The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl’s mother did for a living. She said “she’s a mother”. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry.

Out of wedlock births and common law marriage have soared among all classes since 1960, not just the poor. Was the "Great Society" also responsible for the same trends among the middle class?

This is a silly conservative argument that has no basis in reality. In the ten years since the end of "welfare as we know it" in the US we have not seen a reversal of these trends. Therefore there's no evidence of any link between welfare and marriage breakdown. Indeed, the old rules punished married women (the spouse in the house rule) and if anything encouraged them to remain single for fear of losing their support.

[ 05 May 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]

Well, if we're going to give single anecdotes explanatory power, here's one. My wife had a previous marriage, with kids; she kicked out her previous husband for a number of reasons. She was just mentioning to me the other day that she had noticed an improvement in the kids' mood and attitude after she became single. This despite the fact that previously, she was a stay-at-home mother in a proper nuclear family and quite well off, while afterwards she was a working single mom barely hanging on financially. But the home environment was so much less destructive without the dad, the relationsip between the two of them, and the way he treated the kids, that their emotional lives were considerably better after she became single. The conclusion drawn is that staying in a poisonous marriage "for the kids" is in fact bad for them.

But again, that's an anecdote. It really doesn't get us any farther than yours--that is to say, nowhere. By the way, well put Mycroft.

Meanwhile, the period when the welfare state was at its height also saw the lowest unemployment. Lowering of unemployment benefits etc. was largely the response of right-wing policy makers to their own decision to keep unemployment fairly high. The Thatcher and Reagan supply-siders, with their idea of NAIRU, or the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, decided that if certain unemployment levels were not maintained inflation would accelerate infinitely due to wage demands, leading to economic armageddon. So they decided to keep unemployment high by such measures as strangling the economy with high interest rates. This was overt policy. So then they decided that if they were going to have lots of unemployed people, they couldn't afford to go around spending money on a decent life for them--because there were too many and it was expensive, because they wanted unemployment to be bad enough that even low wages would be preferable, depressing wage rates, or because they were simply waging a class war, take your pick. But to sell the immiseration of the poor they had to make it sound good. Enter "welfare dependency", "welfare queens", "rampant welfare fraud", not to mention the drug war and hostile stereotypes of poor black people. But it's all bullshit; the right consciously and deliberately created the structural unemployment specifically to depress wage demands.

[ 05 May 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

[ 05 May 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?

---

quote:

---

During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?

---

As for the housing example, you provide few details for anyone else to really comment properly. If the point is that the poor are just as likely as others to succumb to an individualism that prevents collective action, I don't think you would find many people who disagree. Of course, we would need to know more about the administrator and the situation to figure out whether this was simply a way of shirking rent, or whether they had reason to see little difference between an administrator and a landlord.

[ 05 May 2004: Message edited by: weakling willy ]

quote:

---

Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?

---

Er, are you asking whether hiring a painter who turns out to be a statutory rapist a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money? I would say no.

The idea is to merge all current income programs across the country - federal and provincial - into one income stream.

Everyone 18 years of age and over would receive the same amount - or working people could opt to have their income tax-free up to the same amount.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lonecat:
...I think this idea would revolutionize Canada - what do you think?

---

Yes, Canada is second only to the United States for rising rates of child poverty in a comparison of developed nations.

This concept has been tossed around for years. 30% of Canada's labour force is employed by governments (at all levels), and 30% of those are employed handing money out to the rest of Canada. Firing all of those people, and sending out cheques is attractive.

But the trade-off would be: No CPP, student loans, welfare, EI, farm aid, etc, etc. It would work, but only if it is sufficient to cover the minimum costs. Health care would have to cover vastly more than it currently does, which means more govenment income is required.

How much would be enough? It would have to be the same, right across the country, independant of costs of living in different locations. $400 per month? $600 per month? It has to be low enough to encourage people to work, but not so low as to put people into destitution.

Gov't revenues would vastly drop, as all marginally employed people dropped out of the labour market. The potential for abuse is high - who gets it? How does one prove that I only get one payment per cycle?

How much would be enough? It would have to be the same, right across the country, independant of costs of living in different locations. $400 per month? $600 per month? It has to be low enough to encourage people to work, but not so low as to put people into destitution.

Gov't revenues would vastly drop, as all marginally employed people dropped out of the labour market. The potential for abuse is high - who gets it? How does one prove that I only get one payment per cycle?

I would like to address these points.

1. Yes, with the GAI, there would be no more CPP, welfare, etc - all income support programs would be rolled into one, and centrally administered - that is the whole point! Furthermore, there is more than enough money in the combined income support streams to make the GAI sustainable and meaningful.

2. How much is enough? Enough to lift every Canadian out of poverty. The GAI could gradually be set to an acceptable level over the course of time. The level could be determined by a special advisory committee of economists, anti-poverty workers, etc.

quote:

---

We could end the stereotyping of welfare recipients, lift all Canadians out of poverty, and remove the sting of unemployment all in one blow if Canada were to adopt a Basic Income or Guaranteed Annual Income for all of its citizens

---

Right on!

The issue is that governments, business and the media have all been complicit in demonizing the poor to the point 'welfare' equates with fraud, laziness, etc. in the minds of the citizenry. It is to the point now that those advocating for the poor and disadvantaged have to use explanatory phrases like 'mothers who need help', 'people who need food banks', 'those who do not have housing', etc instead of the one word terms they used to have.

There is always a reason things are they way they are.

By keeping a segment of the population poor, society has cheap labour to do the dirty jobs.

I don't disagree, not really. I think it's attractive. But I don't know how you'd do it, so I'm going to look at the numbers and see what they say.

Currently, per capita GNI is about $80 per day (source: here). The poverty level is about $85 per day per household of 2 workers, 2 dependants (source: here). So, about 1/4 of Canada's per capita income would have to be distributed to everyone, leaving the rich to enjoy 3/4 of the remaining wealth.

I tried to find more data on family income that was current. 2001 data was the best I found here. If you assume that 24,000 is the median poverty line (just as a number for discussion), and you assume an equally applied fee schedule to pay for that, it would be a 24.5% of the GNP, and a $16200 annual supplement per year, per household, to raise the lowest decile household to the poverty line. Something like 5% will still be below that line, instead of 20%.

That's interesting. If you look here, Canadians already spend 21.9% of GNP on social spending. So it just takes a little more, and change where it's going. Ok, I take back what I said.

Make it $8000 per adult, per year, plus $1000 per child, per year. Custodial parent gets the income until child is 14, then it goes to the kid.

The rich would hate it, since people could leave their jobs to go get a better one without risking the food on their plates, their home, etc. The lazy would be happy that they could sit at home, and we don't want them pretending to work, anyway. The working poor would find it a godsend, knowing where the food would be for their kid's next meal. Students etc can't pay for their tuition and their housing without loans, this fixes that. Deliver it in weekly payments of $150, and then there will always be a steady trickle of cash in and out.

I'm still concerned about abuse, though. A little abuse doesn't hurt the system in any way - money circulating = money circulating. What I'm more concerned about is people finding ways of getting multiple payments, and this producing a backlash of opinion against the system. Strict enforcement would be required, and people caught cheating the system would be charged with fraud, theft, etc. Only while they are serving a sentance in jail can you take away their payments.

(editted to fix links)

[ 06 May 2004: Message edited by: dnuttall ]

I don't see how this programme would be any more open to abuse than existing ones. I suppose we could tighten up SIN security, but we should be doing that anyway. (I remember hearing that there are millions more cards than people.)

[ 06 May 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

The lazy would be happy that they could sit at home, and we don't want them pretending to work, anyway.

---

Speak for yourself. I want them pretending to work, if that's all they'll do. I certainly don't want them sitting at home eating junk food and watching Springer while the rest of us work to support that.

There is also a myth that people who live on government assistance are "lazy" , watch TV all the time and much on Cheetos, and the like.

quote:

---

Anybody who is stupid enough to think that a welfare cheque is enough to cover cable, much less "a few hundred dollars for Cheetos" is a fucking idiot.

---

Um I dont think Magoo is saying that Michelle. I think he is talking about letting people sit at home on a GAI, not welfare as it stands right now

That said, I really don't care to pay even so much as a cent so that "the lazy*" can sit at home. Why should I? So... if you want to, prove it by sending me money.

[ 06 May 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lonecat:
We could end the stereotyping of welfare recipients, lift all Canadians out of poverty, and remove the sting of unemployment all in one blow if Canada were to adopt a Basic Income or Guaranteed Annual Income for all of its citizens.

....I think this idea would revolutionize Canada - what do you think?

---

quote:

---

Unless you can find a well-enough-paying job (and welfare recipents are not famous for having a great deal of luck in this area), your income goes down when you leave welfare. With a GAI, your income always goes up if you work.

---

With the National Child Benefit that is generally not true anymore. But even still, a GAI is unlikely to change that on its own. The way income goes down when you move from welfare to work is when benefits interact in non-rational ways (and income benefits aren't the only benefits the poor get).

For example, take a single parent with one small child, and a "tweenager," on social assistance, with a part-time job, living in social housing (if you can get your head around all that). Say she is offered a full-time job at the company she is working for now. This is what happens: her rent-geared-to-income housing increases because of her added income. Her child care subsidy for the younger child declines because of her added income. Her employment income increases and therefore puts her above the earned exemption levels in welfare. As a result, she loses her welfare employment top-up, and the drug and dental plans she would get in welfare - the tweenager can now no longer get her braces. Since she is in a one year probationary period, she has no benefits at all for a period of one year - what if her asthma starts acting up working in the plant?

Given that economic equation, why would anyone work? I definitely agree that that is a twisted incentive structure!

[ 06 May 2004: Message edited by: Olly ]

[ 06 May 2004: Message edited by: Olly ]

My point on the 'lazy can sit at home', is that I know a few people who are quite happy spending their time playing nintendo, and collecting EI or welfare, as required. They'd rather not work. I have to include myself in that group - I work because I have to - I've incured sufficient debts that I can only pay them off by working.

My uncle questioned this once, saying 'You're young, you want to work', and I said 'No, I'm not rich, I have to work'. I've since questioned that statement, and I think there may be ethical alternatives to traditional definitions of 'work', but that is generally true for myself.

There are people who don't want to work. I've worked with them in a variety of guises. For whatever reason, they feel their job is protected, and they can do bugger all and get paid for it. A number of these are in managerial positions, etc, and so are seen by many to be 'contributing' whereas they are getting paid silly amounts of money to do as little as possible. Send them home to eat doritos, rather than have them screw up the work of others.

That was my point.

As to why I think it would be abused more than the existing system: There is no stigma connected with it, so everyone would be able to publically deposit the cheques - no one would question why some fellow with a Ferrari would be depositing his cheque in the bank. He would then drive down the road and deposit another, and so on... Whatever security you put on it, (ie, having to scan one's retina or thumb print) would be invasive and could still be circumvented (hack the database) and would probably produce a range of other problems (I don't want the authorities to have my thumb print).

And with about a third of the world's work force unemployed currently, there are those whispering in the shadows that liberal democracy isn't working for a heck of a lot of humanity.

I believe the European social democracies have been doing something along the lines of universal basic income for decades. This in spite of David Ricardo's and Friedrich von Hayek's pridictions for the demise of socialism. Neh, Ricardo and Freddy von Hayek are dead a long time.

As Canada and the U.S. rack up unprecedented national debts and deficit spending when falling back to the "recessionary method" of fighting inflation, the Swedes and French have been implementing the world's most efficient taxation to pay for social democracy in their countries.

As it turns out, the Euro-socialists tax capital at a lower rate than the grabbing hand of Uncle Sam in that bastion of economic Darwinism.

Taxing the Poor to Pay the Poor
Apr 1st 2004
From The Economist print edition

"In general, Europe's big social spenders tax capital relatively lightly. On some measures, indeed, Europeans treat capital better than supposedly more sympathetic Americans. According to an OECD study, the grabbing hand of the American state took an average of 31% of capital income between 1991 and 1997. The corresponding figure was about 20% in Germany, Norway and Finland, and 24% in France. In 1998, rich Americans faced a marginal tax rate on dividends of over 46%. Rich Belgians, Finns and Norwegians paid much lower rates. While Americans were arguing about Reaganomics in the 1980s, Swedish households were enjoying a negative tax rate on capital income, once generous deductions and adjustments for inflation were taken into account."
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2553322

I can't help but think that ways would be found to undermine such a generous program. Or there would be massive illegal immigration from the U.S....bankrupting our country. Or massive capital strikes. Or an armed invasion. Or massive inflation, nullifying the value of our dollar. Or a million and one ways that could be found to fuck up GAI plans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnuttall:
There are people who don't want to work. I've worked with them in a variety of guises. For whatever reason, they feel their job is protected, and they can do bugger all and get paid for it. A number of these are in managerial positions, etc, and so are seen by many to be 'contributing' whereas they are getting paid silly amounts of money to do as little as possible.

---

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure whether I'd relate it primarily to questions of welfare etc. however. What I find interesting about this is it points up a contradiction between dogma and reality about capitalism. The dogma of capitalism is that it's all about incentive, that it provides everyone with an incentive to work hard so they'll make more money. But it doesn't. Profits go to the owners, not the workers. Once upon a time there was a tacit social contract which said some of the profits would go to the workers, so there was some point for all concerned in increasing productivity. But now we see layoffs and pay cuts routinely at very profitable firms. Workers have no more positive incentive than they did in Soviet Russia. Their incentives come largely from threats by supervisors if they fail to work hard, not from the lure of more money. Speaking as a lazy man myself--if the bosses would cut my position as soon as look at me, if I know damn well there's no way to get promoted unless I can afford to leave for a few years and come back with an MBA, if my wages are going to reflect solely how little they can get away with paying me and in no way relate to how useful the work is--why on earth should I put out my best effort? Why should I give a shit about some indolent rich-ass bastard's dividends?

Now the owners do have incentives. The main incentive seems to be: maximize short-term returns on their money. This often involves sabotaging long-term profitability through ruthless but unsustainable cost-cutting, then switching the money to somewhere else. But I don't want to get into that.

I've read some stuff on American productivity and how they are 2nd to none in that area of economic performance. In fact, it sounds like the reason for it lie in their having a large market where production runs in factories are generally longer than anywhere else. They can produce a lot of goods and they work the hell out of their workers. American's live to work while Canadians work to live. However, the percentage of jobs in their economy that are low skilled and somewhat dangerous to worker's health and safety is fairly high - about 25% of all American jobs fit that description. Ralph Nader says that there are 50 million American workers not earning a living wage at this point. With the American's having less of a regulated economy than say Europe or Canada, they like to claim lower unemployment rates along with having the least unionized work force at a rate of something like 15% or so while Canada's is around 35%. However, their U rates are misleading. Some are pointing to the unaugmented U-6 rate in the States currently hovering over 10% or as their economy hemorhages white collar jobs to India and China. Interestingly enough, IBM, INTEL, MS and McDonald's are ceding 51% controlling interest in their subsid's to the communist-interventionist economy and still thriving. This is contrary to what we've been taught about interventionist economies in general. However, as the true socialists we are, we're not supposed to subscribe to Marxist communism, and the Chinese I think are moving toward a somewhat socialist economy. China's and India's economies are booming right now.

Canadian born JK Galbraith(he's 90 some odd years old now) in the U.S. talks about the productivity paradox in that country. I've only had an intro to macroecnomics and having a time trying to understand it fully, but it sounds like the same old same ol. Corporations are trying to squeeze as much out of their workers as possible to increase profit margins.

Linda McQuaig talks about Carl Polanyi's economic model compared with that of Smithian-laissez faire. Polanyi believed that the model based on a single human behaviour, self-interest or greed, simply isn't natural. And those conservative economists like to speak in terms of how natural certain aspects of the free market system are with respect to efficiency of the whole thing. Polanyi says that people are more than just Adam Smith's "homo economicus." We are more than just one dimensional prisoners of our own greed. We're capable of empathy for the poor, civic mindedness and have a strong desire for community and greater sense of society. Economics is all about human behaviour. Milton Friedman's NAIRU is a prediction of human behaviour as is mentioned in JK Galbraith's essay, "It's time to ditch the NAIRU." Polanyi says that the single human behaviour economic model isn't very scientific and will result in unpredictable results. As socialists from Marx to Einstein said, the free market system as viweed by them would produce more recessions more frequently and deeper in severity. Polanyi said that we need to consider the full range of human behaviours in constructing our economies or the results would be haphazard and irregular. I believe that.

McQuaig adds to this idea and says that if a free market system can give us markets in material goods, then it seems to fail us in our other needs. Corporations treat our air, water and natural surroundings as if they have no value. In fact, the world wide experiment in deregulation of water isn't going as well as planned. Where this idea has been implemented, Africa, Paris to Moncton to Atlanta to Bolivia to Argentina, people are rebelling against the idea of paying full market prices for water. People in Bolivia are asking how anyone can possibly own the rain ?.

an internet diddy about Solow says:

He condemns the past Clinton administration in the States for confronting welfare recipients with an unworkable choice: that of finding work in the labor market or losing benefits. He argues that the only practical and fair way to move recipients to work is through a better thought out plan to guarantee that every able-bodied citizen has access to a job. First, the labor market would not easily make room for a huge influx of unskilled, inexperienced workers. Second, the normal market adjustment to that influx would drive down earnings for those already in low-wage jobs. Solow concludes that it is legitimate to want welfare recipients to work, but not to want them to live at a miserable standard or to benefit at the expense of the working poor, especially since children are often the first to suffer. Instead, he writes, we should create new demand for unskilled labor through public-service employment and incentives to the private sector--in effect, fairer workfare. Solow has introduced widely ignored evidence that recipients themselves would welcome the chance to work. He also points out that practical, morally defensible workfare would be extremely expensive--a problem that politicians who support the idea blithely fail to admit. Throughout, Solow places debate over welfare reform in the context of a struggle to balance competing social values, in particular self-reliance and altruism.

Apparently Solow has also shown that governments that pursue inflation fighting(recessionary methods resulting in higher unemployment) is more expensive than if they(central bank and governments) pursued higher but sustainable inflationary job growth economies, which I found interesting. She says that our governments have been overly obsessed with fighting inflation on behalf of the wealthiest of us.

Very briefly, McQuaig comes to the conclusion that it's not social program spending that causes national debt to rise so much as it is allowing unemployment to rise.

Now, I don't believe in "feather bedding", hiring extra people just to occupy space, but I don't think that government should be letting big corporations export jobs.

Also, I think governments should do everything possible to procure at home. To buy out of Province, or out of country, when there is a local manufacturer is criminal.

[ 07 May 2004: Message edited by: Cougyr ]