Yes, anti-poverty programs do keep some people poorer than they should be
Kudos to the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof for not only daring to question whether anti-poverty programs might actually harm some people more than they help them, but for doing some on-the-ground reporting about how that happens in specific individuals’ lives. His entire piece from Sunday is well worth reading, but here’s the crux of it:
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
Charles Murray, about whose book “Coming Apart” I wrote earlier this year (I’ve also previously noted the importance of marriage to ending child poverty, as Kristof did), argues the problems Kristof identifies are due to three laws of social programs, which he describes as:
1. The Law of Imperfect Selection. Any objective rule that defines eligibility for a social transfer program will irrationally exclude some persons [leading them to expand constantly]. …
2. The Law of Unintended Rewards. Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer. …
3. The Law of Net Harm. The less likely it is that the unwanted behavior will change voluntarily, the more likely it is that a program to induce change will cause net harm [by encouraging more people to engage in the bad behavior in the first place, so that they can profit from making the desired change]. …
Read Murray’s entire comment for a fuller explanation of these three laws. And, yes, the proper emphasis here should be on some people being worse off sometimes — the argument made by most conservatives is not that government should provide no safety net, but that it should not catch and even ensnare people who can and should be responsible for their own well-being. Even marginal increases in dependency have long-term consequences because they accumulate over time — most often as generation after generation within particular families grow up seeing nothing but dependency. Kristof is right to focus on the effects of dependency on children.
Taken together, Murray’s post and Kristof’s column give us an important understanding about the fallibility of even well-intentioned government programs for the poor, and some ways that we ought to think about these programs as we try to end unnecessary dependency and get our nation’s finances under control.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
Steve
December 11th, 2012
11:54 am
Wow, what a circle ____ of redneck ridiculousness. Everyone talking about entitlement dependencies yet you’d all be the first fat slob to run to the scooter store to buy your Medicare funded scooter to tool around your trailers.
@@
December 11th, 2012
11:55 am
Perpetual poverty?
“You didn’t build that”…the government did!
Build it and they will come…
until the foundation collapses.
Living With Open Eyes
December 11th, 2012
11:56 am
md I must tip my hat to you for your drive and intelligence. But I have 2 things to say about the present situation. 1.Are there enough jobs for everybody to work three of them? 2. Why should we have to live like that? Why don”t we bring manufacturing jobs back to the USA so “common” people can earn a decent living?
Reality
December 11th, 2012
11:56 am
Lil’ Barry -
Where can I buy that Obamaphone? With the Dow way up since President Obama took office and the general economy trending upward, this Obamaphone should be worth way more than the iPhone!
Now, if only the republicans in the House would get out of the way and stop being obstructionist and let President Obama finish the job!
Lexi3
December 11th, 2012
12:02 pm
Can you say “moral hazard?” We furnish enormous financial incentives for woman to breed illegitimate children who do the same, and whose children will also. And, we’ve been kowtowed into silence, afraid to decry the practice of mass production of leeches.
Our productive sector is starting to look like an upside down pyramid with the takers at the top. Our prospects with those odds are nt promising.
md
December 11th, 2012
12:06 pm
“1.Are there enough jobs for everybody to work three of them?”
The Mickey D’s on my road has their help wanted sign up constantly, a revolving door over there. I’ve seen many more just like it. Watch that Jon Stossel report for an eye opener. People standing in line for assistance and just around the corner help wanted signs in the windows.
“2. Why should we have to live like that? ”
It’s called life. Just ask the Greeks, Spaniards, and a host of others how the other method worked for them. If folks want a better job, it’s always up to them to better themselves and go find one vs sitting around waiting for the knock on the door.
“Why don”t we bring manufacturing jobs back to the USA so “common” people can earn a decent living?”
Because those common people have been on a 40 year quest to buy the cheapest thing possible and in doing so have driven down the cost of goods, hence wages as the major component of that cost. Harping about outsourcing will not do a bit of good in today’s global economy. If we continue to buy all the cheap stuff coming in, then we will be stuck with the lower wages, it’s just math.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
12:08 pm
And my own personal observation has been that many welfare bureaucrats encourage dependency for whatever personal reasons they may have and view welfare recipients with disdain.
Yuzey, correct, that is one of the problems with this welfare society, everyone seems to be actively involved in perpetrating it, no one seems to be working to end it. The bureaucrats are out to keep their job, and if enough “clients” don’t show up, they undergo a reduction in force. I’m sure somewhere, someone’s performance standard is based on how many new clients they sign up. Politicians are trying to buy the votes of the “clients” with more programs, and government is pushing for more free school lunches to help with their education budgets. Most times, we get what we want!
md
December 11th, 2012
12:09 pm
“With the Dow way up since President Obama took office and the general economy trending upward”
The dow reflects the financials of individual companies, NOT necessarily the economy. One needs to remember that many of these corps got leaner by cutting jobs, which looks great on an income statement.
As for the economy, 1%+ of growth is not going to get us very far very fast…………
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:10 pm
So, redneck cretins, where’s your outrage about this?
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
12:11 pm
I love the whole taker vs maker argument.
Its the same old 47 percent stuff that worked for Romney so well.
Keep it up guys.
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:11 pm
From the previous article:
“Combined federal and state TANF spending was about $26 billion in 2006. In 2009, the federal government will spend about $25 billion on rental aid for low-income households and about $8 billion on public housing projects. For some perspective, that’s about 3 percent of the total federal budget.
Note: I do not consider Medicaid to be included in the term “welfare” as it is used in common parlance. Typically, if one states that someone is “on welfare”, they mean that the person is receiving direct financial aid from the government. If we included Medicaid in our definition of social welfare, we would also have to consider any service that the government pays for to be “welfare”. For instance, public roadways to individuals’ homes would also be considered “welfare” under that expansive definition”
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:12 pm
So, you’re not racist when you rant about people on the dole when it’s really 3% of the total budget? Maybe if we cut the military…oh wait, you’d never want THAT to happen.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
12:13 pm
Ill give you an example of a “taker”
My father was in the US Air Force for 8 years.
He tore his knee up badly while on duty
He gets a check from the Government for about 150 bucks each month.
That makes him a taker or a moocher I guess.
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
12:14 pm
Comparing the rise in worker productivity and rise in executive compensation, with the stagnation of real wages over the same time period, one could also say that oyr current capitalist system keeps ALOT of people more poor than they should be.
MANGLER
December 11th, 2012
12:15 pm
Md,
A potential reason for that lack of overlap in the locations you cited is the same reason that certain websites offer some openings while others have different offerings. It depends primarily on who contacts the job service and lets them know about the position. Were any of the openings in the neighborhood brought up to the job center? Many times an employer chooses where they want their positions to be broadcast from. By letting the State in on it, you’re opening yourself up – as en employer – to having to follow a slew of rules with regard to hiring and pay scale that you may not otherwise have to abide by if you listed say on Craigslist or word-of-mouth type campaign. So yes, for many of the mom and pop openings, they don’t advertise on State job boards because the hassles involved in doing so.
As far as the job office themselves, most of the time when someone finds themselves in there, it is due to a sudden need. You go into a panic mode unfortunately when you are suddenly unemployed, and yes, they tend to focus on unemployment and food stamp benefits first to let you mentally come down out of that “omg I was just laid off how and I going to feed my family” mindset that can cloud an otherwise rational persons judgement. So if it seems like they start off with the benefits, they do, so that part gets taken care of and then you can start to focus on the job search.
I’ve been through that process 3 times, and luckily for myself, 2 times I never even collected the first check because I was able to secure a job swiftly. But lemmie tell ya, that first time … man was it nice knowing that help was there for me for a couple months.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
Reality
Now, if only the republicans in the House would get out of the way and stop being obstructionist and let President Obama finish the job!
Yeah, I guess that depends on what his job is? The 80 B he proposes raising by increasing taxes on the rich, will fund the government for about 5 days, what then? He has proposed no spending cuts. Someone said the other day, that if we eliminated all discretionary spending completely and raised taxes on the rich we would still have a significant yearly deficit. Obama is absent totally on eliminating the deficit and debt, so if that is his job, he hasn’t even addressed it. If his job is screwing over the rich, yeah, the GOP is holding him up. If his job is reducing America to a third world country, he is making progress.
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
You lost the election, and from reading the nonsense in here, I can see why. Sorry. The Republican party and conservatives are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 11th, 2012
12:18 pm
Only a lib could play the corporate welfare canard and then follow it up by cheering on a Wall Street up to it’s eyeballs in obozobucks.
mindless, freaking mindless
md
December 11th, 2012
12:18 pm
“About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies.”
I always get a chuckle with this argument. Considering we are corporations, as in the employees, the managers and the shareholders (401k’s), it is US that is getting those subsidies.
One can pick their poison on those, either take the hit on the front end or take the hit on the back end, but do understand that it is us that is taking the hit.
breckenridge
December 11th, 2012
12:18 pm
Lil’ Barry you’re on the right track when you say those that stay in school get jobs. The other side of the coin is that, according to the AJC, 90% of the Georgia prison population is comprised of high school dropouts.
It is no longer possible, with rare exception, to make enough money in this country to raise a family without a minimum of a high school education. That’s why I’d like to see a vasectomy program implemented for potential parolees from Georgia prisons. Many of them will be returning anyway, no need for them to be producing more taxpayer liabilities while they’re out in society.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
12:19 pm
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.
That perfectly ok with them.
See the whole welfare thing really boils down to this.
In their mind its really about minorities
That’s really what we are talking about here.
Even though there are way way way more white people on welfare than black.
Thats not what they see when they close their eyes and think about it.
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
12:19 pm
As for the economy, 1%+ of growth is not going to get us very far very fast…………
——————————————————————
We should go back to the Bush policies that brought us GDP growth of NEGATIVE 8.9%.
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:19 pm
Rafe, stop lying:
Obama spells it out here – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/TRS
Aquagirl
December 11th, 2012
12:19 pm
Where can I buy that Obamaphone?
You already benefit from the “Obamaphone” program. The biggest receiver of funding is the High Cost Program, which equalizes rates for non-urban phone users. It also funds schools and healthcare providers outside populated areas.
They’re about to sink billions into broadband internet equalization, so some of the rugged independent conservative posters here can whine using their government subsidies. And they’ll be totally unaware of the irony as they slam “Obamaphone leeches.”
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:21 pm
Cheesy, you are absolutely right. They are the first people to cash in their SS checks, use Medicare, you name it. But tell them that most of the folks on welfare are their poor white neighbors who line up to vote for Republicans in red states, their heads explode in confusion because that’s not what Fake News told em.
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:24 pm
Mitch: “We can discuss tax increases, but we demand spending cuts as well”
Dems: “Okay fine, what do you propose we cut”
Mitch: “That’s for me to know and for you to find out”.
[audible whisper to every Republican in the nation] “Don’t worry, we’ll make the Democrats suggest cutting medicare, social security and medicaid so we can then hit them for making these cuts in 2014.”
Dems: “Uh….you know we can hear you, right?”
md
December 11th, 2012
12:25 pm
Mangler, watch and read the reports, it’s all there. That particular center actually told the intern that they don’t have anything to do with jobs, just benefits. And when some in line were told of the jobs around the corner they just shrugged their shoulders and said they get more in benefits vs getting the job.
And I’m not opposed to helping folks, but I think there needs to be conditions.
I don’t much like having to pay for an education assistance program and then have folks snub their nose at it and then get in line number 2 for assistance. I’d tie any assistance to those individuals back to program number 1……..if they can drop out then by golly they can drop back in too, especially if they have they hands out. Education is the key to the kingdom……….
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
12:27 pm
md
December 11th, 2012
12:18 pm
“About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies.”
I always get a chuckle with this argument. Considering we are corporations, as in the employees, the managers and the shareholders (401k’s), it is US that is getting those subsidies.
One can pick their poison on those, either take the hit on the front end or take the hit on the back end, but do understand that it is us that is taking the hit.
———————————————————-
I always chuckle with this argument. Considering that we Americans ARE the recipients of social welfare money, money that is then spent immediately at stores we work at or own stock in, at hospitals that serve our communities and/or that we work at, on rental proerties that we own, etc, it is all of us that are getting those subsidies.
Aquagirl
December 11th, 2012
12:29 pm
Mangler, watch and read the reports, it’s all there. That particular center actually told the intern that they don’t have anything to do with jobs, just benefits.
The plural of John Stossel anecdotes is not data either.
clem
December 11th, 2012
12:29 pm
md, if it is just math, why don’t ceos/upper management participate in the math….the workers work harder and get less, the brass may or may not work harder but they get more or a chute.
md
December 11th, 2012
12:30 pm
“We should go back to the Bush policies that brought us GDP growth of NEGATIVE 8.9%.”
Another funny, especially when Bush was warning of the consequences as far back as 2001 in his very first budget. But we had the original party of no that would have nothing to do with reforming Fannie and Freddie.
Makes one wonder what 2008 would have looked like had we followed Bush’s policy in 2001…………
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 11th, 2012
12:31 pm
Another weak minded argument-
Even though there are way way way more white people on welfare than black.
Blacks are 12% of the population while whites make up about 60 or so percent.
Can’t do math?
md
December 11th, 2012
12:34 pm
“I always chuckle with this argument. Considering that we Americans ARE the recipients of social welfare money, money that is then spent immediately at stores we work at or own stock in, at hospitals that serve our communities and/or that we work at, on rental proerties that we own, etc, it is all of us that are getting those subsidies.”
And as I said, I have no problem with a safety net, I do have a problem with the abuse of the safety net, and the abuse of any other subsidy, but not the principal of the subsidies per se.
Dusty
December 11th, 2012
12:34 pm
Well, “poverty dependent” makes us say “Oh those lazy people” and that might be true. (I think Kyle said “maybe” also. ) That also leads us to think that THEY are the problem depleting the finances of our country. But, considering the problem that one in every five Americans is dependent on the government, we might get a little different view. One in every five Americans and all of them are not destitute.
As Bill Beach of the Heritage Foundation wrote: “Today, more people than ever before 63.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries depend on the Federal government for housing, food, income, student aid,or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, family neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions.”
So it would seem that the “poor” are not the only ones learning bad habits of dependency.
That is one half of all Americans depending on the government. So let us start the “cure” not only for the poor, but for a whole lot of people. A strong Federal budget and sticking to it would be a good start.
BUDGET? BUDGET? (My kingdom for a budget!) .
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
12:34 pm
“But we had the original party of no that would have nothing to do with reforming Fannie and Freddie.”
————————————————-
Another good joke from md, because reforming fannie and freddie would have prevented the banksters from defrauding the world with credit default swaps and other BS financial swindles.
Steve
December 11th, 2012
12:37 pm
So Dusty, do you want to pay $8 for a gallon of milk if we stop subsidizing milk farmers? Govt dependency does to far beyond the piddling amounts of money we spend in taxes so someone can abuse the welfare system.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
12:39 pm
GDP growth under Our President Bush averaged 2.6%.
Under Obozo–less than 2%.
Bush: Superior to Obozo.
md
December 11th, 2012
12:40 pm
“md, if it is just math, why don’t ceos/upper management participate in the math….the workers work harder and get less, the brass may or may not work harder but they get more or a chute.”
For starters, this is the same as the welfare, we need to be careful to say “some”.
There are good ceo’s and bad one’s, and I have no sympathy for the ones that use a corp as their own personal atm if they did not start the company.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
12:42 pm
But we had the original party of no that would have nothing to do with reforming Fannie and Freddie.
I always chuckle with this argument
The myth that Fannie and Freddie are responsible for the Great Recession is useful to conservatives because it combines several of their shibboleths like the evils of Big Government and the idea that “compassion” causes more harm than good. Liberal compassion is inimical to their idea that only the pursuit of self-interest serves the greater good. Thus, Big Government targets are a giant pinata that conservatives can not resist flailing at. However, as usual the facts have a liberal bias. “As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.”
Another conservative myth busted!.
md
December 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
“Another good joke from md, because reforming fannie and freddie would have prevented the banksters from defrauding the world with credit default swaps and other BS financial swindles.”
If one had a clue, one would understand that F&F bought more mortgages in that time period than they did in their entire history up to that point, so yes, the banksters very well could have been held in check if F&F weren’t backstopping the mortgages………
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
Steve, good try, more smoke and mirrors, didn’t see any totals but I did see that most were cuts in future increases, no real cuts. All dealt with discretionary spending. The man who says we are going to use all this money we save from not funding a war in Afghanistan for the next ten years, when he never had any intention of staying in Afghanistan for ten years, is selling you a bill of goods. No entitlement cuts were mentioned in his budget. Entitlements and interest on the debt make up 69% of the budget. Discretionary spending is 31%. You can eliminate all the discretionary spending which means $0 to the Pentagon and the wars and still run a deficit because of excessive spending in the mandatory programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, Food stamps, etc.
Barry has no real desire to rein in the debt or deficit.
md
December 11th, 2012
12:48 pm
“The myth that Fannie and Freddie are responsible”
Part of the problem does not equate to being totally responsible.
But common sense dictates that they wouldn’t currently be in receivership if they were not part of the problem.
yuzeyurbrane
December 11th, 2012
12:49 pm
Lil’ Barry @ 11:48—first, kindly quote me accurately. I said “extreme conservatives”, not all conservatives. 2nd, I am glad that we agree on the worthiness of the programs you cite. I was referring to Job Corps, VISTA/Americorps, the Office of Economic Opportunity, Head Start, Teacher Corps, WPA, CCC, and the like, which have generally been opposed by extreme conservatives. Some of these programs no longer exist and others have been emasculated from any mission that encourages the poor to fend for themselves. Some still exist and do a lot of good. What are your views about these?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
Steve, what you don’t understand is that the milk subsidy limits the amount of milk produced. You can’t just start a dairy and produce milk anymore, you have to get government approval and find a market. Regulations and government control influence how much milk is produced and therefore the price. Get government out of our refrigerators.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
Part of the problem does not equate to being totally responsible.
They were part of the problem
But a very minor one.
Yet to hear Cons tell it if only they had listened to Bush blah blah blah
Its nonsense.
Dusty
December 11th, 2012
12:51 pm
No Steve, I don’t want to pay over eight dollars for a gallon of milk. Nor do I wish to act like a total loon when discussing a problem.
Agricultural subsidies should be considered along with all subsidies and with everything that the Federal Government is spending. Get it? Consider the whole picture, not just a gallon of milk.
md
December 11th, 2012
12:53 pm
“They were part of the problem
But a very minor one.”
Minor? they backstopped most of what was on the market, you actually call that minor?
clem
December 11th, 2012
1:03 pm
md, cop out on using “some”
ceo compensation has risen 319% (think 1990-2005) and workers 4.5%
what’s good for the goose
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardlawler/2012/10/09/outrageous-executive-compensation-corporate-boards-not-the-market-are-to-blame/
nice club that buys off dems and repubs because they have disposable income to influence elections
Steve
December 11th, 2012
1:08 pm
It really just boils down to “I hate black folks that abuse welfare”!!!
(yet that costs you and I practically nothing in taxes)
They BOTH suck
December 11th, 2012
1:17 pm
clem
Influencing the entire election might be a stretch, ask Adelson and the Koch Brothers as well as Rove with his PAC. Both sides do it, but it doesn’t always produce the results they want.
What I will say is that legislation and regulations can be influenced and is done on local, state and national levels much more than influencing elections. And that “money” will flow in the direction it needs to; right, left and both ways.