Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Yes it does, if you actually read it.

More than Half of Families with Children are Asset Poor
 Percentage of Asset Poor Among Families with Children, Birth to 18, by Family Type, 2007
ENLARGE
Figure 1: Percentage of Asset Poor Among Families with Children, Birth to 18, by Family Type, 2007
Based on the three measurements of asset poverty, we first looked at the status of asset poverty for all families with children under age 18 and by family characteristics. Figure 1 shows the vulnerability of American families with children. Overall when asset poverty is measured including housing assets, only about one-third of families with children are considered to be asset poor. However, this status varies considerably by family type, and our findings indicate that a majority of African-American children and 60 percent of children in female-headed families grow up asset poor. Further, when looking at asset poverty based on financial net worth or liquid assets, more than half of all families with children are categorized as asset poor (52 percent). In fact, close to two-thirds or more of female headed (77%), African-American families (80%) or families with young children (60%) also lack sufficient liquid assets to cope with everyday needs during financially challenging times. This indicates that the majority of children of African-American, female-headed or families with young children are precariously close to falling below the federal poverty level if their families ever experience a loss of income from earnings such as in the event of parental unemployment or illness.
 Percentage of Asset Poor Among Families with Children, Birth to 18, by Income Level, 2007
ENLARGE
Figure 2: Percentage of Asset Poor Among Families with Children, Birth to 18, by Income Level, 2007
Figure 2 shows the percentages of asset-poor families by ratio of family income to the federal poverty level. There is a large overlap of poverty based on both income and asset measures with the majority of poor (under 100 percent of FPL) and low-income families (under 200 percent of FPL) also being asset poor. This asset poverty measurement also reveals that even those considered to be middleincome families (incomes at between 200 and 299 percent of poverty and over half between 300 and 399 percent of FPL) are also asset poor based on their financial net worth or liquid assets. Hence, if a middle-income family loses its income source due to a job lay-off, illness, death of a parent, or natural disaster, the children of that family are likely to fall into poverty.

and that isnt even halfway through.

[smjjames]

Making CEOs not earn so much however, doesn't do anything to help raise the wages of everybody else, which have been stagnating for decades.

I may have heard of increasing the min wage as a method to sort of chain reaction it (got no sources on that though), but other than that, I don't have any idea of how to get the wages up. Obviously fixing up the economy is one way, but whatever the politicians have done for the last two decades isn't doing it.

I'll give your article a look though.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

So asset welfare could be effective, yes, but only at preventing a downward slip. Asset welfare along is insufficient.

[Shadowlord]

One example of an idea that backfired was conservatives in Australia who brought in community service requirements for welfare recipients. The idea was that having to do community service work would push the lazy welfare recipients towards seeking work, to get away from the obligations.

In fact, it had the opposite effect: doing community service made the welfare recipients happier, and reduced their incentives to find paid work. What they didn't understand here was human nature, due to their negative caricature of the "typical welfare recipient" as lazy evil people who don't want to do anything for others. Basic human needs include dignity and social contact, and either work or community service can provide those.

Aha, I knew it, people are driven to do work by more than greed! (Could I get some links to this? It sounds like GREAT supporting evidence for my belief that anarchism could work...)

They've tried it multiple times over the last 20 years. here's an article about the latest attempt:
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/work-dole-leaves-jobseekers-worse

Work for the Dole workers receive only Centrelink payments and travel allowance for participating in the program. When working for the maximum number of hours, they will work for less than the minimum wage. Newstart recipients will be working for $10 an hour while Youth Allowance recipients will be working for $5 to $8 an hour. The minimum wage is $16.87 an hour.

One of the most common arguments for Work for the Dole is that it benefits job-seekers because it improves employment outcomes.
...
The study showed that six months after starting Work for the Dole, 71.4% of participants were still unemployed, compared to 59.1% of non-participants. This gap began to slowly shrink so that by 12 months, the difference between the two groups’ continued unemployment had narrowed from 12.3% to 10.3%. 

So we have a situation where forcing 18-25 year olds (that's who gets Youth Allowance) to work for $5 an hour makes them less likely to seek out the minimum-wage $16 an hour jobs, than people who were just given money to live on without obligations. Clearly, the amount of money per hour worked isn't the main motivator.

Allowing companies to hire job-seekers for below minimum wage seems to me like it would limit the number of jobs available which actually pay minimum wage... Wouldn't that trap people in that program?

(Ignoring the possibility of offshoring jobs, though that probably works in reverse: offshoring jobs from places that pay more in order to save money by hiring people who have to work for less because they're on one of those programs, etc)

P.S. I have yet to figure out what "asset welfare" is, despite weird saying it repeatedly, but apparently the problem is that I did not click any links while on my phone? (Tends to crash the browser because low memory or something)

[Reelya]

Since people seem so prone to downward slips which are totally not their own fault, that seems contrary to the "up by your own boostraps" logic. So the solution is to apply welfare to people who earn more than the minimum wage now, and that's supposed to be consistent with the "welfare should be below minimum wage" logic?

Wierd, maybe you should just argue for universal basic income instead? e.g. just pay everyone the same welfare amount and don't means test income at all.

Allowing companies to hire job-seekers for below minimum wage seems to me like it would limit the number of jobs available which actually pay minimum wage... Wouldn't that trap people in that program?

In this case, the dole-jobs were limited to non-profit community sector jobs. So there might have been some job loss, but it would be limited. Also, the lost jobs only affected those on the program. Since those not on the program were more likely to be employed that kind of contradicts the "jobs were lost in general" viewpoint.

[Rolan7]

It is deferred until you remove it, allowing it to build as a multiplier.

They get paid X$ worth of stock, which is deferred. It grows 20% in 10 years. It is now (X+((X/10)*2) in value, which is further deferred as more stock, and it grows exponentially.

By the time they cash in the stock ( which they never do, they take the dividends), they have multiplied X many times, and have gotten way more money in the long run.

The end goal is to restrict the obscene wealth gap, and return some normalcy.

Insisting on cash payments greatly reduces the initial capital of the scheme, greatly diminishing their earnings.

Er, why does it gain 20% per year?  Stock price increasing?
I sorta see the problem about tax being deferred, but seems like the stock is almost useless until they sell it (and thus pay the capital gains tax).  Yeah they get dividends, but dividends are pretty pathetic compared to selling the stock for capital to invest in other things.

Unless I'm missing some way that they can use the stocks like capital, without paying any taxes on them...

Making CEOs not earn so much however, doesn't do anything to help raise the wages of everybody else, which have been stagnating for decades.

I may have heard of increasing the min wage as a method to sort of chain reaction it (got no sources on that though), but other than that, I don't have any idea of how to get the wages up. Obviously fixing up the economy is one way, but whatever the politicians have done for the last two decades isn't doing it.

I'll give your article a look though.

If you're talking about this capital gains stuff, I think the issue is more that CEOs should pay fair taxes on their huge incomes.  Not that they need to earn less, necessarily (though I think it gets ridiculous).

[Shadowlord]

Interest on stocks is much greater than dividends from banks. They get a sufficient amount and it's entirely possible to live off the interest and never have to work again. This is, of course, unattainable for mere mortals.

[wierd]

in a nutshell,

there are many families that are not considered impoverished, because they make too much money every year

however, they are burdened with oppressive debts, and lack equity, and so ANY upset of their income at all will put them instantly into poverty.

the study estimates over 40% of households with children have this problem.

preventing this crash into poverty does more to address the problem per dollar spent, than does fully subsidy of the income impoverished.

reelya:

they coincide. see the charts and tables for the % of overlap. with the asset welfare, they need significantly less mainenance income, and the benefits of getting a job greatly increase.

it is better spending, getting better returns, and (gasp) is inherently short term, one off expenditure, which is exactly what I have been saying this whole damned ime.

[smjjames]

So, um, some kind of debt reduction welfare?? If that even makes any sense.

[wierd]

yes and no.

it is that, but also providence of short term assist for people suffering illness, or loss of employment, and incentivized savings programs.

for a suggestion, the federal govt may offer a special bond package with a special, very high yeild interest rate for qualifying families. they invest an amount, and it grows based on the special interest rate, and pays out like an old EE bond does in addition to its growth.  thus for every dollar they put in, they get a guaranteed slow growth return. 

this is an asset assistence.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_eebonds_glance.htm

for info on type EE bonds.

[Reelya]

Wierd: that misses the connection between deprivation and crime. America is paying for it's lax welfare system in increased use of prisons to keep a lid on things. All countries with better welfare systems have many less people in prisons than USA.

The taxpayer cost of running prisons is almost $40 billion, compared to $75 billion for the entire food stamp program. But crime costs much more than just the costs of operating prisons: policing, opportunity loss, insurance costs, increased security spending, medical costs etc.

[smjjames]

Wierd: that misses the connection between deprivation and crime. America is paying for it's lax welfare system in increased use of prisons to keep a lid on things. All countries with better welfare systems have many less people in prisons than USA.

A good deal of that is due to the war on drugs however, and treating jails like they're mental healthcare facilities.

[Reelya]

Still, other countries which also have a war on drugs don't have the same explosion of prison population. Since the war on drugs is quite selective in which communities it polices, it's more a cover story about maintaining authority over the slums than it is about drug use. It's just more likely that the mentally ill come in the firing line of the authorities than other groups.

[wierd]

crime  is closely correllated with wealth, yes. also closely correllated with education.

once you stem further slide into the abyss with asset welfare, you can leverage a good deal of the same infrastructure to provide self funding income relief for the income impoverished.

again, look up the old EE bonds i mentioned.

ee bonds generate income for both the holder, and the us treasury. establishing methods to create such investments to support the income impoverished solves the monetary source problem, and the benefit of the bonds does not go away when they get jobs. (though they wont get to buy more at the special rate plan once they are stable.)

[Reelya]

Getting the income-poor to buy bonds sounds like it's not a very good solution. One problem, is that takes money out of circulation in poor communities. Poor communities have an excess of labor supply, but low demand. So, demand must be increased. Everyone in the ghetto buying bonds is not the answer.

Short-term: what are people supposed to eat?