English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-06-13 06:57:59 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

I'm referring to single people without kids, not single parents.

2007-06-13 07:19:25 · update #1

And you don't think some people choose welfare over work?

2007-06-13 09:04:15 · update #2

To the forth respondent:

Have a mind of your own. Don't speak in P.C. left-wing anthro-speak. It is not an English. You are well-programmed by the elite. Do you even choose your own books and ideas or just quote directly from the text?

2007-06-13 09:06:00 · update #3

6 answers

You are comparing items that are not really positively correlated. The correlation you are suggesting would have to indicate that welfare rates are higher than the wages the person could be bringing in which seems unlikely and that they chose welfare over work. The reasons for people not working are varied and not likely related to the ease of life while on welfare. Going on welfare is not likely to be a decision made on the economic merits but one made by situational issues like disability, criminal record, poor job skills, low levels of literacy, or lack of education. Unless you can relieve the root cause of the persons being on welfare any change that you make will likely be punitive rather than empowering and result in a social darwinism of sorts.

Additionally- I didn't know I needed to put it down in 5th grade english. Apparently wherever you went to school counting wasn't so good as I am the third respondent. The terms I used can be looked up in a thesarus (sorry a book that tells you what words might be similar to each other).

2007-06-13 07:52:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That would be part of what needs to be done, they would also have to set up a facility for subsidized or free childcare while they work. To make sure the kids don't suffer for the parents lazyness.

And anyone that is not able to prove they have a legitimate reason to be on welfare after that is set up, should be discontinued.

Then raise the minimum working wage to higher then what they get on welfare, so they have an incentive to work.

As long as they receive more on welfare then working a minimum wage job, they have no incentive to even try!

2007-06-13 07:05:25 · answer #2 · answered by unknown friend 7 · 1 0

I doubt it. The welfare benefits for single people are pretty small. More than 3/4er's of people who enter welfare are out after a year (although some do go back in). This and the fact that the benefits are temporary lead me to think the dis-incentive effect to work are fairly small.

2007-06-13 09:49:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If welfare is being given to people who are capable of working, then lowering the welfare benefits would cause more of them to seek work. However I don't know of any program in the US that would make healthy single childless people qualified for welfare, with the possible exception of food stamps, supplemental social security for the old and unemployment benefits which already require you to seek work. I would be interested to know if such benefits exists in other countries and how they prevent students signing up.

2007-06-13 14:43:56 · answer #4 · answered by meg 7 · 0 0

now you are looking for some external stimulus to get something to act. well if it wasnt a entity that has opinions like water when applied heat to them then it would boil but an opinionated entity well, depends on their opinion to take action or not. theres plenty of education on anything, why isnt everyone learning each field. like why arent you in medical or in chemical engineer or astranuat.

2007-06-13 10:42:08 · answer #5 · answered by bullet b 4 · 0 0

Not if those individuals have job skills that are not needed in the current economic environment. They might need to be retrained for jobs in the 21st century.

2007-06-13 07:45:33 · answer #6 · answered by Allan 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers