This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- personal anecdote. I'm in marketing, and I have a degree. About 4-5 years ago, I worked for a company that was slowly dying. I left it a few months before it finally closed up shop, but even before that they were having problems which were affecting the commision part of my salary. But it left me just about flat broke, having re-located with the company to another part of the country where I knew no one, and with no job. So, I applied every place that had an opening, and found a job working graveyard shift at a casino/hotel, checking people into their rooms for a couple bucks more than minimum wage. and I took it. And I stayed there until I found a job that I was more qualified for.
So, yes, I can blame someone for refusing to take a job that's "beneath them" and preferring to have the government support them instead. And, as someone who has been involved in the hiring decisions for companies I have been involved with, I would much prefer to bring back an applicant who had done a stint waiting tables, flipping burgers, or putting up drywall than on who has been unemployed for a year and a half since college, because "no one is hiring".
Post by
xaratherus
@Elhonna: Exactly. I had a chat one day with one of the recruiters in our company. He's worked in HR in various companies over the past 10 years, and in his experience, a candidate who shows recent job experience is considered more viable than someone who has gone a lengthy period without a job.
It may have been true before the employment crash several years ago that being on a job a short time was considered detrimental to your 'hireability' - and it may still be true in a segment of companies - but I don't think that's true in the majority anymore. If I had a choice between two equally-qualified candidates, one who had spent the last 6 months working at McDonald's, and one who had not worked at all because "he couldn't find a job in his range/skillset", I'd choose the former every time.
Post by
Heckler
So, yes, I can blame someone for refusing to take a job that's "beneath them" and preferring to have the government support them instead. And, as someone who has been involved in the hiring decisions for companies I have been involved with, I would much prefer to bring back an applicant who had done a stint waiting tables, flipping burgers, or putting up drywall than on who has been unemployed for a year and a half since college, because "no one is hiring".
I didn't mean to imply that its 'beneath them.' I meant to imply that it's insufficient to fulfill their responsibilities (kids, house, etc), and in some cases significantly less than they get from unemployment insurance. So they can continue to get the unemployment check (which again, is part of an insurance program that they paid into), or they can give up the check for a smaller check at Burger King.
Once the unemployment insurance money runs out, then they would be forced to take one or two jobs at Burger King, and that's probably a good thing. This is leading into a question about structural, frictional, and cyclical unemployment. If someone is structurally unemployed, then that could mean their degree is worthless, and they'll have to accept that retraining in a new field while working part time jobs is the only way out. Unemployment insurance exists so that people who are frictionally or cyclically unemployed don't make that decision too quickly, and incorrectly.
Your example of the college kid doesn't work, because I don't know of any unemployment insurance programs that work for college graduates (no work experience in which they paid into the program), and even if they exist, I doubt they would pay for 1.5 years, as the longest you can currently draw that I know of is 99 weeks, and that's with a very long work history. If the kid sits for 1.5 years without a job and is getting some other form of assistance, then I would agree with you. I'm talking strictly about unemployment insurance.
My point remains that unemployment insurance and welfare are completely different things, and shouldn't even be discussed together.
Post by
ExDementia
What I'm describing is not a weasel-like loophole. If a single parent has 2 kids, and that person pops positive on a drug test, do you think the kids should be punished? I'm going to assume no. That means that that person can tell his mother (who will then also have to be tested) or someone else to go get the kids' welfare money for them. That's not a loophole, its a necessary method of getting the assistance where it is needed (whihc could then be exploited). Your data came from a "family of three" -- my point was that in a family of three, even if the drug tests finds the drug user, the government still cuts a large check.
This means that it's not 1 in 280. It's 1 in (the new number which accounts for the fact that the total savings are significantly less than $8400 per 'family of three').
Edit:
If we just divide it by three (which is probably not the right way to do it, since the food/shelter part of it would still need to be given at the same rate, but for simplicity), we get 2800. That's enough for 80 drug tests. Now, in order to properly account for children, we have to include them in the subset. So,
including children and dependents
, are more than 1 in 80 welfare recipients using a significant portion of their money on drugs? I think that's a better estimate. If all we had were families of three with single parents, only 26 of the 80 above are adults, so are more than 1 in 26 adults on welfare using a significant portion of the assistance on drugs? Now I think we're getting into the territory where I think the odds are getting closer, and when you actually factor in what percentage of the welfare money goes towards drugs (vice into the local economy, legally), the numbers get even smaller. This is the type of data that runs through my head when you say that a huge huge portion of welfare recipients are drug abusers.
That doesn't make any sense. Disregard the 'family of three' part because that is just throwing you off. I just took the number I could find which just so happens to be how much the average family of three would make.
You didn't understand what I was doing there. I was saying if one family doesn't get the welfare because they don't deserve it, the money we save by not paying them is enough to pay for 280 future drug tests. This was a point I was making to refute your argument that the drug tests will end up costing more money than it saves in the long run.
Breaking it down further:
One drug addict is refused welfare. That's $8,400 not spent.
We can now use that $8,400 to cover the cost of the drug test for the next 280 applicants.
Then, if at least one of them is denied welfare, they can cover the next 280 that come in.
Get it?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So, yes, I can blame someone for refusing to take a job that's "beneath them" and preferring to have the government support them instead. And, as someone who has been involved in the hiring decisions for companies I have been involved with, I would much prefer to bring back an applicant who had done a stint waiting tables, flipping burgers, or putting up drywall than on who has been unemployed for a year and a half since college, because "no one is hiring".
I didn't mean to imply that its 'beneath them.' I meant to imply that it's insufficient to fulfill their responsibilities (kids, house, etc), and in some cases significantly less than they get from unemployment insurance. So they can continue to get the unemployment check (which again, is part of an insurance program that they paid into), or they can give up the check for a smaller check at Burger King.
Once the unemployment insurance money runs out, then they would be forced to take one or two jobs at Burger King, and that's probably a good thing. This is leading into a question about structural, frictional, and cyclical unemployment. If someone is structurally unemployed, then that could mean their degree is worthless, and they'll have to accept that retraining in a new field while working part time jobs is the only way out. Unemployment insurance exists so that people who are fictionally or cyclically unemployed don't make that decision too quickly, and incorrectly.
Your example of the college kid doesn't work, because I don't know of any unemployment insurance programs that work for college graduates (no work experience in which they paid into the program), and even if they exist, I doubt they would pay for 1.5 years, as the longest you can currently draw that I know of is 99 weeks, and that's with a very long work history.
Ok- I'll agree that it is an imperfect comparison. I'm trying to say that there are a lot of people who have a lot of expectations of what is "owed" to them, by virtue of their education, their family, or their general sense of importance. I agree if someone is between jobs, and genuinely looking for work in their field, that unemployment is a very good thing. But I have had people work for my company, who I was supervising, who had applied for unemployment before they even left the job, because they were trying to get fired (that was an awkward fax for her to try to explain- "When did this person leave your employ"). I have seen people in low-level sales positions who come in, work for 3 days, then do everything in their power to get fired so they can try for unemployment (I know that this isn't usually effective, because you have to work for a certain amount of time to be eligible, but people are not that bright). These were the types of users of the system that I am referring to.
As a separate issue, there are a lot of people getting welfare, and other forms of assistance who could probably be working. There are jobs in this country- if there weren't, people wouldn't come from other countries to work here. My brother-in-law makes $20/hour doing manual labor, and when he first started he had no legal paperwork. And all of his cousins, and his father, and his brothers- they come here, and almost immediately find jobs with no paperwork and speaking very little English. I am NOT defending illegal immigration- I am using it to point out that when people want to work, they seem to find a a way. When people NEED to find a way to feed themselves, suddenly work that seemed distasteful three weeks ago now looks pretty decent.
Post by
Heckler
Get it?
No. Because this drug testing doesn't stop
families
from getting welfare. Only individuals. Even if the single mother of 9 tests positive, she will still get a huge welfare check (and if all we're going to do to combat the problem is write checks, she probably should.. her kids aren't using drugs).
I know what you're trying to say, I guess I'm saying that you're boiling off too many details and grabbing too many numbers out of the air for me to really give any credence to "1 in 280". There
is
an answer to "How many people would we have to cut off from the system to make this a net savings, and will we catch or deter at least that many drug users by mandating testing" -- that answers the economics part of my objections (but it raises even more morality and efficiency objections). And truthfully, it doesn't matter what the numbers are.
Let's assume one of us could magically gather all of the necessary data, and I came up with a perfectly true statement like "We will save money if we catch 1 welfare
adults
on drugs, per X total testing candidates."
I don't imagine you would change your stance unless X was less than like .. 5 (meaning you're willing to assume that fully 20% of welfare dollars are going towards drugs), and I probably wouldn't change my opinion unless X was over like 100 (meaning I put it closer to 1%).
These were the types of users of the system that I am referring to.
There will be abuse and success stories in every program. The goal of reforms should be to both reward and encourage the success stories, and punish and eliminate the abuses. Drug testing every applicant (might) achieve one of these goals, but it does so at the cost of the other (by 'punishing' those who have done nothing wrong).
When people NEED to find a way to feed themselves, suddenly work that seemed distasteful three weeks ago now looks pretty decent.
I agree with you completely (and again, my statements on unemployment insurance had literally nothing to do with "tastefulness" of work). And I also won't get into the pros or cons of illegal immigration, or how valid anecdotal evidence of employers who are willing to break the law is. My argument has not been that the welfare system is perfect, or even good. It's been that this is not the right way to fix it, or even improve it. There's plenty of families on welfare with no plans of getting off welfare who wouldn't even know where to buy drugs if they wanted to try them.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'll agree it's not the perfect fix- I think the thing that would REALLY fix the system would to change the culture of the system- design it so it's aimed not only at supporting people, but ALSO in getting them back into the workforce somehow- either hiring them on to staff public parks and government buildings, work on government funded public projects, etc. It would offer them on the job training in many instances, build resumes, and we would get MUCH more out of the money spent on government assistance programs if the recipients were expected to contribute something back in terms of time, labor, etc. It would also kill this idea that "the governement will pay for you and not make you do a darn thing, so why be a fool and work" that some people seem to have. Win, win.
But, barring a total redesign, I think a measure like this helps much more than it hurts.
Post by
ExDementia
Lol, you crack me up. I think you're just scanning my post and not actually hearing what I'm saying.
I'm not just pulling numbers our of the air. If you read my post, that should be clear.
I'll break this down again but I really don't think it will matter because you're not going to read it or just not understand what I'm saying:
Around $8,400 is the average amount a family receives from welfare. Google it. That's where I found ~700$ a month which adds up to $8,400 a year.
With me so far?
Now let's say one family was refused welfare. Period. No loop-holes or the other parent trying or anything (because how often is just one a drug addict out of a couple?). That is one family that doesn't get the $8,400. (kids can't apply for welfare.)
With me so far?
Now we know the tests cost around $30 each. The money we saved by not paying for that one families drug use can now be allocated to paying for future drug tests.
With me so far?
At $30 a test, and with $8,400 to spend, we can pay for 280 tests. Math tells me so. (8,400/30=280)
With me so far?
Your argument was that the tests are going to end up costing more money than we would save by doing this. 3rd grade math tells me that it only takes one person out of every 280 to break even on paying for drug tests. If we have even one person out of 279, we save money.
Are you saying that this new system would not deter even one household from receiving welfare out of 279?
If you still don't understand then I give up. I don't mean to be condescending but it gets tiring.
Post by
Heckler
I think the thing that would REALLY fix the system would to change the culture of the system- design it so it's aimed no only at supporting people, but ALSO in getting them back into the workforce somehow- either hiring them on to staff public parks and government buildings, work on government funded public projects, etc. It would offer them on the job training in many instances, build resumes, and we would get MUCH more out of the money spent on government assistance programs if the recipients were expected to contribute something back in terms of time, labor, etc.
I think that's a much more proper discussion (I wonder what would happen if the minimum wage was raised to $15 and hour, and they started throwing employers who broke the law in prison -- a discussion for another time), and also much more constructive towards actually solving problems.
But, barring a total redesign, I think a measure like this helps much more than it hurts.
I actually could agree, I don't think I have enough data to make a sound judgment though, so I won't. But I'm glad you acknowledge that it does indeed have some
hurt
built into it... no one else seems to agree.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ExDementia,
I agree that this is a good measure, and that it will probably save more than it costs. I think the argument that Heckler is having over the numbers, is that the law is written so that if the parent fails the drug test, their family isn't automatically disqualified- they just have to find a different adult to be responsible for dispensing the money for the kids. He's saying that if the parent fails, that doesn't automatically mean that the family won't get the money- it just means that they'll set up more checks and balances in how it is dispensed for the family.
@Heckler
The only problem with a blanket raise of minimum wage to $15, which would almost double it in some areas, is that all associated industries would raise their prices accordingly to compensate for the increase in costs. The actual dollar would de-value accordingly, and the "raise" would result in a temporary instability that would shut down a number of small businesses, followed by an economy where $15 buys what $8 used to buy. Numbers are arbitrary. The buying power of the dollar is what's important.
And most small business owners aren't all that wealthy. They pay what people are willing to work for, and what they can afford based on the going price for theit services. "Throwing them in Jail" because they can't afford to all of a sudden double their labor costs is short sighted, and paying a minimum wage is not a crime, nor should it be. And to try to enforce something like this on larger companies would just send all of their jobs overseas. If people want to have more buying power than minimum wage provides, they need to work for it. It's not even a matter of education- manual laborers make much more than minimum wage.
I remember, like 10 years ago, Ralph Nader had something like this as one of his promises during his presidential campaign. That and legalizing pot...
Post by
Heckler
If you still don't understand then I give up. I don't mean to be condescending but it gets tiring.
lol, I do understand what you're saying, thank you for going slowly ;) I understood from the first post. I'm not sure you're understanding my replies though, as you keep simply repeating the first post. Your figure of $700/month is probably about right for a single mother with two kids (for a single mother without kids, it would be less). If that mother goes to get the welfare check, and she tests positive, they will still give her a check (just a smaller one, through a designated other, with "her" section of it removed -- the amount you get is completely dependent on your number of dependents). We can roughly say that it will be 2/3 as large, so that means you saved $2800 annually by testing her (not 8400).
So let's use that figure instead. $2800 per person per year on assistance (it's a rough and probably inaccurate estimate, but that seems to be exactly what you're after).
That's enough for 93 tests. So for every person you pull off the welfare rolls, you can afford 93 tests and it will remain a net savings. The simple question at this point is -- will this testing mandate catch or deter 1 out of every 93 applicants. If you think the answer is yes, then fine. If not, then fine. My issue is not with any of the math or assumptions above, but what has been left out. (so don't repost your same argument again, I'm trying to acknowledge that I get your point, even if I changed your 280 to 93.)
The more complicated argument brings up things Squishalot mentioned, secondary effects.
Let's say out of that $2800/year the person actually spends 40% of it on drugs (which seems to be a good "worst case" estimate for the average based on prior data, probably a drastic overestimate of reality, but again, that's what we're after).
That's $1120/year that represents taxpayer dollars subsidizing drug use. So in order to combat it, we cut off the person completely, but now we've pulled the remaining 60% out of the economy (the part of the $2800 that wasn't going towards drugs), and put another person in a situation where they will probably turn to drug sales / prostitution / etc in order to survive (making the entire situation worse), and we did so in order to spend those savings on more drug tests. So you don't just have to break even in terms of "1 less welfare recipient means 93 more drug tests with no added costs" -- you have to consider the total impact of the changes, and what percentage of the saved money was actually going towards drugs. Maybe Squishalot is right, maybe there will be an equal amount of positive secondary effects to offset the negative ones, I don't know, no one seems to, and that's my point.
Post by
ExDementia
I see what you're saying now :)
Post by
Heckler
The only problem with a blanket raise of minimum wage to $15, which would almost double it in some areas, is that all associated industries would raise their prices accordingly to compensate for the increase in costs. The actual dollar would de-value accordingly, and the "raise" would result in a temporary instability that would shut down a number of small businesses, followed by an economy where $15 buys what $8 used to buy. Numbers are arbitrary. The buying power of the dollar is what's important.
Well I don't want to get into this discussion and completely derail the thread. There's obviously more to my thoughts than simply what I stated, I was more pointing out that there's a huge discussion to be had about the types of "cultural" changes that you were talking about that we've already experienced, and what has happened to our economy in general that has resulted in a concentration of population at the bottom of the wage ladder, a concentration of wealth at the top of the population ladder, and a dwindling of what we would call a "middle class" in general.
In addition, the action of prices is a function of demand, not supply. If doubling the minimum wage doubled the demand for goods, then I would agree with you, but I don't think it would -- with as many people as we have under the poverty line, it's difficult to say what would happen to overall demand with a more robust lower and middle class, and what that would mean for the economy in general. And again I don't want to get into that in this thread, but as you pointed out, it's a much deeper and more complex question than can be answered in a quick tangent sentence (also, the bit about throwing employers in prison was in reference to illegal immigration and other ways that employers break the law, not paying minimum wage). It's sort of like the "small" business owner who says "if you raise my taxes, I'll just raise my prices" or "if you raise my costs, I'll just go overseas" -- the first one is just false... the supplier doesn't set the price, demand does. The second one is amazingly offensive for a number of reasons which could make another thread all its own, but there are other fixes possible for things like that too.
But what we're both doing here is revealing the top 5% of our knowledge on the subject for the sake of brevity, and then trying to build a discussion out of it without revealing the other 95% -- lol.
a single mother without kids
lol again.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
a single mother without kids
You could totally be a single mother without kids. Shaft was one bad mother, after all, and I don't recall him being married or having kids :)
Post by
Heckler
a single mother without kids
You could totally be a single mother without kids. Shaft was one bad mother, after all, and I don't recall him being married or having kids :)
lol xD
Post by
xaratherus
I think they should just elect all of us from Wowhead. We'll hash it out, because we're all bad mothers.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think they should just elect all of us from Wowhead. We'll hash it out, because we're all bad mothers.
I was all ready to respond with "Shut yo mouth", and then I got worried that we might have a mod for whom Shaft is not a contemporary reference, and I would get a temp ban for flaming :(
Post by
xaratherus
I think they should just elect all of us from Wowhead. We'll hash it out, because we're all bad mothers.
I was all ready to respond with "Shut yo mouth", and then I got worried that we might have a mod for whom Shaft is not a contemporary reference, and I would get a temp ban for flaming :(
But you're only talkin' 'bout Shaft! I'm sure they can dig it.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
In what ways will cutting these people off make the whole problem worse?
Let's be clear - they're not being cut off. It's not as if that they'll have less money available to them than they would otherwise.
If you ask me, I would be implementing a voucher / docket system for the 60-70% of cash, and essentially forcing them to redeem the vouchers at supermarkets and other essentials suppliers. Or setting up an internal market, so that when people come to collect their dole cheque, they can pick up their groceries at the same time with the 'essentials' side of their money, and take the rest of their money to go do whatever they want.
This, to me, seems to circumvent the possibility that the 'clean' uncle will fund the drug using habits of the rest of the family.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.