Busting the Myth of ‘Welfare Makes People Lazy’

[RandomGuy]

Cash assistance isn’t just a moral imperative that raises living standards. It’s also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.

“Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. It was explicit during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA (Works Progress Administration) was nicknamed “We Piddle Around” by his detractors. It was implicit in Bill Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” Even today, it is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory, which recommends slashing programs like Medicaid and cash assistance, partly out of a fear that self-reliance atrophies in the face of government assistance.

Many economists have for decades argued that this orthodoxy is simply wrong—that wisely designed anti-poverty programs, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, actually increase labor participation. And now, across the world, a fleet of studies are converging on the consensus that even radical welfare programs—including basic-income programs and what are called conditional cash transfers—don’t make people any less productive.

Most notably, a 2015 meta-study of cash programs in poor countries found “no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work” in seven different countries: Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Morocco. Other studies of cash-grant experiments in Uganda and Nigeria have found that such programs can increase working hours and earnings, particularly when the beneficiaries are required to attend classes that teach specific trades or general business skills.

Welfare isn’t just a moral imperative to raise the living standards of the poor. It’s also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.

Take, for example, the striking finding from a new paper from researchers at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago. They analyzed a Mexican program called Prospera, the world’s first conditional cash-transfer system, which provides money to poor families on the condition that they send their children to school and stay up to date on vaccinations and doctors’ visits. In 2016, Prospera offered cash assistance to nearly 7 million Mexican households.


----------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare-childhood/555119

[RandomGuy]

"But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely. It fails to account for the conclusion of the Prospera research: Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest beneficiaries. It’s true north of the border, as well. American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity, higher rates of high-school graduation, and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid, according to a 2015 paper from the economists Sarah Miller and Laura R. Wherry. Another paper found that children covered by Medicaid expansions went on to earn higher wages and require less welfare assistance as adults."

[KenMcCoy]

Seems like a flawed analysis...

In the paper, researchers matched up data from Prospera with data about households’ incomes to analyze for the first time the program’s effect on children several decades after they started receiving benefits. The researchers found that the typical young person exposed to the program for seven years ultimately completed three more years of education and was 37 percent more likely to be employed. That’s not all: Young Prospera beneficiaries grew up to become adults who worked, on average, nine more hours each week than similarly poor children who weren’t enrolled in the program. They also earned higher hourly wages.

The research focuses on the wages/work of the children of the Prospera beneficiaries and it shouldn't be a surprise that the more education a child has, the more their earning power is over a lifetime.

The article doesn't address the parents that are receiving the benefits...did they end up working more due to the Prospera benefits?

Also, it appears that Prospera is only for people with school age children? What happens when the children age out? Do the benefits cut off? Doesn't seem like a good comparison to our welfare programs...

[SpursforSix]

Welfare enables some people to be lazy.

[boutons_deux]

Seems like a flawed analysis...
Doesn't seem like a good comparison to our welfare programs...

no worries, the oligarchy is only interested in crushing the American poor, whites along with the non-whites, so no Prospera ever in USA.

The oligarchy will be cutting Medicaid, SS, Medicare ASAP (probably after mid-terms).

The international meta-study shows that the kids who out-grow the Prospera programs continue to show benefits, just like kids who go through USA's Headstart and pre-K programs.

[KenMcCoy]

The international meta-study shows that the kids who out-grow the Prospera programs continue to show benefits, just like kids who go through USA's Headstart and pre-K programs.

These aren't programs that people typically think of as welfare. The title and analysis of the original article are poor.

[Reck]

Welfare enables some people to be lazy.

How? must of people on these programs work anyway. Its not like 100 bucks will make all that much of a difference, it doesn't.

You will have to have a job to afford rent, travel expenses and such.

[boutons_deux]

These aren't programs that people typically think of as welfare. The title and analysis of the original article are poor.

You're nit picking language.

The point of the article is that world-wide Prosepera-type programs help kids, which probably, indirectly helps the parents.

Usa Pre-K and Headstart are mostly tax-payer funded, so can be considered (child) welfare, public assistance to the poor.

I expect the Repugs to fuck up any such programs at the Federal level.

[KenMcCoy]

No, the article says that this study busts the myth that "welfare makes people lazy" and then goes on to state that Prospera pays the parents $ if the children go to school, etc. The PARENTS are the benefits of the "welfare" yet the study does not analyze whether the PARENTS worked/produced more by receiving it.

I agree with these types of programs as the long term benefit of increased education should reduce the overall population of welfare recipients in the long run. But, the article itself doesn't make the argument that the title implies.

[SpursforSix]

How? must of people on these programs work anyway. Its not like 100 bucks will make all that much of a difference, it doesn't.

You will have to have a job to afford rent, travel expenses and such.

I'm not saying everyone on welfare is lazy. I was going to share an anecdote but it'll sound racist.
I think the max benefits from welfare, food stamps, and earned income credit can get up to $30,000.
You can't tell me that it doesn't enable some people to be lazy.

[pgardn]

No, the article says that this study busts the myth that "welfare makes people lazy" and then goes on to state that Prospera pays the parents $ if the children go to school, etc. The PARENTS are the benefits of the "welfare" yet the study does not analyze whether the PARENTS worked/produced more by receiving it.

I agree with these types of programs as the long term benefit of increased education should reduce the overall population of welfare recipients in the long run. But, the article itself doesn't make the argument that the title implies.

Keep posting.

[Spurminator]

If I'm correct, the biggest problem is that it doesn't account for regional living expenses. Many smaller rural towns are overrun with people living off of welfare who won't go to work because they'd lose their benefits, and those benefits are more than enough to make due in an apartment in Comanche, TX that you're paying $300 rent on.

[sickdsm]

If I'm correct, the biggest problem is that it doesn't account for regional living expenses. Many smaller rural towns are overrun with people living off of welfare who won't go to work because they'd lose their benefits, and those benefits are more than enough to make due in an apartment in Comanche, TX that you're paying $300 rent on.
This sounds right.



I think in the conservative side there seems to be this assumption that it's an inner city problem when in reality it's a huge deal in the rural communities. So much that it seems to be a badge of honor how much you can pull in. Most seem content with dead end $10/he jobs that you don't have to think much. I think most locally work, they just spend money like it's doing out of style Fuel assistance is a big one to pay winter heating bill. Guys will even dip their tank to run fuel in their tractor. Close realitive of mine tells me about some of it. Acquaintance that does cement work in a family business was telling me about how they all collect unemployment all winter and ice fish after I was asking him about snow removal, since most in that line try to do that in the winter. It's rampant in the rural areas, which you'll see on the geography overlays.

[pgardn]

If I'm correct, the biggest problem is that it doesn't account for regional living expenses. Many smaller rural towns are overrun with people living off of welfare who won't go to work because they'd lose their benefits, and those benefits are more than enough to make due in an apartment in Comanche, TX that you're paying $300 rent on.

Aransas Pass, Texas.
And not the folks on the water with their 2nd home.

[RandomGuy]

Welfare enables some people to be lazy.

What %?

The data say that the overwhelming majority use the money to make their kids lives better, and those kids often go on to do better than their parents in many ways, including being educated enough not to need assistance in the first place.

If you care what the truth is, that is. Read the studies.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not saying everyone on welfare is lazy. I was going to share an anecdote but it'll sound racist.
I think the max benefits from welfare, food stamps, and earned income credit can get up to $30,000.
You can't tell me that it doesn't enable some people to be lazy.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I am sure some people will take anything you give them and shit it away. I am fine with that, if it helps a lot of others who won't, which is what the data actually says.

[KenMcCoy]

What does the data say about the welfare recipients (parents) increasing their economic productivity?

[RandomGuy]

Seems like a flawed analysis...

In the paper, researchers matched up data from Prospera with data about households’ incomes to analyze for the first time the program’s effect on children several decades after they started receiving benefits. The researchers found that the typical young person exposed to the program for seven years ultimately completed three more years of education and was 37 percent more likely to be employed. That’s not all: Young Prospera beneficiaries grew up to become adults who worked, on average, nine more hours each week than similarly poor children who weren’t enrolled in the program. They also earned higher hourly wages.

The research focuses on the wages/work of the children of the Prospera beneficiaries and it shouldn't be a surprise that the more education a child has, the more their earning power is over a lifetime.

The article doesn't address the parents that are receiving the benefits...did they end up working more due to the Prospera benefits?

Also, it appears that Prospera is only for people with school age children? What happens when the children age out? Do the benefits cut off? Doesn't seem like a good comparison to our welfare programs...

Most people on welfare are handicapped, seniors, or handicapped seniors.

If you doubt that, look up the program data on "welfare". First you will have to figure out what "welfare" is. I would be willing to bet you don't know, as the vast majority of people don't.

[RandomGuy]

What does the data say about the welfare recipients (parents) increasing their economic productivity?

who receives "welfare"? what is it?

[Chucho]

"The data". So it doesn't make people lazy, but there is data from the Cato institute that shows "welfare (all 100+ programs)" increases poverty.

The great thing about data is that data can be molded to reflect, and support, most points of view, but can still be true.

[KenMcCoy]

Most of the programs the study analyzes are what's known as "conditional cash transfers" (CCTs), where households receive help on the condition that they, say, have their kids attend school, or get them vaccinated. The idea is both to help poor people and to use the aid as a lever with which to ensure kids are getting educated and receiving health services. CCTs first caught on in Latin America, so it makes sense that most of the programs analyzed in the paper are from countries in that region. But the study also includes a Mexican program (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5845258/mexico-tried-giving-poor-people-cash-instead-of-food-it-worked) that provided a $13-a-month unconditional cash transfer to families in poor regions.

Exactly zero of the seven programs saw a statistically significant change in either employment levels or hours worked per week:

In some trials, work went up; in others, work went down. In none of them was the change substantial. For every program except those in Honduras and the Philippines, the data was comparable enough that the researchers could pool it and estimate effects across the programs. That allows more precise estimates than you could get from any of the five comparable studies alone. The 95 percent confidence interval for how the programs affected the employment rate ranged from a 1.6 percentage point decline to a 0.9 point increase. There just isn't any change happening here

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9764324/welfare-cash-transfer-work


So... welfare doesn't make people lazy, nor does it increase their productivity to lift themselves out of needing welfare.

New headline: "Education is good. Welfare does not have any direct impact on recipients work output."

[Chucho]

Most of the programs the study analyzes are what's known as "conditional cash transfers" (CCTs), where households receive help on the condition that they, say, have their kids attend school, or get them vaccinated. The idea is both to help poor people and to use the aid as a lever with which to ensure kids are getting educated and receiving health services. CCTs first caught on in Latin America, so it makes sense that most of the programs analyzed in the paper are from countries in that region. But the study also includes a Mexican program (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5845258/mexico-tried-giving-poor-people-cash-instead-of-food-it-worked) that provided a $13-a-month unconditional cash transfer to families in poor regions.

Exactly zero of the seven programs saw a statistically significant change in either employment levels or hours worked per week:

In some trials, work went up; in others, work went down. In none of them was the change substantial. For every program except those in Honduras and the Philippines, the data was comparable enough that the researchers could pool it and estimate effects across the programs. That allows more precise estimates than you could get from any of the five comparable studies alone. The 95 percent confidence interval for how the programs affected the employment rate ranged from a 1.6 percentage point decline to a 0.9 point increase. There just isn't any change happening here

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9764324/welfare-cash-transfer-work


So... welfare doesn't make people lazy, nor does it increase their productivity to lift themselves out of needing welfare.

New headline: "Education is good. Welfare does not have any direct impact on recipients work output."


The Data.

[SpursforSix]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I am sure some people will take anything you give them and shit it away. I am fine with that, if it helps a lot of others who won't, which is what the data actually says.

My anecdote confirms to me that welfare makes some people lazy.
Are you saying that in zero cases, welfare does not?