Fewest working, or looking for work, since.........1978!!!

[Vic]

I think even adults in that situation should be giving access to retraining. I would even support colorful billboards on every government run apartment building advocating education and a better life.

If they choose to remain there and turn down education, then clearly it's not a bad life.

Yep.

 

[berzerker60]

Unemployment still exists, does it not? If you run out of unemployment and have no savings, you're not unemployed, you're on welfare. You shouldn't be eating at McDonald's, smoking, drinking, or anything else that you can't afford.

Sounds OK to me. Poor people living in drab government housing, eating boring government provided food, wearing pauper uniforms.

I simply can't understand the mindset of the American liberal. You love to harp on the fact that "taxes are the price you pay for a civil society" and "we all have to do our part" except that for millions of people, you want to give them the American dream without them giving anything back or doing their part. I don't understand your motivation.

This whole mindset is pretty gross, built on some idea that being poor is a moral failing. It's completely impractical, but you don't care, because punishing the poor and feeling superior to someone is more important than helping another human up or acting efficiently.

How many jobs do you think a homeless person in a tattered, ill-fitting Goodwill suit (or 'pauper clothes') gets relative to someone in decent clothes? How often is someone in 'pauper clothes' going to get arrested relative to someone in nice clothes, meaning now everyday crimes that are the same among all groups (pot possession, speeding, loitering, drunk in public) get disproportionately charged against the poor, keeping them in poverty? How well do you think a kid does in school if he's hungry compared to if he's full? How many hours of backbreaking labor do you think you any human can take without entertainment and relaxation? Our ancestors drank enormous amounts more than we did - colonial Americans drank 2-3 times more on average per year than an average American today.

One of the most important methods of inter-generational wealth transfer for middle class Americans is equity in homes/property, but you're never going to get that in shitty government housing. You're never going to get good jobs in such a neighborhood. If you're funding with property taxes, you're never going to have competitive schools. Segregating by class is every bit as bad as (and linked to) segregating society by race.

Yes, we want to give everyone the American Dream, defined as the opportunity to pull yourself up, take some chances, and not have your children's lives ruined by you having bad luck or making one mistake. As opposed to the conservative dream of pulling up the ladder and having a servile under-class of peons to do our hard labor while we get a sense of smug superiority for them for being lazy and stupid, or else they wouldn't have been born peons.

 

[BoberFett]

This whole mindset is pretty gross, built on some idea that being poor is a moral failing. It's completely impractical, but you don't care, because punishing the poor and feeling superior to someone is more important than helping another human up or acting efficiently.

Whatever you say, Cpt. Hyperbole.

How many jobs do you think a homeless person in a tattered, ill-fitting Goodwill suit (or 'pauper clothes') gets relative to someone in decent clothes? How often is someone in 'pauper clothes' going to get arrested relative to someone in nice clothes, meaning now everyday crimes that are the same among all groups (pot possession, speeding, loitering, drunk in public) get disproportionately charged against the poor, keeping them in poverty? How well do you think a kid does in school if he's hungry compared to if he's full? How many hours of backbreaking labor do you think you any human can take without entertainment and relaxation? Our ancestors drank enormous amounts more than we did - colonial Americans drank 2-3 times more on average per year than an average American today.

Why are poor people smoking pot, driving cars, or drinking booze? If you're so poor that you need to rely on the state to provide necessities, then you're too poor to afford those luxuries.

Also, I said food would be provided as well as education. Learn to read, spanky.

One of the most important methods of inter-generational wealth transfer for middle class Americans is equity in homes/property, but you're never going to get that in shitty government housing. You're never going to get good jobs in such a neighborhood. If you're funding with property taxes, you're never going to have competitive schools. Segregating by class is every bit as bad as (and linked to) segregating society by race.

If you're in Section 8 housing, you're not passing any property down. You're a tenant. Why would government provided housing be any different? It's run by the government and built to very basic standards, no slumlords charging too much for a crappy rental.

And Democrats have made it quite clear that charity should be run by the federal government, so I'm not sure what property taxes has to do with anything.

Yes, we want to give everyone the American Dream, defined as the opportunity to pull yourself up, take some chances, and not have your children's lives ruined by you having bad luck or making one mistake. As opposed to the conservative dream of pulling up the ladder and having a servile under-class of peons to do our hard labor while we get a sense of smug superiority for them for being lazy and stupid, or else they wouldn't have been born peons.

And my idea does nothing to change that. I don't see how giving people wads of cash help them where providing necessities does not.

You fail.

 

[schmuckley]

Ayep;Carter and Obama have a lot of similarities.

 

[OverVolt]

Whatever you say, Cpt. Hyperbole.



Why are poor people smoking pot, driving cars, or drinking booze? If you're so poor that you need to rely on the state to provide necessities, then you're too poor to afford those luxuries.

Also, I said food would be provided as well as education. Learn to read, spanky.



If you're in Section 8 housing, you're not passing any property down. You're a tenant. Why would government provided housing be any different? It's run by the government and built to very basic standards, no slumlords charging too much for a crappy rental.

And Democrats have made it quite clear that charity should be run by the federal government, so I'm not sure what property taxes has to do with anything.



And my idea does nothing to change that. I don't see how giving people wads of cash help them where providing necessities does not.

You fail.

Anyone can blow their paycheck on booze its the consequences that get you. The important stuff like house, car, and healthcare that enable someone the security and peace of mind to peruse education, apprenticeships, job training etc are out of reach.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Anyone can blow their paycheck on booze its the consequences that get you. The important stuff like house, car, and healthcare that enable someone the security and peace of mind to peruse education, apprenticeships, job training etc are out of reach.

Out of reach??!

Give some context here.

If you work for 5-10 years, and cannot afford a house, car, and education, then you have a person problem.. Not a society problem.

This is one of the very few countries where hard work results in being able to support yourself. No, not a pimple faced 18 year old who didn't graduate high school... But anyone who applies themselves can quickly gain these necessities.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm guessing you have literally no experience with program management or logistics in your entire life. Is this accurate?

The idea that the federal government is going to set up food distribution contracts for every federal housing assistance project across the entire country and then manage those deliveries, etc is simply baffling in its naivety and basic lack of understanding of the costs involved.

So your argument is it is more cost effective for say 200 people living in government housing to go to the grocery store individually than to have a truck bring food for everyone?

I also have to wonder why you think charities set up "soup kitchens" since obviously according to you they are horribly inefficient. Why do you think it is that people who want to feed the poor are so stupid with how they go about it?:hmm:

And quit it with the bus pass nonsense, which is just you trying to bolster an argument that even you should understand is stupid. People who have state subsidized bus passes do not simply have them to go to the grocery store. They would not be eliminated.

If they have no job and their food is brought to them then why would they need buspasses?:hmm:

 

[werepossum]

I knew there was a reason I always liked you Vic.

Yep, Vic rules and it's good to see him back.

This whole mindset is pretty gross, built on some idea that being poor is a moral failing. It's completely impractical, but you don't care, because punishing the poor and feeling superior to someone is more important than helping another human up or acting efficiently.

How many jobs do you think a homeless person in a tattered, ill-fitting Goodwill suit (or 'pauper clothes') gets relative to someone in decent clothes? How often is someone in 'pauper clothes' going to get arrested relative to someone in nice clothes, meaning now everyday crimes that are the same among all groups (pot possession, speeding, loitering, drunk in public) get disproportionately charged against the poor, keeping them in poverty? How well do you think a kid does in school if he's hungry compared to if he's full? How many hours of backbreaking labor do you think you any human can take without entertainment and relaxation? Our ancestors drank enormous amounts more than we did - colonial Americans drank 2-3 times more on average per year than an average American today.

One of the most important methods of inter-generational wealth transfer for middle class Americans is equity in homes/property, but you're never going to get that in shitty government housing. You're never going to get good jobs in such a neighborhood. If you're funding with property taxes, you're never going to have competitive schools. Segregating by class is every bit as bad as (and linked to) segregating society by race.

Yes, we want to give everyone the American Dream, defined as the opportunity to pull yourself up, take some chances, and not have your children's lives ruined by you having bad luck or making one mistake. As opposed to the conservative dream of pulling up the ladder and having a servile under-class of peons to do our hard labor while we get a sense of smug superiority for them for being lazy and stupid, or else they wouldn't have been born peons.

I'm not fully on board with this idea for some of the reasons you mention, but it's worth repeating that we're talking about people who choose not to pull themselves up, take chances, or do much of anything else for themselves. We're talking about people who choose to live a life of leisure and merely demand that society furnish them with better circumstances than they are willing to earn. The only way these people can enjoy the American Dream is if we take it away from someone else. I'm not a fan of government feeding and clothing them for several reasons, but let's be clear about one thing - government would probably make better decisions (especially on food) than they themselves. My biggest problems with the idea are government inefficiency, tendency of government-concentrated poverty to turn into hell on Earth, and that while some children would be motivated, I suspect more would have their spirits crushed and even more strongly than now be unable to relate to people who actually work.

But with the core problem population, as BoberFett said: "If they choose to remain there and turn down education, then clearly it's not a bad life." Unfortunately they tend to pass along that mind set to their children who thus start life brutally handicapped by attitude as well as poverty.

 

[OverVolt]

Out of reach??!

Give some context here.

If you work for 5-10 years, and cannot afford a house, car, and education, then you have a person problem.. Not a society problem.

This is one of the very few countries where hard work results in being able to support yourself. No, not a pimple faced 18 year old who didn't graduate high school... But anyone who applies themselves can quickly gain these necessities.

Yea thats why we have the highest economic mobility in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ahhh shit you are giving 20 year old advice from your parents aren't you?

 

[berzerker60]

I'm not fully on board with this idea for some of the reasons you mention, but it's worth repeating that we're talking about people who choose not to pull themselves up, take chances, or do much of anything else for themselves. We're talking about people who choose to live a life of leisure and merely demand that society furnish them with better circumstances than they are willing to earn.

I understand that that's the boogeyman that conservatives imagine welfare recipients to be, I just call bullshit on it. The only evidence you have of them being lazy is that they're not successful, which is just circular logic. Most people on welfare are also hard workers. There are enormous numbers of working poor who can't get by despite their hard work. You would just tar them all with the brush of the "welfare queen" Ronald Reagan invented (or more accurately, used one con artist sociopath who committed tons of other crimes and pretended that all people receiving welfare are the same as her, just because it was an appealing idea to those who want to cut welfare).

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that are some people who fit that description - it's a big country and 15% of us are in poverty, so there's bound to be some shitty people in that 15%. But you seem to just assume that's the case for everyone in poverty.

I reject entirely the idea that people are in poverty only because of their own decisions, and thus only they are responsible for helping them out of poverty. We've all benefited from the cheaper goods that go alongside fewer jobs for Americans. We've all benefited from the cheap labor of the desperate in America making our companies' profits soar to record levels. We've had some major successes in combating poverty - the poverty rate is WAY lower than it was before Social Security, for example - but we could be doing much more if we weren't so concerned with our own checkbooks. Above all, if we actually DID give to charity and volunteer as seems to be the go-to conservative solution, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation at all.

On the 10.4 million in poverty in America despite working jobs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...illion-american-workers-are-still-in-poverty/

But with the core problem population, as BoberFett said: "If they choose to remain there and turn down education, then clearly it's not a bad life." Unfortunately they tend to pass along that mind set to their children who thus start life brutally handicapped by attitude as well as poverty.

This is, indeed, a very difficult and real problem. I sure don't have any easy, silver bullet answer to it, and I haven't heard anyone else with one either. We can't educate someone just by improving schools if parents aren't involved too - but we also can't force parents to do very much without destroying huge numbers of liberties and rights we all cherish. In the meantime, improving schools as much as we can is an important place to start, even if it won't fix everything itself. America's public schools do very well in international comparisons if you leave out schools surrounded by poverty, but those schools are generally abysmal.

In meantime, I think the argument that people in poverty need things to get worse to get them to want out of poverty is absolutely insane. Poverty in America is fucking awful, if you have any kind of context for how everyone else lives. Unfortunately, as you point out, if you grow up in poverty you can normalize it in your mind - and that's true no matter how awful we make things. The human mind can suffer through and normalize all kinds of awful (as well as all kinds of luxury and wealth, which is why studies have shown that rich people are no happier, and often less happy, than middle class people.). As a society we need to work to make things as meritocratic as possible, so the talented and hard working can rise out of poverty, and those born rich but lazy/untalented can legitimately lose their riches rather than coasting forever on unearned inheritance. That can't happen if we don't do whatever we can to give opportunities to the children of the poor at a minimum.

 

[CitizenKain]

Out of reach??!

Give some context here.

If you work for 5-10 years, and cannot afford a house, car, and education, then you have a person problem.. Not a society problem.

This is one of the very few countries where hard work results in being able to support yourself. No, not a pimple faced 18 year old who didn't graduate high school... But anyone who applies themselves can quickly gain these necessities.

Or you are working for years and are laid off from a job because they move overseas. Or you get sick.
Saying all you need is hardwork to make it in life is hilarious, only spoiled manchildren believe that.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Perhaps some statistics:

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion

Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%


http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1849761-welfare-us-just-facts.html

 

[dmcowen674]

LOL Funny how that works. Carter's economy was actually Ford's and Nixon's economy and Reagan's economy was actually Carter's economy, because the economy is cyclical.

However, Barack Obama singlehandedly saved the nation if not the world, because without his massive stimulus program (which was of course actually too small) the economy would have remained tanked instead of becoming the well-honed engine of employment we see today because the economy is not cyclical, it's at the mercy of politicians.

If only there was some sort of code we could use to predict these things, some sort of letter after a politician's name to let us know whether or not he gets credit or blame . . .

So you don't blame Obama???

 

[werepossum]

So you don't blame Obama???

Not really. On the economy I tend to agree with Vic that the President's power to improve it is vastly overrated. Certainly I would have preferred to have Romney, a man with vast private sector experience and expertise, over Obama, a community organizer turned politician. But we have a lot of systemic issues that I think greatly limit the economy, issues not addressable by any President. Issues not faced by Carter or Reagan. The combined effects of automation (a net positive) and out sourcing (arguably a net negative) and illegal immigration combine to devalue labor. Worse, out sourcing especially limit our economic tools. Cut individual taxes? Some portion of that flows to China and other nations as we purchase more consumer goods. Cut corporate taxes? Better, but the same effect applies when those cuts trickle down to consumers, and while companies paying less in tax have more money to invest, for many if not most it makes no financial sense to invest in America. Government hand-outs? Same effect. About the closest we can come is probably infrastructure spending off the top of my head, but we still have immigrants sending money home, foreign companies winning contracts, and American companies importing materials and equipment.

For these reasons, I think we're arguing a matter of a couple percentage points between President Romney and President Obama. Granted, to some degree business is a matter of confidence, but I think that's mostly the stock market, which is doing fine under Obama anyway.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps some statistics:

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion

Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%


http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1849761-welfare-us-just-facts.html

Very interesting, thanks. One thing that appears to not be covered here is Social Security disability, Obama's growth industry. Many months we've had more people qualify for Social Security disability than net new jobs. Obviously that reduces our overall labor force participation, but to the degree that people were on unemployment prior to being certified disabled it would also reduce our unemployment.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Very interesting, thanks. One thing that appears to not be covered here is Social Security disability, Obama's growth industry. Many months we've had more people qualify for Social Security disability than net new jobs. Obviously that reduces our overall labor force participation, but to the degree that people were on unemployment prior to being certified disabled it would also reduce our unemployment.

Yup.

Welfare specifically is a small part of the handout train.

Nowadays most of the poor communities have a 'handout queen' who can tell you exactly which doctor to go to for instant scam disability.. not just yourself but also each kid. $800 / month per person. A mom with three kids can rake in $3k++/month tax free easily just of SS disability alone.

 

[Spungo]

They don't work, that's the problem. There is a reason why the more government is involved with health care the more efficient it gets.

Which explains why the cost of cosmetic things like laser eye surgery and plastic surgery keep going down while the cost of everything the government touches keeps going up.

LOL Funny how that works. Carter's economy was actually Ford's and Nixon's economy and Reagan's economy was actually Carter's economy, because the economy is cyclical.

Actually yeah that sums it up. During the LBJ and Nixon years, the Vietnam years, countries around the world started suspecting that the US was printing far too much money relative to the amount of gold held in reserve. US dollars came flooding back to us as countries demanded gold because the dollar was still backed by gold. Not wanting to admit to being a money printing criminal, Nixon responded by permanently suspending the convertibility between dollars and gold. This was called Nixon Shock, and it caused gold prices to soar. Coming as a surprise to absolutely nobody, this flood of paper money back to the US lead to very high inflation. The inflation problem was fixed by fed chairman Paul Volcker under Carter's watch by raising interest rates. As you can guess, raising interest rates can cause severe economic contraction. The cost of borrowing goes up. It's impossible to buy a house with no money down when the interest rate is 15%. Fewer people buy cars when a car loan is 20-30%. Carter gets a lot of hate because the fed was trying to fix the inflation problem at that time.

Then Reagan gets in. What happens? Interest rates start going down, credit loosens up, the economy starts moving again. Reagan was responsible for the biggest credit expansion in American history up until that point. Reagan's debt bubble was only surpassed by Bush's debt bubble, which was fueled by Greenspan and his stupid 1% inflation-is-good policy. Then that was dwarfed by Obama and Bernanke's 0% hyperinflation-is-awesome policy.

If you use the same inflation calculation used in the 1970's, you would see that inflation is exceptionally high right now. Bernanke calls it the "wealth effect" when real estate prices and stock prices go up 100% in just a few years. People in the 1970's called that inflation.
Right now we're still seeing the effect of the Bush years. Things will get a lot worse when we start seeing the effects of the Obama years. We'll be stuck in an inflationary spiral. We can't Volcker the interest rates back up to 15% to stop the inflation because we're already running huge budget deficits when interest rates are less than 5%. 15% would probably bankrupt us.

 

[OverVolt]

Or you are working for years and are laid off from a job because they move overseas. Or you get sick.
Saying all you need is hardwork to make it in life is hilarious, only spoiled manchildren believe that.

Sheesh whats a spoiled manchild with no exposure to real life supposed to think?

 

[werepossum]

Which explains why the cost of cosmetic things like laser eye surgery and plastic surgery keep going down while the cost of everything the government touches keeps going up.

Actually yeah that sums it up. During the LBJ and Nixon years, the Vietnam years, countries around the world started suspecting that the US was printing far too much money relative to the amount of gold held in reserve. US dollars came flooding back to us as countries demanded gold because the dollar was still backed by gold. Not wanting to admit to being a money printing criminal, Nixon responded by permanently suspending the convertibility between dollars and gold. This was called Nixon Shock, and it caused gold prices to soar. Coming as a surprise to absolutely nobody, this flood of paper money back to the US lead to very high inflation. The inflation problem was fixed by fed chairman Paul Volcker under Carter's watch by raising interest rates. As you can guess, raising interest rates can cause severe economic contraction. The cost of borrowing goes up. It's impossible to buy a house with no money down when the interest rate is 15%. Fewer people buy cars when a car loan is 20-30%. Carter gets a lot of hate because the fed was trying to fix the inflation problem at that time.

Then Reagan gets in. What happens? Interest rates start going down, credit loosens up, the economy starts moving again. Reagan was responsible for the biggest credit expansion in American history up until that point. Reagan's debt bubble was only surpassed by Bush's debt bubble, which was fueled by Greenspan and his stupid 1% inflation-is-good policy. Then that was dwarfed by Obama and Bernanke's 0% hyperinflation-is-awesome policy.

If you use the same inflation calculation used in the 1970's, you would see that inflation is exceptionally high right now. Bernanke calls it the "wealth effect" when real estate prices and stock prices go up 100% in just a few years. People in the 1970's called that inflation.
Right now we're still seeing the effect of the Bush years. Things will get a lot worse when we start seeing the effects of the Obama years. We'll be stuck in an inflationary spiral. We can't Volcker the interest rates back up to 15% to stop the inflation because we're already running huge budget deficits when interest rates are less than 5%. 15% would probably bankrupt us.

Look at the chart. With the exception of a few months under Nixon, the high inflation is entirely in Carter's term.

Sheesh whats a spoiled manchild with no exposure to real life supposed to think?

LOL

Sophisticated people know that success is entirely random if not actually inhibited by hard work, so it's only right that government taketh from those random winners and giveth to those random losers.

 

[berzerker60]

Nowadays most of the poor communities have a 'handout queen' who can tell you exactly which doctor to go to for instant scam disability.. not just yourself but also each kid. $800 / month per person. A mom with three kids can rake in $3k++/month tax free easily just of SS disability alone.

I like making up stories too! Have you heard the one about waking up in the bathtub of ice with your kidney gone?

 

[marincounty]

Ayep;Carter and Obama have a lot of similarities.

Yeah, the nation had much better employment numbers under both Carter and Obama than under Republicans.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yup.

Welfare specifically is a small part of the handout train.

Nowadays most of the poor communities have a 'handout queen' who can tell you exactly which doctor to go to for instant scam disability.. not just yourself but also each kid. $800 / month per person. A mom with three kids can rake in $3k++/month tax free easily just of SS disability alone.

$36,000/year for a family of 4? You think that's 'living large'?

btw, are you positive about the tax free part?

Why I ask:

"SSDI or SSD is a disability program that can be very beneficial to those unable to work. The disability payments are standard and come at a flat rate. The money received is taxable and must be reported to the IRS. Disability payments from the Social Security Administration are made possible through the payroll taxes to which all employees contribute. If you are disabled, contact your local office and speak with your doctor about this option."

http://taxes.answers.com/social-security/are-social-security-disability-payments-taxable

 

[BoberFett]

$36,000/year for a family of 4? You think that's 'living large'?

For working zero hours per week? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good hourly rate.

 

[OverVolt]

$36,000/year for a family of 4? You think that's 'living large'?

btw, are you positive about the tax free part?

Why I ask:

"SSDI or SSD is a disability program that can be very beneficial to those unable to work. The disability payments are standard and come at a flat rate. The money received is taxable and must be reported to the IRS. Disability payments from the Social Security Administration are made possible through the payroll taxes to which all employees contribute. If you are disabled, contact your local office and speak with your doctor about this option."

http://taxes.answers.com/social-security/are-social-security-disability-payments-taxable

Well when financial stability is your parents responsibility to have money in the bank for health problems or car problems etc. you can blow the $36,000 on rent and video-games, sure.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Very interesting, thanks. One thing that appears to not be covered here is Social Security disability, Obama's growth industry. Many months we've had more people qualify for Social Security disability than net new jobs. Obviously that reduces our overall labor force participation, but to the degree that people were on unemployment prior to being certified disabled it would also reduce our unemployment.

I'm not sure but the following link seems to indicate that's not quite right (regarding growth, that is). For example, if I understand the charts correctly the number of accepted claims was 620,488 in 1999 while in 2013 accepted claims were 884,894. If you look at applications it looks like a much bigger jump. In 1999 applications numbered 1,200,087 while in 2013, 2,640,100. That seems to indicate that the rate of acceptence to claims made has actually dropped an awful lot.

It also looks like it peaked in 2010 and 2011 as the past two years show a decrease in accepted claims.

It appears that people may be staying on disability longer though as current payment status in 2013 is almost double 1999.

Then again, termination of claims over the past couple of years seems to be increasing as well.

I dunno, make of it what you will. Here's the link:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html