Is the safety net failing the poor?

Catherine Rampell has an excellent blog post on this question, here is one bit:

Since the mid-1990s, the biggest increases in spending have gone to those who were middle class or hovering around the poverty line. Meanwhile, Americans in deep poverty — that is, with household earnings of less than 50 percent of the official poverty line — saw no change in their benefits in the decade leading up to the housing bubble. In fact, if you strip out Medicare and Medicaid, federal social spending on those in extreme poverty fell between 1993 and 2004.

Then, during the Great Recession and not-so-great recovery, automatic stabilizers kicked in and Congress passed new, mostly temporary, stimulus measures (such as unemployment-insurance benefit extensions). As a result, spending on the social safety net increased sharply and this time for a broader swath of Americans, including the very poor, “near-poor” and middle class. But it still rose more for people above the poverty line than it did for the very poor, Moffitt found.

Other public policies not captured by Moffitt’s calculations have also effectively diverted funds away from the very poorest Americans. Consider the rise of “merit-based,” non-means-tested financial aid at public colleges or the increasing number of tax breaks and loopholes known as “tax expenditures,” more than half of which accrue to the top income quintile.

And another:

Since the early 1990s, politicians have deliberately shifted funds away from those perceived to be the most needy and toward those perceived to be the most deserving. The bipartisan 1996 welfare reform — like the multiple expansions of the earned-income tax credit — was explicit about rewarding the working poor rather than the non-working poor. As a result, total spending per capita on “welfare” slid by about two-thirds over the past two decades, even as the poverty rate for families has stayed about the same. Many welfare reformers would consider this a triumph. If you believe many of the poorest families are not out of work by choice, though, you might have a more nuanced view.

Meanwhile, there is probably greater political cover for expanding the safety net for the middle class (that is, the non-destitute). As mid-skill, mid-wage jobs have disappeared — what’s known as the hollowing-out of the labor market — middle-class families have lost ground and are demanding more government help. These middle-class families, alongside the elderly, are also substantially more likely to vote than are the poor. The feds have whittled away at welfare, and (almost) nobody has said boo; touch programs that the middle class relies on, and electoral retribution may be fierce.

The piece is interesting throughout.

Comments

I say! The safety net is nothing but a hammock. The Navy can always use more deckhands put the poor into service.

Jobs are always better than free money. Any solution needs to cut back on unearned cash and ramp up employment-related activities such as looking for a job, job training, etc... the only problem is that many of these these people lack any ambition whatsoever. There's billions in free education and job training dollars already waiting for them, but instead they drop out of school and get knocked-up and complain about inequality and injustice.

If I'm 21 and have a newborn (knocked up pre-welfare) and my husband just left me and I have no family to help me, money is better than a job. Money is not better than working, but if I'm alone with a newborn, I'm already working.

I talked to a woman once who had worked in an executive position, she had to find child care for her kids so that she could attend a class on writing a resume in order to get benefits. She had to get additional benefits to pay for child care for her kids.

This woman had a lot of issues and made a lot of bad choices, possibly in some ways moved by some mild mental illnesses. The main bad choice being, of course, marrying a guy who would dump her after she got sick and lost her job and leaving the two kids he made with her. He had no income for the state to take. But her problem was not lack of ambition.

Marie,
you brag that you talked to a poor person once. Good start .
I'll help you along
--21 year old who choose to have a baby don't have "husbands". If he actually lived with her, he was her "fiance". She would never, ever legally marry her FOB because BigGov and StateGov would lower her benefits, including but not limited to WIC, EITC, Medicaid, child care credits, section 8 housing, utility assistance, free and reduced school lunches, SSDI, free cell phones and data plans.

They key, however, is for her to breed a baby. Without a baby , she's got nothing, just like all the poor men who can't have babies. The baby lifts her up the ladder.
So, her "husband" didn't leave her, she kicked him out of her GovAssisted home because she's the one with the power of the Gov't purse. When the squabbling starts, he's worth only the marginal utility of his income -----which is zero.
I hope her baby is a girl , because she'll have an easier life than if its a boy.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I am a male and had son when I was 17. He was born very sick and was in intensive care for 3 weeks after birth. The bill was over 70K and 17 year olds tend not to have insurance. I stuck with my girl (now my wife) and we put ourselves through school and lived below the poverty rate for about 8 years doing so (I eventually got a PhD). Without food stamps, subsidized childcare, and medicaid, pell grants, and subsidized student loans it would not have been possible. The math simply would not have worked. So now we are a productive middle class family. Without that government teet, we would not be I can promise you that. I can tell you from experience, most people on the government teet are actually trying to make themselves better people. The welfare queens you all envision are a very small and wasteful minority. In the end, these programs pay off.

To RAstudent, Marie, and jz,

Congratulations you can all draw on stories which say the current welfare system is good or bad. But what all of you have is only anecdotes with no evidence that your points are at all generalizable. I personally find when welfare discussions happen this is always the kind of crap that all sides resort to. So here's what you should do instead.

Step one: since there apparently is agreement that there is a difference between "deserving" and "undeserving" recipients of welfare, clearly define what that difference is in a way that can actually be measured ("undeserving are lazy" is not good for this, "undeserving don't take low wage jobs even when they're available" is better as long as you agree on a means of determining when those jobs are or are not available).

Step two: find actual quantifiable measurements for your relevant definitions.

Step three: find information on your measurements before after major changes in the welfare state or between different regions with different kinds of welfare.

And remember, your personal experiences are likely to be highly misleading! Jz, the poor are probably not disproportionately nakedly Machiavellian as your argument seems to imply. RAstudent, I find it extremely unlikely most people receiving various kinds of welfare checks are PhD students in the making. So go forth and discuss the welfare state with some degree of rationality.

jz,

I'm surrounded by the rural working class -- I'd say 70% of the folks I associate with daily are at 150% or below FPL, with maybe 10 or 15% below FPL at one time or another during the time I've known them. I don't know for sure, because I don't ask.

I sometimes learn one has used one welfare program or another. I don't know anyone who uses them the way you describe. I have known women who seem to take the attitude you describe towards men -- I can get by without them, so why bother to marry until I feel like it, and then if it gets rough I'll kick him out because I have my own check coming in -- but they haven't been on welfare, they've been working women. I'm sure it happens with women on welfare, too.

I can imagine there are people on welfare that operate the way you describe. But that's certainly not the entire picture, I imagine it's a small but flashy part of the picture. It's certainly a useful stereotype for those on both sides of the issue to use.

Chris Hendrix,

I was responding to a very specific assertion -- "the only problem is these people lack any ambition whatsoever", as well as the opinions that the billions in job retraining is a useful good underused and that a job is always better than a money contribution.

If I were to make a case about the state of welfare and the need or lack of need for reform, I would not use anecdote. However, I do seriously believe one of our problems is that the people making decisions on these things -- from voters to Congressmen -- are making decisions often without any firsthand knowledge of the situation. They believe that every welfare recipient is a sassy woman spitting out babies to get her free Obamaphone. It's easy to believe lies, damned lies, and statistics, when you have no first hand knowledge that gives you an instinct for inaccuracy and spin.

It would be like folks voting or legislating on agriculture without every having been to a grocery store, a farm, a feed lot, a ranch, a butcher, a slaughterhouse, a garden -- let's say you were Mr. Congressman and you had grown up with servants preparing and serving your food and moved on to restaurants and dining halls doing so, let's say you'd never once cooked a meal or bought its components. Now you are asked to sponsor an ag bill. You can get tons of data, but it's going to be very easy for the various interests to manipulate you because you haven't the context for evaluating the data.

Here's why I think your steps are problematic.

While it's likely everyone agrees some deserve help and others less, not everyone agrees that any matrix is able to determine who is deserving and who is not. I know several charities that run on the premise that you simply cannot determine it from the outside, and trying to do so takes too many resources, so they run their food banks, etc. off a kind of honor system (they can do this because, being small and local, blatant cheating of the system will be detected and can be dealt with case by case). This means they get cheated sometimes, but you could probably make the case that the loss from cheating is smaller than the costs of time and resources trying to determine eligibility (I worked with another charity that put a lot -- a lot -- of human hours into grilling applicants to make sure they really, truly needed what they said they needed).

As for measuring based on the willingness to take a job, I can think of a number of problems with that. I've used the example here that when in dire straits I took a very low paying job with a lot of driving, and I wound up destroying my car. I worked about 8 months on the job and in the end I lost a ton of money. If it came up again, I wouldn't take that job. Does that make me undeserving? How about the mom who refuses to work at Taco Bell for $8 an hour and have the government pay a poor day care center $4 an hour to watch her newborn for 8 hours shifts each day -- is she undeserving?

I understand you want to be able to quantify information in order to be more objective. That is important. Unfortunately, there are areas in which it is difficult to do this well. It's why the 5 year plans didn't work out so well -- humans vary so much, and they so often behave irrationally or behave rationally for situations the planners never anticipated. In a society where people are increasingly distant from each other, trying to use data and analysis technique to predict and account for human behavior is going to be a rough go.

RAstudent wrote:
Without food stamps, subsidized childcare, and medicaid, pell grants, and subsidized student loans it would not have been possible.

I bet that you would have made it to success without those programs. Anyway I think a basic guaranteed income would be better than the above for less money. Pell Grants and subsidized student loans tend to push up the cost of schooling. Medicaid is the one program that may not be better replaced with the guaranteed income.

@chris, agree that data trumps anecdote. Despite that , I've gotta educate RAStudent.
RA, my own rags to riches , assisted-by-the-govt biography parallels yours. Now I live in the 1% group. That's why I was so blind to the evidence all around me for decades, as you are. I projected my own motivations and values onto the Gov'tDependent and GovAssisteds. I actually believed that GovDependents wanted to work.

"The Navy can always use more deckhands put the poor into service."

Is that a call for tax hikes to fund a bigger military to fund jobs?

Or a call to throw the Republican voting conservative granny under the bus by slashing her Medicare and tell hospitals to become death panels?

It was under Reagan that Medicare Part B premiums were set as policy at 25% of cost to help appeal to Reagan generation, down from LBJ's 50% of cost. If Medicare Part B premium had doubled while Reagan was president, my guess is the demand for strong health care cost controls would have been too strong to resist.

Republicans and conservatives never make real commitments to cut entitlements because they depend too much on the biggest welfare population to win elections. Flip those over 65 by cutting off their welfare to voting Democratic instead of Republican and the past three decades would be quite different.

You seem to always be trying to shoehorn the comments into the same narrative.

Hazzah!

The Navy should switch back to galleys, like in Ben-Hur's time: that would use up a lot of ZMP workers.

Thank goodness we let in all those illegal immigrants to compete with our own poor.

If this is such a disaster, then why no observable increases in the poverty rate?

In the past 15 years, America's unskilled workforce has increased by more than 10 million, while real wages for unskilled workers have fallen sharply, unemployment rates among unskilled workers has more than doubled and workforce participation rates have dropped dramatically, mostly among the unskilled.

Any poverty measure that doesn't show sharp increases has just set the threshold so low as to be meaningless.

By a more sensible rating of poverty however poverty has actually fallen dramatically over that time period. http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2012-fall-meyer

If you actually measure what the poor consume, there has been a significant increase even with the increase in low-skill immigration. Perhaps you might say "well that increase would be even bigger without immigrants." Indeed maybe, but this of course ignores the gigantic gains to the immigrants themselves, who often come from countries whose middle classes make below the US poverty line. So if we really want to talk about helping the real poor, poor Westerners aren't who we should be talking about.

The increase in what you call "unskilled" has occurred only because employers will no longer train workers because its cheaper to poach workers their competitors have trained than to train workers which their competitors will poach after they are trained and skilled.

High school kids are not hired if an adult can be found because kids are too unreliable because they lack job experience and understand how to satisfy employers and no employer is going willingly give them experience because they will just get a more desirable job once they have experience.

But the lack of loyalty and golden handcuffs is exactly what conservatives have demanded because lack of loyalty and commitment are virtues for competitive market places.

There are more immigrants coming into the country every year than there are new jobs created.

Earth to Walter.... Everyone in the U.S. is an immigrant. Immigrants have made this nation the Colossus that it is. Speaking of the Colossus...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"... from the base of the Statue of Liberty. Accepting immigrants with open arms is as American as apple pie.

Not the same situation. I don't understand how Tyler can square is idea that "average is over" with his tacit acceptance of open borders.

When did that poem get ratified into the constitution?

The main correlate with economic growth… is population growth.

Maybe it was in the past but not with automation

The excerpts above leave some big questions, referring is they do to monies to groups, without reference to how those groups grow. You ask about the rate. I see:

For example, AFDC-TANF participation for one-adult families with children and market income below 50 percent of the poverty line fell from 62 percent in 1984 to 24 percent in 2004.

If "participation fell" doesn't that mean that the number of people with "market income below 50 percent of the poverty line fell?"

And of course then we'd want pay-out to the group to fall. There are fewer participants(!)

1st, absolute poverty is masked by welfare programs thus fewer people starve to death on the streets.Food Stamps, School Lunches, AFDC, etc you know

Its also masked by the fact that the US is essentially Social Democratic with government approaching 40% of the GDP. That's a lot of hiring

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

The broader situation is a bit complicated but here is a pie chart and some other notes

http://currydemocrats.org/american-pie/

IMO what killing the economy for working people is a host things, technology, immigration, wage arbitrage and free trade are the big ones I think but also a skills and training gap, school costs , rising energy costs , the US economy moving to FIRE instead of manufacturing and yes the growth of the state.

Also the best measure of poverty is not an absolute measure but a relative one. Libertarians tend to see anyone who is not dying in the streets as "not poor" but its nothing like this. Affluent societies tend to have a lower bar for poverty and maintaining that affluence and keeping the State small requires a series of efforts on the part of the private sector to keep wages high. Failure on this point as we see here where corporate profits are highest-ever share of GDP, while wages are lowest-ever

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/03/1166878/-Corporate-profits-are-highest-ever-share-of-GDP-while-wages-are-lowest-ever

Lastly consider the US birth rate. Assuming we did not have massive immigration from third world countries our birth rate would as low as Europe despite far cheaper housing and less crowding, Turning the US into Mexico for short term profit gains is a great way to grow the population and the state and long term shrink the GDP drastically as it becomes a much less skilled spoils state.

Worse multi group competition, ideological and racial make the kind of comity that helps build a great economy impossible.

Short term, a nice boost for corporate profits., Long term, after a time there simply won't be enough consumers to support a broad economy and while I am sure plenty of people would be happy in a nice town home with a broken glass wall, a private generator and private goons this is no way to run a country. Moving from European America to a fast ride to Venezuela North or worse is no way to govern and as heavily armed as the population is may not even be plausible.

Lots of speculation and assumptions in here.

True enough. It is a blog post though not an economics White Paper.

he US economy moving to FIRE instead of manufacturing and yes the growth of the state.

Just to point out that the share of value added to be found in FIRE is a great deal larger than was the case in 1948. However, the share attributable to real estate hit its plateau around 1985 and the share attributable to finance hit its plateau around 1998. IIRC, the share attributable to insurance has increased only modestly and not in the last 15 years.

Good to know the stats there. I wonder how much of the remaining economic nonsense that passes for our economy is services and how much is state. Neither of those are especially wealth generating .

For example making homes more expensive per square foot adjusted for technological change and material costs as they are now adds value but actually impoverishes people. JMO but if 50% or more of the FIRE sector vanished and was replaced with manufacturing or something else, the economy would be massively more robust and America workers measurably more wealthy.

Long term stable wealth is property or means of production of something useful (this can be a service though hard wealth is better) not debt. A mortgaged house is not really wealth unless you can pay it off and even money while wealth to a degree is chancy baring good solid governance. Bad governance means either property rights are impinged or that (c.f Venezuela) money, that store of wealth is devalued . And yes I know its seductive but money is not debt. Its an arbitrary trade token that can and is often ruined by bad actors.

JMO the US and to an extent the world has been in an efficiency trap for some time. Probably since the 1930's when Kellogg company had a 30 hour work week and was forced to drop it by shareholders who were status seeking (it was not needed for the work load, efficiency actually declined)

As I see it we don't have the demand for the amount of production we need to keep the economy healthy and the state small and we don't have a demand for the labor to increase the demand for goods.

People can only consume so much and again opinion creating a constant chase for status and wealth leads to pathology. People need other people not more stuff and the entire idea of homo-economus is well charitably a bad one.

At least they want to work. Let them come in on visas. We need the tax revenue to pay for all the deadbeats.

"Thank goodness we let in all those illegal immigrants..."

Speaking for conservatives and Republicans I presume given the lax enforcement occurred under Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and while Republicans controlled Congress.

If only conservatives would demand biometric ID cards, and for convenience, RFID chips implanted in their necks, of all US citizens and nationals by the IRS/SS agents who have detailed records on virtually every person legally in the US.

That would then solve all sorts of problems. Eliminating voter fraud comes to mind, but especially illegal immigrants - RFID scanners everywhere with motion detectors would raise alarms when illegals walk by. Tourists would be constantly tracked by their lack of an RFID chip.

Bit of a strawman argument I think. Its quite possible for a nation to patrol its borders and to prevent illegal entry even with borders as large as we have.

We do have in fact rather advanced technology and the largest military in the world more than enough to keep up with the influx if the political will was there.

Its not though, the Left wants new clients, the R selected types "vibrancy" and the ownership class, cheaper wages and hopefully more consumers

That coalition is enough to basically screw everyone else.

Forgot a phrarse, its quite possible for a nation to patrol its borders and to prevent illegal entry even with borders as large as we have without Orwellian measures if we wanted to.

But perhaps the immigrants allow poor USAers to live around more decent hard working people. College dorms are often poverty housing but nice places to live. Would you rather live in a 1200/foot apartment next to poor USA born poor people in subsidized housing or in with Mexican and Chinese immigrants in an 700/foot apartment?

So, the poor getting poorer remains an accurate observation?

Anyone surprised by this, just remember to mention how big TV screens are today compared to a generation or two ago.

Well the quoted text only says "... the poverty rate for families has stayed about the same."

Actually if you read the paper from Moffitt and Scholz (link in the first paragraph of the quote) it is clear that the poverty rate post-tax and post-transfer has decreased from 15.1% in 1993 to 12.7% in 2004 whereas it is the pre-tax and pre-transfer poverty rate that has stayed the same. So the poor seem to get fewer and not more...

And the poor get fatter too. The poverty rates are based off the poverty line calculated by the Federal government. That's based entirely on the cost of food. Therefore, BMI is a nice proxy for poverty. My last trip to Walmart tells me poverty is declining.

That's funny. Could there be a less systematic study?

If they could actually show that transfers to "extreme" poverty families, or individuals, fell ... wouldn't they do that? The math would be much more compelling. Joe used to get $X but must now squeak by on $Y.

The fact that they don't makes me think they can't. Instead they note that less is going to extreme poverty in general now, which could indeed be a good thing.

Even that relatively minor drop significantly UNDERSTATES the change in actual living conditions for the poor. Meyer and Sullivan show that by using a more accurate consumption rather than income measurement the poverty rate is less than 5%. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%202012/2012b_Meyer.pdf?_lang=en

So really the post is ignoring important improvements that scholars have been making in measuring poverty (improvements which have notably not yet been incorporated into official statistics).

I suspect no, the opposite. (a bit on "AFDC-TANF participation" above.)

I suspect that the numbers in extreme poverty fell, and THAT is why emphasis is now elsewhere.

Why would you want to strip out medicare and medicaid though? I mean if you want to measure the aid to the poor then why strip out some of the programs that have been expanding the most? By arbitrarily exclusion you can get to any conclusion you want

>By arbitrarily exclusion you can get to any conclusion you want

You should look at the international GINI numbers that the OECD puts together and then the NYT quotes with gusto.

The results are... 'shocking' may not be sufficient.

Then it is still interesting that the only area where spending has been increasing is in medicine. The sector in which America is famously paying ever higher costs. Arguably the higher spending is buying nothing new for the poor and the money is going to wealthy and middle-class health care workers. Damn those doctors and nurses.

This, but I tend to blame the overpaid doctors more.

Heh. You think we can force doctors to work for less? Do you want your doctor to be paid less? This will improve your health care outcome how?

I don't want my doctor to get an arbitrary cut from his paycheck but I'd like there to be more doctors (yes thus suppressing wages). The barriers to entry for accrediting a new medical school and graduating more doctors (or importing them) are embarrassing if we really care about healthcare costs.

@Jay,
I think that has contributed to the explosion in the number of alternative health care providers, some of which are nightmares but some of which are excellent.
There is a huge market for health care and that is getting bottled up.
That means poor providers can make a living because there is more demand, but it also means that folks who would otherwise have become doctors are now going into parallel fields.
So, good and bad. But definitely an effect. If it didn't cost so many stupid things to become a doctor, more smart people would become them (it's o.k. for it to cost smart things to become a doctor).

I think the more of the growth has been in administration.

Medicaid per-enrollee has flat lined, and has not seen nearly the rates of medical price inflation as private insurers. Thus most of the huge increase in Medicaid through the 90s to today is due to expanded eligibility (like that brought on by the Sullivan v Zelbey decision), and a ten-fold increase in spending on the Disproportionate Share Hospitals that service the poor.

"By arbitrarily exclusion you can get to any conclusion you want . "

I think that's probably the point.

How much is the leakage / overhead in these programs? e.g. Just the food stamp program alone has a 2013 budget of $82,000 million. That's ~$7000 spent per family of 4 people below the poverty line. And Food Stamps are not really a middle class sop.

And that's just one program. Add in CHIP, SSI, TANF etc. & all possible overlap with Disability, Veterans & other programs why isn't there enough money for those below the poverty line?

What gives?

It, and programs like it, employ a substantial amount of civil servants. Who provide a substantial portion of the reliable campaign workers in the next election cycle as a bonus.

As I'm fond of saying, there's a lot of people making money off the ghetto. Poverty is big business. There's never been a recession and the revenue is guaranteed.

We've spent over $16 TRILLION fighting poverty since LBJ's "War on Poverty" kicked in half a century ago. How could we have spent so much and changed the official poverty numbers so little?

In 2012, the federal government spent $668 Billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 Billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to about $1 TRILLION a year (and still increasing). That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

It would be much cheaper simply to give poor people a fat government check each year >>> and abolish the crazy quilt of government anti-poverty programs ( and the fatcat bureaucrats running them).

For the long term spending, I can think of a couple of reasons. First, poverty-removal is not a one time fix. You could raise someone out of poverty but he can relapse. Second, LBJ-era poor died. New poor were born. Some immigrated etc, It's a dynamic equilibrium I guess.

But yes, I agree with you. Based on what we are spending why should we have 46 million below the poverty line? Why not try lifting a chunk above the poverty line by just writing $11,000 checks?

Because the poverty line is a floating measure?

The poor must deserve help. "Deserve" means tests, testers, and test outcome appeals.

The reason for this outcome should be obvious: the middle class is where the votes lie.

She could get more people to listen if she didn't frame it as a way to blame evil Republicans.

this reminds me of an old joke if being poor was so bad, there wouldn't be some many of them

"In fact, if you strip out Medicare and Medicaid, federal social spending on those in extreme poverty fell between 1993 and 2004." And if you strip out all federal spending on the poor, you conclude that they received nothing at all from the federal taxpayer.

If one is actually trying to measure income needed to not be in poverty, then most or all of medicaid and medicare should be pulled out. The official poverty rate moves up on a general price index, while medical care costs rise much faster. As such, for those right on poverty line with the non-cash benefits included, the non-medical care part of consumption is forced down substantially in a real sense as the medical component rises. For example, the official poverty line for a family of 4 was $22,050 in 2009 and that rose 6.8% to $23,550 in 2012. Since medical care costs rose more than a total of 6.8% during those 4 years, that means a big reduction in food, clothing, heat, etc. for a family receiving medicaid and still staying at that same poverty line (when benefits are included). Of course all of us have that same effect in our household budgets, but my family cost of care has a much, much lower weight in my income than a poor person, so the overall price inflation measure averages out better for me than for that family at the poverty line.

This is nonsensical. The poverty line does not include benefits. It’s what you earn before benefits. If the feds are paying more for medical care, it does not follow that the family therefore has less for all other costs, unless you imagine that the govt. would be increasing their benefits for those costs at the same inflationary rate paid for medical care.

I am referring to the measures of how many people are over the poverty line when we also include the value of government noncash programs.

My son just got a full ride scholarship to a state university, and thank goodness. We make about 200,000/year, which is great money for day-to-day living, but the formulas all show that we need zero need-based aid. With four kids, the room & board + tuition works out to about 800,000 to get them all through school, which is our entire net worth after 20 years of working and maxing out our 401K plans.

God forbid your children have to find a way to pay for their own schooling! i hear that can cost four years of effort in High School in either sports or academics, or four years in the military.

"God forbid your children have to find a way to pay for their own schooling! i hear that can cost four years of effort in High School in either sports or academics..."

"My son just got a full ride scholarship to a state university"

lol

Welcome to the upper middle class. Don't be fooled by sticker price...this is just a way to get you to bargain to lower the price via other ways, such as scholarships.

By the way, did your state cut funding to state schools over time and raise tuition at the same time.

Bet it did.

When I read "how can I survive on $200k/yr!" posts, my tiny internal violin plays it's sad, sad song.

I try really hard not to go there. My husband works very hard in a very productive job for $30 a year without benefits, we have three kids. We also home school, so I don't "get" the free education for my pre-college kids paid for by the state. I have a hard time intuitively "getting" how $200 can possibly not be enough -- just save the money you don't have to spend on educating your kids up until college each year, and you have up to $75,000 per kid to spend on college. You can get them a nice education, living at home, for that.

At the same time, I know several upper middle class families, and they really do get grifted right and left. And that $200 is, of course, before taxes. In addition, expectations are very different, and I don't mean that in a snarky way. If a kid from a lower income household gets a degree at a state school, he's doing well. If a kid from a $200 household gets a degree from a state school, he's coming down in the world? If Michael drove to work in the 1993 spray painted front door doesn't work truck my husband drives to work in every day, it would have repercussions in his business and social life. I'm guessing that $200 comes from two incomes, and if Michael's wife wanted to stay home their world would be dramatically changed, both financially and socially. Or if Michael did. The kids had better be in many activities and compete well in them, and do well in school and not take the chance of failing anything, and that means $5,000 a year at least per activity (that's what I've heard cheerleading in a public school costs) and a car each in high school.

Really, college should not cost as much as it does, and a huge chunk of the reason it costs that much is that the upper middle class has been sold on the idea that if they love their kids and want to look responsible to their peers their kids must go to college, must do well, and must pay $200,000 before they can leave. This effects everyone. Today's economy is a shell game, and Michael getting scammed and cheated doesn't make me less likely to be. An honest, well functioning economy would help us both.

Marie,
It also really depends on location. I'm making just under 100k, and I am barely making it. Given that most of the people have two incomes, that is roughly 200k. I'm supporting myself and my daughter by myself, and that 100k doesn't go very far after taxes. My only debt is my mortgage. I live in a two bedroom condo. I don't have cable. We wear coats inside to cut down on electricity. I drive a used Yaris. We aren't living a middle class, let alone an upper middle class life.

I think the number 200k throws people off, and this gives an inconsistent view of the lifestyle actually being lived.

We have food, shelter, clothes, transportation, and live in an area with relatively low crime. Life isn't bad, but it isn't steak and lobster every night either.

I also think you might miss just how expensive child care is, even for school age children. I'm at about 1,000 a month and that is really cheap. Average around here is 1,500 a month.

There are many parts of the country where you can live far better than what you describe on $50K per year. Indeed, I'm willing to bet that the Egg plant in yesterdays link would qualify.

NPW,
We don't have a mortgage and we can heat our house with wood, so I suspect that our 30 gets us more than your 100. In addition, your personal situation makes that 100 less, because every household has a large number of "unpaid positions" that a couple or a family with older kids manages together, and you have the entire burden on yourself.

Just in case I wasn't perfectly clear, though, I was wholeheartedly trying to say that Michael's $200 with college looming still gets my sympathy -- my first paragraph was supposed to establish my cred for giving it!

I think folks in the middle or upper middle class living in our predatory culture with a screwed up market have targets on their backs. A lot is said here about taxes -- that's only half the story. Everyone wants their money. Sure, they can say no, but the repercussions for no are greater the higher you go up -- then you hit wealthy, and you have more freedom again.

A better functioning economy would serve all classes better.

Marie,

The work you put in must be enormous. Self-educating three children from home? Incredible. "Labor of Love" probably doesn't describe half of it.
My thought is: what if your husband gets hurt? what if the price of health insurance skyrockets? These are the kind of questions that keep me up at night, and while certainly "we'll make it" is true, it does not seem fair that your husband throws down a good chunk of change to Uncle Sam, when he could be protecting his family's fortunes for the future. Such thoughts also apply to myself and my family's income, and though I do believe in paying my fair share of taxes, I am not at all thrilled for paying for the irresponsible proclivities of blog commenters who impregnate girls at the age of 17.

Definite Beta, One of us can't count. If she says her husband makes 30k a year, and she doesn't work, your comment about taxes is, interesting. She probably isn't paying taxes and probably qualifies for EITC.

Yes, Bill, the IRS gives us tax money each year in the form of EITC, and yes, we take it. You're right.
I'm happy to full disclosure if anyone wants me to!

@DBG, thanks for the encouragement. Like all of us, my work levels vary.

You're very thoughtful comment deserves a complete response, but I'm afraid I just tried it and it was about 73 pages long. . .

Enough to say that yes, it is terrifying, the uncertainty of not having enough buffers -- but that we used to have "enough" buffers, and I now seriously believe there are rarely enough. I have gone from being a marshmallow test person to a revised marshmallow test person!

Yes, I stay up nights wondering if we are doing the right thing. But I think most Americans do so, in all walks of life. We all want to do what's right. (As for the 17 year old, my parents had children young. My husband and I had kids when we were in our 30s. Love my life, wouldn't change a thing, but ours was not the more responsible choice!)

I make about that and I spend about $50,000/year.

Seems to me that you'd have to be exceptional in two directions -- both in your ability to earn and in your ability to live the way you choose -- in order to do that. And also, of course, not incidentally have any of those quirky fate things turn up, like hurricanes and twins.
///p;.-jjjjjjjjjp000000000000000hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhg0-[]\l,k mjjjjjjjj==============hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggffffffffffffffffffff ddddddddddddddddddddddddddsss--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333=3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333o0 i999996
It encourages me to think some folks can do this. I doubt I could, I like to think

I started to reply to Floccina, walked away, and -- seriously -- my dog came and sat down on the computer.
I apologize.
What I was trying to write is that I think that is excellent, that you can do that.

And, it also means what you define as "poverty"

I thought this was interesting:

"The poverty line, or technically speaking the “poverty threshold,” is the same as it was in 1964 when it was invented except for being adjusted for inflation via the CPI.

In the early 1960′s, it was noted that poor families spent about a third of their money on food. To build an “objective” measure of poverty, then, they decided to measure the cost of an “economic food budget” for a family of that size and then multiply that cost by 3.

Does that make sense anymore?

Well, no. Food has gotten a lot cheaper since 1964, and other stuff hasn’t. According to the following chart, which I got from The Atlantic, poor families now spend about one sixth of their money on food:"

The charts are at: mathbabe.com

In my area, Orange County California, large amounts to go rent assistance.

They should not. Let the market determine rents.

You can improve the options at the lower end of the income scale by rank-ordering your census tracts according to per capita or household income, identifying the poorest tracts which collectively comprehend about 15% of your population, and suspending the collection of property taxes in those tracts. You can re-calculate after the next census, notifiying property holders by post in tracts which have passed out of the non-collectible zone that assessments on their property will be re-imposed in 24 months time.

You can also amend planning and building codes for selected areas to promote the return of rooming houses, flop houses and shared kitchens. See Mark Hinshaw's True Urbanism for ideas about salutary adjustments in standards which would allow for more cheap housing for tertiary sector workers.

If you want to make a normative statement, "they" should let owners sub-divide lots with abandon, and reach for a Tokyo like population density.

Right now "they" play a game. Zoning keeps prices (homes and rents) high, and then the state supplements rents, directly to landlords.

The alternative, which some poor workers do choose, is to live in another county and make the long commute. There of course we get into the role of transportation infrastructure. It is hard, in a "be rich, have a nice car" society to get workers a long way from home to work.

Zoning where? You're conflating features of suburban tract development with the problems of slum housing markets.

It is not a conflation. Any zoning that keeps lot sizes up, or density down, increases rents in the few "rental zones" which are left.

The middle class and above love zoning that increases their home prices, restricts density, and sends renters elsewhere.

My home town in 1930 had a population of about 360,000 and densities of 10,000 per sq. mile. You might have found about 50,000 people in adjacent tract development, occupying swatches of four townships.

In the intervening decades, the population of the core city has declined by about 40%, leaving densities of about 6,000 per sq. mile. Tract development now splays across more than a dozen townships, three or four of which are entirely built up, and the population living in suburban tracts now approaches 400,000. I believe tract development has mean densities of about 1,500 per sq. mile.

Per the city police department, the population of the slums is about 60,000. Looking at some crime maps, the troublesome areas of town would appear to have a population of about 110,000; and scarcely any denser (if at all) than the agreeable areas of town. Again, there was a decline in the population of the core city by 150,000 registered over eight decades. You go to the slums today, and the density is not there. A mess of abandoned and neglected buildings are there, as well as housing projects with contrived green space. I do not think that competition for space is bidding up rents all that much.

I wonder why Tyler would pose that question, knowing that most of his readers would say "Fuck the poor."

No, jackass, just about everyone wants to help the poor, we just disagree about how to do that. What was it Freidman said? Something to the effect that "All poverty programs benefit the middle class at the expense of the rich and the poor".

And when someone notes this, they are accused of hating the poor? Maybe some of us are unconvinced that just because someone SAID a program was to help the poor, it actually does so. A politician lie? Such a thing has never been heard of!

Some people seem to believe that intentions trump results, but I come from the opposite school. If someone sets out to murder every puppy on the planet but winds up helping the poor, his program is superior to one that set out to help the poor, but became a subsidy for clever middle-class people.

People like Tarrou want to help the poor by demonizing them and cutting all benefits.

Bootstraps!

Bahahahaha! Look mate, first off, I haven't said anything about the poor, and it would be pretty difficult for me to "demonize" one, since I am poor, and have always been so. And I haven't advocated any policies, much less "cutting benefits". But it's nice that you got that from "Maybe we should check to see if the programs that supposedly help the poor actually do so". One wonders how defensive you must be about the effectiveness of "poverty" programs if you conflate any investigation of their effectiveness with a desire to hurt the poor.

You don't know me, my politics, or my ideas for easing poverty. But you find it much easier to demonize and mischaracterize than engage in substantive debate. Interesting that, Freudians might call it "projection".

I accept what you say completely. I don't believe that you do harbor any ill for the poor. But I am curious, have you seen this paper, THE IDEOLOGICAL RIGHT VS. THE GROUP BENEFITS LEFT (PDF)?

The interesting observation, I think, is that on these questions the right will talk philosophy, how they think the world should work, ignoring actually how well that theory maps to practice. The liberals essentially own practice, pragmatism.

No amount of conservative wishes will put a church with a program in touch with every poor person in need. That dream is not systematic. For something systematic, for a safety net (as opposed to safety spots) you need to look left.

The liberals do not own practice, sir. The people who bleat about 'mass incarceration' or utter mantras like 'teach every child' are very seldom properly coded as members of the starboard. Disorderly and ineffectual schools and severe crime injure the quality of life of the poor just as surely as deficits of purchasable goods and services.

The experience of the last 20 years has shown you can suppress crime to a point where slum homicide rates hover around 13 per 100,000, not the 48 per 100,000 with which the residents of Detroit have to cope. We know that property taxes induce environmental damage, whether it's deforestation in rural areas or the decay and abandonment of building stock in urban areas. We should well know you can teach slum kids at a certain pace as long as the truly disruptive characters are removed from the classroom and put in detention.

Deco, aren't you answering in a way that shows you are concerned with what they say, more than that there be well designed prison and school systems?

Maybe it is just the times, and the "stall Obama" tactics in Congress, but we have to reach back quite a ways to find conservative programs for these things. In recent years the conservative theme has been "always shrink the state" rather than say charter schools or ... well other than private prisons I can't think of anything on that side.

I mean the "shorter" on that PDF is that when the right has an ideal, and the left has a program, you have to go with the left if you want any program at all.

Improving public order and the quality of schooling are not the business of the central government bar in a polity as populous and geographically extensive as ours or even of one a tenth the size. The antics of Congress are unedifying but irrelevant bar when inter-governmental transfers constrain the salutary activities of actors in the provinces (and, no, Obama has not suggested replacing federal aid to education &c with general revenue sharing, and never will).

On the local level, suburban politicians where I am from are vacuous and refractory. That having been said, the opposition has no ideas but mo' money for Democratic Party clientele, so both are in an equilibrium of stupidity.

While we are at it, Mr. Bratton's innovations in New York City were not derived from any portside program. The portside fancied it gauche to even consider investment in law enforcement and some still do.

Did you speak for solutions there, at all?

I'd certainly like to see them. I'd like to see the education cost disease addressed, low cost internet education improved, and occupational paths expanded. None of those things cost more, they might even cost less ... but who are my allies in all that? The right just wants to slash budgets, while saying that any spending is a problem, rather than that better spending can be made.

@ john personna

Couple things, and no, I'm not reading a self-fume-huffing paper from some shitbird academic talking about how "rightwingers are all ideologues, but we leftists are just about facts"!

1: I'm not ideologically right-wing
2: I don't care what left-wing partisans have to say about right-wing partisans
3: I don't think either side owns practicality, my remarks are made to people.

Commenter Alan says that "most" of the readership here is hostile to the poor. My point is that virtually nobody is hostile to the poor, they just have different ideas of how to minimize poverty, and sometimes different definitions of poverty.

But even before we have the debate between those who hate the poor (whoever they are) and those who want to help them, perhaps we should see if the programs proffered are effective. This apparently means I demonize the poor, and want to cut all benefits.

Your rejoinder is a non-sequitur. You've basically said: "other people who disagree with you politically disagree with you substantively, according to people who disagree with them".

Not the stuff of cutting debate.

Actually, there are people who are contemptuously indifferent to the welfare of the slum population &c. You run into a few of them on Republican blogs and it is a vector in suburban politics. By way of example, suggest forming a metropolitan police force. The utility and function of the police force varies quite jaggedly over the urban landscape, and policing (unlike pencil manufacture) can benefit from command and control. For other sorts of services, you could leave performance thereof in municipal governments and address secular decay in the tax base of particular municipalities (commonly central cities) by a mild cross-subsidy to municipal tax revenues (say, $400 per capita across the whole metropolis with the central city receiving more and the chi chi suburbs $0). With police services, having a unified department across the whole metropolitan settlement is a better use of resources. The thing is, optimal deployment will mean more manpower in the slums and metropolitan governance means most of the revenue arrives from elsewhere. This is sensible, that's where the hoodlums are and that's where the money is. You suggest that to suburban residents in fora such as this or launch a campaign for such (as the politicians in my home town did in 1982) and you get some ugly responses. Now, you do not have separate police forces for each bloc or each suburban tract, so what is the optimal jurisdictional boundary? If you said the boundary between the metropolitan settlement and the peri-urban countryside, suburban residents say you're wrong. There's us and there's them, and the slum residents are never part of us for any purpose. It's regrettable. (Some inner city politicians exacerbate matters with their insistence on control over performance and their bad manners).

Well Tarrou, I think it is a good paper, and does demonstrate what we see on the Internets daily. It provides the "meta" for countless safety net arguments I've seen. On the right there is philosophy about what governments should (not) do, on the left there are reminders that if government won't help these people, many of them will go without.

And Deco, when you say below "slutty single women and their bastard children” I don't think I need more than to say "really?"

To combine responses to the two of you, if government does not provide, some "bastard children" will go to sleep hungry.

@ john personna,

If the goal is to make sure no "bastard children", as you put it, go hungry, then how do we make sure that assistance does not incentivize the production of yet more hungry "bastards"? Which is the problem? Women who can't afford a child having them, or the children they do have going hungry? Is there a way to reconcile two disparate goals? I can think of a simple one, but no one will like it.

The right just wants to slash budgets, while saying that any spending is a problem, rather than that better spending can be made.

Which right? There is a policy oriented right. The Tea Party's problem is that its program has remained inchoate; they're Indians without chiefs and the Indians are resistant to specific terms. The problem with policy shops like Heritage is that they remain concerned with the work of Congress and the agencies and their focus is quite narrow.

I agree with you there are a great many otiose and unimaginative characters on local councils and in state legislatures. I'd say there are in Congress too, but Congress cannot fix primary and secondary schooling and it's contribution to repairing higher education would be primarily regulatory. As for the other side, they're in hock to various vested interests and will never advocate any repairs which injure those interests (or at least they will not do so systemically).

Now, its not hard to contemplate repairs to higher education. They would involve ending federal subventions, global budgets, financing of state schools through voucher distributions regulated by exam results, ending any requirement to study ought but your chosen subject, briefer degree and certificate programs, closing hinky occupational programs, closing hinky academic programs, pruning occupational doctoral programs (no more in 'education', 'nursing practice', or 'physical therapy'), replacing vocational master's degrees with brief degree or certificate programs with modest (< 1 year) preparatory requirements, ending tuition charges for students admitted to dissertation programs, and required disclosure of the employment statuses of students admitted to a given doctoral programs over the previous generation. You could also replace tenure with six year contracts, renewable once. Also, institutional boards should be elected by a postal ballot of stakeholders (e.g. Alumni) and the use of nominating committees and proxy voting prohibited.

No advocate of the status quo in higher education would ever advocate any of this.

And Deco, when you say below “slutty single women and their bastard children” I don’t think I need more than to say “really?”

What's your complaint? Are you contending they do not have loose morals or that they have husbands nobody knows about?

--

Look, you had in 1995 long term dole recipients with multiple bastard children living down the street from tertiary sector workers who were also commonly unmarried but at least self-supporting. What differentiates the two beyond personal history and, perhaps, character? You want incentives so structured that you have the latter and not the former. That means the edifice of means-tested subsidies to mundane expenditure and the long-term doles goes, and some sort of negative income tax replaces them with net rebates subject to stipulations that render them 'matching funds' for the wages these tertiary sector workers earn. If you conjoin that to state-organized (comprehensive) actuarial pools for medical and long-term care and to universal distribution of school vouchers, you can take the edge off the market without promoting vice and stupidity.

There's no point in talking about 'ladders'. There are tens of millions of people who do dull and repetitive work all their lives because that's what they can handle and they do not have comparative advantage for anything better. There's not much point in talking about 'ending poverty'. If reliant on their earnings, a large mass of people will always be comparatively poor. The best you can do is see to it that the working population and the elderly and disabled have some sort of baseline given the standards of the society in which they live and charity at least provides a bed and board for the abidingly incompetent.

Do you want to have a meaningful debate? Then actually try to understand your opponents' arguments, rather than just claiming they are evil.

It's funny because it's true.

Well, you're the first one to say that...

If "amount of money spent on poverty" is the metric we are using to evaluate the success of poverty programs, then we have a real problem.

I wonder if perceived effectiveness is part of the story here. Maybe we like to give money in a way that makes a difference between being poor or not more than we like making extremely poor people less poor but still poor.

I think that's a bingo moment.
I also think it's a mistake.

We are rightly skeptical of "charities" that spend very little of their raised money on the people it is supposed to help. Shouldn't we hold government to the same standard?

If the government spends (here's some completely random numbers, just for comparison) 8 billion dollars on "poverty programs" but the actual poor people only get two billion in benefits, we have a right and a duty to ask why that is. And to then be accused of "hating poor people" is the worst sort of demagoguery. "How dare you question the right of the middle-class bureaucracy to siphon funds from the poor to their own pockets? WHY DO YOU HATE THE POOR????"

Welfare programs have never been about solving poverty. Even the most wild-eyed utopian dreamer knows that's absurd. The poor will always be with us. Poverty programs serve three functions today. One is riot insurance and prevention. The people of Maryland, for example, have a real concern about the 'citizens" in Baltimore burning the city to the ground. Giving them money to sit home and watch Springer all day is a cheap and bloodless way to deal with that problem. Welfare is just a part of the defense grid.

The other function is to employ an army of state workers that become poll workers, organizers and fund raisers for the political parties. The fact that tax money goes to operations like Planned Parenthood, for example, who then funnel it back to the politicians is a good example of the self-dealing at work. The massive amount of campaign money that flows from government unions back to politicians is not an accident.

Finally, these programs, their university training grounds and the non-profit barnacles attached to every poverty program are excellent dumping grounds for the dimwitted children of the ruling classes. Throughout the state systems you find relatives of state reps and party hacks. In Massachusetts, for example, the state is now largely run by a few Hibernia clans. There are families in Mass that have three generations of hacks.

I see this as the mirror image of Alan's comment above: failure to understand opponents' arguments and failure to take seriously their stated reasons for holding their position.

Whether or not someone has a secret motive for supporting a particular program is 1) unknowable and 2) does not change the calculus of whether the program is beneficial at all. It is therefore irrelevant. So, why don't you cut out this garbage and make a meaningful argument?

I see this as typical gibberish from generation onsie. You set up a false dichotomy and then set yourself apart, declaiming both, while never offering an alternative to either. Obama loved this tactic. Maybe that's why the young loved him so. It is just a way to be disagreeable, while avoiding confrontation.

Here is my alternative: I think liberals support poverty programs mainly because they want to help the poor and think those programs help. I want to help the poor, too, but I disagree with them over what the government's role should be in that, as well as the efficacy of the programs.

I see no evidence that most support for poverty programs is due to ulterior motives, and I think that making such a claim weakens the conservative case and seeks to short circuit actual debate--kind of like blowing smoke about dichotomies and how similar to Obama your opponent is, rather than addressing the actual point.

I see no evidence that most support for poverty programs is due to ulterior motives

Most poverty programs do not work. Many poverty programs leave the people on them worse off.

Yet liberals fight to the death to defend said poverty programs.

The only logical conclusion I can see is that most support for poverty programs is due to some other, that is ulterior, motive other than fighting poverty.

@SoMuchForSubtlety, I do not think that is the "only logical conclusion". Rather, it is the only conclusion given your assumptions, which are not held by all.

Here are some other possibilities, in order of least to most tendentious:

1) Liberals' definition of what "works" may be different. Most poverty programs demonstrably help some people. Some people actually do get food, housing, etc. This comes at a high cost, creates perverse incentives, has harmful side effects, etc.--hence, conservatives oppose the programs. But the trade-offs may be worth it depending on which outcomes people value the most.

2) It is actually quite hard to evaluate the systemic effect of social programs. Thus, liberals tend to disagree quite drastically about what is working. The ambiguities of evaluating such programs create plenty of room for partisan bias in the interpretation on both sides.

3) There is a moral imperative to "do something", so even if the program is not very effective, we should keep doing it if we can't think of anything better.

4) The human tendency to ignore evidence we don't agree with.

5) Not being informed enough to actually evaluate what is working.

"One is riot insurance and prevention."

Wrong.

It's not riot insurance and prevention - it's a rent-a-mob for when the bureaucracy wants one. Notice all the barely restrained glee over the prospect of riots due to the Zimmerman acquittal - riots that never materialized.

This is why the bureaucracy is hell bent on importing a new helot class - the current one (out of laziness or stupidity or some other reason) can't be relied upon to do what the masters of thought need done and can't even be bothered to burn some things on command so the agenda can be advanced!

Evidence to support this would be the places that did riot in the Sixties. They were not places that treated African Americans poorly. Invariably they were places where liberal city governments had tried to build coalitions with African Americans - cities with large bureaucracies and generous welfare programs.

Blacks did not riot in Birmingham. They did in Detroit.

And the best (or worst depending on your point of view) is yet to come when baby boomers retire in vast numbers, most unprepared financially for their senior years, and demand the benefits to which they believe they are entitled and, due to their large numbers, elect the politicians who will accommodate their demands. At least one Nobel winning economist (now dead) predicted this years ago as the natural "solution" to rising and, in his view, excessive inequality, inequality that results in low rates of return on capital and promotes speculation over productive investment.

I think both liberals and conservatives misunderstand the social safety net. Liberals assume its role is to "eliminate" poverty, and tie themselves in data knots trying to show that it does, or puzzle that it hasn't. Conservatives (including plenty of commenters above) are less familiar with the mechanics of the programs, and assume that vast amounts of people are drawing generous benefits for not working. In reality, income support programs are small relative to Medicare, Social Security and defense, and the generosity has scaled back since 1996. The purpose of the safety net is not to eliminate poverty or replace work - it's to make sure that people with low or no incomes can have absolute basic housing, healthcare, and food. Conservatives, if you think that is cushy enough to be a work disincentive, try living on it for a year. Liberals, don't expect these programs to "solve" poverty, just make it miserable rather than catastrophic. It's up to private-sector job growth to "solve" poverty.

Conservatives, if you think that is cushy enough to be a work disincentive, try living on it for a year.

But isn't this precisely the problem though? In terms of what we are spending (between $11,000 to $20,000 per capita below the poverty line), shouldn't the recipients deserve to be cushy? Ergo, where's the money going?

I'm not so much as resenting the poor or jealous of their handouts. Rather I'm annoyed that for what we spend the poor are getting a rather bad deal out of it.

I like that framing a lot, but you seem to be portraying it as the "conservative" framing, which it clearly is not.

Sorry, I should have clarified: I'm not claiming it is the conservative framing. It's just a thought.

The truth of Rampall's essay is also revealed in political rhetoric. The poor are never mentioned; only the middle class.

It is all about jobs. When you hollow out middle class jobs you hollow out the middle class. The majority of private sector jobs created each month are low wage. The majority of "hot jobs" projected for the 2020s are low wage jobs. Add in to the mix the fact that we bring in immigrants to compete for the few remaining jobs and you get stagnant wages.

So my theory is that Prof. Cowen is getting bored of blogging and is trying to slowly wean his readers on to what he sees as the "next generation" of thoughtful, just a little bit iconoclastic econ bloggers like Rampell and Klein.

Naive question: Say a family of 4 makes $20,000 putting them under the poverty line. Now by whatever combination of welfare programs they get a subsidy, of say, $6000. Assuming $26,000 is above the poverty line, does this family get counted as "below poverty line"? Or above?

They are still below the poverty line. Poverty thresholds as calculated by the Census Bureau are usually based on gross annual income, not net of transfers. Efforts to include cash transfers typically show poverty rates have fallen steeply since 1965.

Thanks! In which case, a better conclusion might be:

The safety net is working great, people just keep falling into it as often as they always used to.

But isn't the fact that pre-transfer the poverty rate is roughly flat since the War on it began but net-transfer it dropped dramatically show that the programs really aren't working the way they were proposed and are simply a crutch. They're talked about as a second chance but are instead a perpetual bird feeder designed to buy votes.

The safety net is working. The climbing school is not.

The problem is that people are poor because of various sorts of human capital deficit. The trick is to improve their real income while keeping to a minimum any inducement to undertake anything but satisfactory use of the assets they have at hand. That tends to rule out means-tested benefits, which encourage people to restrict their work effort by incorporating what amount to marginal assessments on earnings which exceed 100%. It also rules out long-term cash doles for people outside of status categories with entry requirements which are difficult to manipulate - i.e. those who are neither elderly, nor widowed, nor disabled (and mission creep and chicanery in the award of disability benefits had proved a chronic problem). Universal benefits in problem markets (medical care, long-term care, and schooling) through vouchers, insurance, and allowances would be a partial solution. A negative income tax where net rebates to filers not elderly nor disabled are capped at a percentage of earned income is another partial solution. The thing is, in a free society, you are always going to have people who are not candidates for institutional care but just function poorly and make bad decisions; you cannot subsidize them in their endeavours without inducing potentially competent people to abandon adult life. The only thing you can do for most of them is austere and in-kind benefits run by philanthropies.

It would help if municipal governments modified their planning and building codes to increase the options people have for housing - flop houses, rooming houses, apartments with shared kitchens &c. would help to have available. Suspending the collection of property taxes in slum neighborhoods would help. Improving public order in slum neighborhoods through vigorous policing would help. Improving order in slum schools by sequestering the trouble-makers would help. Inner city schooling more geared to basic skills and vocational training would help. Enhanced street sweeping patrols in slums would help, especially if they incorporated sandblasting the graffiti off the sides of buildings.

There's lots you can do to improve quality of life in slums that do not involve handing out cash, rent vouchers, and food coupons, to knocked-up adolescents for years on end.

"The thing is, in a free society, you are always going to have people who are not candidates for institutional care but just function poorly and make bad decisions; you cannot subsidize them in their endeavours without inducing potentially competent people to abandon adult life."

The ratio matters. It would be a hellish society which would not help 99 with "human capital deficit" because 1 with "capital" decided to free ride.

(I think we can agree that "the dole" is not a nice way to live, and that people "with capital" are quite generally not there.)

Personna, the AFDC rolls had 12,000,000 people on them ca. 1995. What was intended in 1935 as a widow's pension had by ca. 1958 morphed into long-term income for slutty single women and their bastard children. There were a great many people who were on-and-off the rolls in a couple of years, but mean time on was 6.6 years (per David Ellwood) and more than half of any cross sectional sample were composed of long-term recipients with eight years or more on the dole and multiple children. My sister was doing house to house tutoring ca. 1981 and one of her pupils was pregnant at sixteen, the oldest of four children. The mother had been on AFDC since 1965 and was still fertile (there was some confusion about just how old the mother was; the age my sister was given could not have been right). Of course, the girl failed the course.

You really cannot be providing cash, grocery coupons, and housing for anyone (working aged and able-bodied) who just shows up with the consequences of their loose morals and impetuousness (or you get more loose morals and impetuousness). We have a foster care system (which we do not spend all that much on) for people who lack the competence to take care of their children.

That aside, there is considerable economic inefficiency in intervening in markets for staple commodities replenished frequently and on which expenditure is strongly influenced by considerations of amenity. Let people pay their rent, pay for their groceries, and pay for the water and electricity out of pocket. You do not benefit from state sponsored actuarial pools for these goods the way you do for long-term care.

Just work on subsidizing or matching people's earned income and on improving the circulation of the labor market. You have to assume social competence.

"slutty single women and their bastard children"

Yikes, did you mean to say that?

Yes, I meant to say that. It is a precise description.

Art Deco

It would help if municipal governments modified their planning and building codes to increase the options people have for housing – flop houses, rooming houses, apartments with shared kitchens &c. would help to have available. Suspending the collection of property taxes in slum neighborhoods would help. Improving public order in slum neighborhoods through vigorous policing would help. Improving order in slum schools by sequestering the trouble-makers would help. Inner city schooling more geared to basic skills and vocational training would help. Enhanced street sweeping patrols in slums would help, especially if they incorporated sandblasting the graffiti off the sides of buildings.

Unfortunately all this is sound but it is pie-in-the-sky dreamland. Who runs those municipal governments? People like Coleman Young. Who would not be happy, I am guessing, with any of these policies. Although in places run by people like Coleman Young, there has been a de facto suspension of the collection of property taxes. No point in a place like Detroit. Also a de facto suspension of the collection of water bills and the like in places like Atlanta.

Vigorous policing? This is one of the oddities of American politics. African Americans say they want law and order, but they consistently vote for people who do otherwise. Coleman Young campaigned on a platform of disbanding the street crime unit STRESS. Although it was abolished by a scared mayor before Young came to power. Since then not only is crime through the roof but shootings by police are up something like 2,000 percent. Every elected Black mayor I can think of offhand has weakened policing - except for Cory Booker who actually appointed a White guy to head the police and got a reduce in crime. Needless to say Eric Holder and Obama have also been calling for a weakening of the law and for more criminals to be let out. Especially for drug crime.

This is also a problem for schooling. Holder has been pushing for reduced punishment for Black boys in school. He is insisting that schools punish all racial groups at the same rate. Of course they are not. Education is also one of those things which Black voters say they want, but in reality, they don't. You can see that in Michelle Rhee's time in Washington DC. Black parents came out and campaigned for failing schools. Blacks now run a lot of school systems in America. Failing ones mostly. Better education is not an African-American priority.

Especially not vocational education. Can you imagine the fuss if you proposed that Black majority school districts ought to be teaching Black children lesser skills than the White suburb school districts? Even if most Black majority school districts are failing to educate anyone at all.

As for getting rid of Street Art, apart from the politics of it all, a lot of cities can't be bothered to collect rubbish. Or even dead bodies in some cases.

Let's be realistic - short of a military coup or a foreign invasion, dysfunctional poverty-stricken inner cities will always exist. And will grow until they are a majority. As they are more or less given Obama was elected by the welfare rolls.

I think you've confounded Cory Booker with Anthony Williams and Adrian Fenty in Washington, or with the mayor of East Orange, N.J, a black town that has seen some dramatic quality of life improvements in recent years. You've also confounded Detroit and Gary and St. Louis with the rest of the country. It's wretched, but it's not that awful.

An amendment to the state constitution of Michigan which redrew the boundaries of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties to include only small towns and rural townships and put the dense settlement in a single county called 'Greater Detroit' would not require Coleman Young's permission. Neither would vesting the command of all police services therein in a sheriff of the metroplois. Of course, there might be considerable resistance to this by suburban residents, though it's the right thing to do and the suburbs make up about 85% of metropolitan Detroit.

Speaking somewhat impressionistically, I would agree with you that black politicians tend to be much more interested in controlling institutions than in doing anything to improve their performance and that black electorates are not manifestly bothered by that. That does not mean that the rest of the community cannot take action (though you are right, it likely never will).

It often seems to me that many people who read "Capitalism and Freedom" never reach Chapter 12, "The Alleviation of Poverty", where Friedman argues that the main benefit of a Negative Income Tax is that it is directed at actually helping the poor, which is what he and I both believe is worth doing through government action, I.e helping the poor.

For one, people don't believe every book they read.

I have no problem if people read it and don't agree with it, I'm saying that I'm not sure people have read it, otherwise it would be mentioned more often when the issue of help from the government not reaching the poor is brought up. Friedman gives a moral and economic argument for a Negative Income Tax, that follows directly from what he had previously presented in the book. On the other hand, since I agree with him here, as I do in many instances, I am most certainly irked not to have convinced everyone. But that's life.

From a discarded draft of Fitzgerald's "Rich Boy":

"Let me tell you about the very poor. They are different from you and me. They possess little and enjoy less, and it does something to them, makes them indifferent where we are caring and concerned, and fatalistic where we are optimistically opportunistic, in a way that, unless you were born poor, it is very difficult to understand."

The poor of 1926 are a different species than the poor of America 2014. Having one's subsistence depend upon unearned entitlements makes them demanding and aggressive. Their sustenance is disconnected from appearance, manners, language and behavior. No one offers them the gift of accountability.

That's a demand not a gift.

Do note the poor of those periods were quite willing to put fight in the streets for unions and pay and to put in some pretty unpleasant regimes. The age of socialism was created by the poor demanding better lives and for the most par they got them especially as technology got better,

I forgot something, part of the decline in poverty is caused by jobs. Government jobs to be precise either created directly by hiring or indirectly by contractors or demand for goods and services. This has a had a strong impact on poverty but is nearly half the GDP as government the way we want to run the country?

It does suggest to me though that Social Democracy works pretty well as long as the money keeps flowing.

I'll ask though would a robust and cooperative private sector be better? I suspect so but Freedom is only appreciated on a full belly.

The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product was fairly stable at 0.32 between 1974 and 2008. I think about 12% of the workforce consists of public sector employees.

Aye but don't forget the effects of other spending such as contractors and Social Security though. Those trillions buy a lot of poverty relief directly and indirectly (jobs created by payroll) I'm not arguing for more social democracy mind, merely nothing what seems to be the effects.

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

- Matthew 26:6-11

Comments for this post are closed