, "Targeting Transfers through Restrictions on Recipients"
Powers, "Does Means-Testing Welfare Discourage Savings..."
my apologies if I didn't have that right.
Hoynes, "Local Labor Markets and Welfare Spells: Do Demand Conditions Matter?"
Gottschalk and Moffit, "Welfare Dependence: Concepts, Measures, and Trends "
I also do work with public groups to improve health outcomes and decrease welfare dependence with job training and resume programs.
Insert huge smiley here to show that I'm making a joke
or am I? (insert another smiley face)
seriously, you need to tune in a little more to the dark side. I know I'm a little too dark, but nothing you've ever posted indicates you have any darkness to you. you need a little dark. not as much as I have, but you need some. don't dismiss real anecdotes (I've never stated anything that isn't reasonably verifiable) . don't be so wed to statistics (there are real reasons to under report abuse, and when it's not caught, it's not reported, amazing that none of my anecdotes involve being caught). stats seem real, but someone wrote a whole book about how to lie with statistics. I work in science, and when physics can be manipulated, so too can the socio sciences. there is real to overall trends, no doubt. they don't tell the whole story. more learning the trenches. less quoting scholars.
But, um, you do realize that, should you work in science, there is absolutely no internal nor external validity to anecdotes. At least statistics can provide it. Perhaps you have heard of necessary and sufficient conditions?
Statistical analysis is necessary for determining causation, but is not sufficient. Anecdotes are neither necessary, nor sufficient. That's the basest of scientific truths.
And, please, enlighten me. What trenches have you worked in (that you're able to see over, at the very least?). Real ones; not make-believe based on speaking to people. So easy to dismiss scholars when you likely have no outside experience in dealing with any of these programs.
The only reason you need darkness is because you have no first-hand experience that's meaningful. Let me tell you something; when you actually set foot in this area, then you can come back and tell me something. Blowhards don't pass any sort of a smell test. And you're full of it.
By the way, for someone who thinks there is no point in going back and forth, you sure seem to be doing a lot of it. Unless, again, there is some magical "fkap" definition of back-and-forth that differs from the rest of humanity (you know, like minority).
Aren't they, by definition, non-representative samples?
Seems to me like any scientist would have an answer as to why that's bad. No?
the anecdotes I tell aren't giggles. they're reality. you can dismiss them as non-representative, but they are real. they're data points that you should pay attention to. ask yourself, do you know anyone who has ever cheated the system? don't answer me. answer yourself. is the evidence just a giggle because you didn't read it in a book? and if you don't know at least several people who've cheated, you don't know the group of people who claim to be working for.
kicker : 7/1/2015 12:34 pm : link : reply
abuse. A very small minority abuse it.
Where, in here, is it even intimated that the abuse is 0? Listen, we get that the deal on BBI is to double down on the stupid, but it's such a weird stance to take when it's clearly written, and doesn't support your stupid.
I even mentioned that it's roughly 5-10% (again, non-zero; surprisingly, 5 does not, and cannot, equal zero). 1:23 PM on 7/1/2015.
You seem to be a very astute scientists that still doesn't wrap your head around proper experimental procedures, and why you're little causation argument is, at best, a boat with like 45 holes in it. But, sure, I never dismissed them as data points (in fact, I agreed that they were).
By the way, unless you were born in 1970, you must have zero personal experience with the modern day welfare system, since there were substantial reforms in the late 1980's through the 2000's. So, the answer must be "no", that you have no experience with the trenches.
Good to know.
I expect some witty rejoinder about "I climbed out, others can", "don't read a book, listen to people", or "anecdotes". Yippee. Science.
Intriguing.
In your field, is this an acceptable method of debate? To pick something someone hasn't said and lampoon them?