General Political Fúckery Thread - Subplot: Can Democrats Win Back The House In Nov?

Dillah810

Dillah810

Flat Girther
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
43,183
Reputation
9,872
Daps
168,007
Reppin
Flint, Michigan
o8yj60j0ka0b1.jpg


#bothsides
 
the cac mamba

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
100,419
Reputation
13,416
Daps
293,585
Reppin
NULL
the cac mamba

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
100,419
Reputation
13,416
Daps
293,585
Reppin
NULL
can someone explain to me what the issue is with these work requirements for government assistance? don't they already exist?

if you're an able bodied, childless adult between 20-50, and you aren't working 20 hours a week, then what the fukk are you doing? :dahell: it's not acceptable ask that person to work part time, or do community service? i'd really rather not default on the debt over that demand
 
Pull Up the Roots

Pull Up the Roots

I have a good time when I go out of my mind..
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
21,077
Reputation
7,067
Daps
89,300
Reppin
Detroit
the cac mamba said:
can someone explain to me what the issue is with these work requirements for government assistance? don't they already exist?

if you're an able bodied, childless adult between 20-50, and you aren't working 20 hours a week, then what the fukk are you doing? :dahell: it's not acceptable ask that person to work part time, or do community service? i'd really rather not default on the debt over that demand
Click to expand...

equitablegrowth.org

Work requirements for U.S. public assistance programs don’t work

Work requirements for low-income Americans are back on the table in Congress and within the Trump administration. This is the case despite evidence-based research that shows work requirements are ill-conceived or counterproductive to helping low-income Americans supplement their monthly...
equitablegrowth.org equitablegrowth.org

Simply put, the evidence does not back up the arguments for work requirements for these programs and actually may be counterproductive. First and foremost is the false notion that the beneficiaries of these programs are able to work but choose not to. Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that of the 40 percent of nonelderly poor Americans with access to Medicaid who are not working, the reasons are because they are disabled (14 percent), providing childcare or eldercare (12 percent), attending school (6 percent), and for other reasons such as not being able to find work or being retired (7 percent). Yet the rhetoric about these recipients’ disinclination to work remains pervasive among conservatives in Congress and in the Trump administration.

Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that imposing work requirements simply doesn’t work. One reason is because increased red tape may lead to eligible recipients losing their benefits even though they are eligible for them. People with volatile work hours or who hold multiple jobs may have a hard time collecting and submitting sufficient documentation to demonstrate they are working regularly. As CBPP points out, completing work-requirement red tape is even harder for self-employed workers, which should be cause for concern as gig-based employment becomes more prevalent.

Going deeper behind these arguments, the idea that work requirements are useful standards for providing assistance to low-income Americans already struggling to make ends meet is rooted in an overly simplistic and faulty understanding of how the U.S. labor market functions, which in turn is reinforced by negative and racialized stereotypes of the beneficiaries of these programs. These misconceptions are partly based on the premise in Econ 101 that work provides no inherent benefit other than remuneration through wages, salary, and benefits, which in turn supports the faulty premise that workers must be incentivized to work above what economists refer to as the “reservation wage” (economics parlance for the lowest wage a worker would accept to take a job). Otherwise, this argument goes, workers would choose to stay home enjoying their leisure time—even though work is often linked with self-worth, providing more than purely monetary benefits. The value of public benefits would theoretically increase the reservation wage, so generous benefits would further disincentivize beneficiaries to find employment at the going wage. But people generally want to work, despite the concept that working is entirely a “bad” in economic theory.

Another simplistic neoclassical economics theory posits that wages offered to workers are “market clearing,” meaning that the going wages for different types of jobs are determined by competitive market forces. If that were true, then supplemental nutrition assistance and other such programs would reduce employment, since those kinds of assistance could theoretically lead to an imbalance between what employers can offer to pay and what workers are able to accept. This line of reasoning leads to the highly questionable assertion that the federal social safety net is an impediment to the free functioning of the U.S. labor market, with negative outcomes for low-income families who would be eligible for these benefits.

This simplistic economic model does not take into account the actual constraints facing many workers in the U.S. labor market. First of all, so-called search frictions make it hard to find a job and empower employers to set wage rates that often underpay their low-wage workers. Search frictions play into increasing evidence of monopsony, where low-wage workers are not able to freely move between jobs and from nonemployment to employment, giving employers wage-setting power in the labor market. An issue brief by Equitable Growth’s Nick Bunker, released today, shows that despite low unemployment rates and a declining vacancy yield (the ratio of hires-to-vacant jobs), there may also be reduced “matching efficiency” of employers and employees, demonstrated by less movement among employed workers to other jobs.

Such evidence of employer monopsony is seen in two common outcomes in today’s labor market. First, employers are unwilling to offer higher wages to recruit already-employed workers. And second, when this happens, other employers can take advantage of these conditions and offer low pay, since their low wages on offer do not cause them to lose all their workers because those workers have few suitable outside options, a key determinant of monopsony.

Matching efficiency may be particularly difficult to achieve for workers facing additional constraints in the labor market. Women, who along with their children are the primary beneficiaries of many social safety net programs, also are likely to have primary care responsibilities for their families. These care responsibilities must be balanced with their job opportunities. This means many women may be constrained in what schedules they are able to work and how far they can commute for work. Low-income people of color face similar scheduling and commuting problems that are compounded by continuing hiring discrimination due to the legacy of racism.

In short, imposing work requirements on low-income Americans does not reflect the structurally imperfect labor market in which workers interact with their current or potential employers and with broader social problems that inhibit finding work with sustainable wages...
Click to expand...
 
Pressure

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
45,424
Reputation
6,865
Daps
144,846
Reppin
CookoutGang
the cac mamba said:
can someone explain to me what the issue is with these work requirements for government assistance? don't they already exist?

if you're an able bodied, childless adult between 20-50, and you aren't working 20 hours a week, then what the fukk are you doing? :dahell: it's not acceptable ask that person to work part time, or do community service? i'd really rather not default on the debt over that demand
Click to expand...
Most of these requirements don’t actually help get folks off these programs so what’s the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top