I'm speaking from tacit knowledge and personal experience as a social worker in DC. The figures for some of the benefit levels in this study are just outrageously wrong. More importantly, it paints a picture that each welfare recipient receives the maximum benefit level of each program. The authors do note that not every person receives the maximum benefit level nor do they participate in each program. I would hope that would lead them to investigate further and ask, well, how many programs do people in poverty generally participate in? And what are the median benefit levels they receive from these programs? And then generalize an average, prototypical family from those.
Nope, that's not really a concern for them. That their figures do not represent what is normal or likely or, hell, even scarcely possible doesn't seem to be important. There is an annoying and just plain idiotic reliance on the assumption of perfect knowledge of welfare programs, the means and ability to renew benefits perfectly, receive the maximum benefit from the government, and for all benefits to work perfectly and seamlessly. This picture bears absolutely no resemblance to the life of my former clients. I doubt it exists for anyone.
No, Cato, most poor people do not receive TANF. TANF is a time-limited program that provides less than what is needed to feed a family. Your figures square with my experience, $428/ month for a family of a mother and two children, but can a family survive on that? Well, they have food stamps! I have never seen a family receive $528 dollars in food stamps, as your chart implies. Maybe that's the maximum allowed by law, but it is far more likely that the welfare consumer you're describing in DC receives hundreds of dollars less than that.
Aha! But housing assistance! The waiting list for Section 8 in DC is over a decade long. Anyone, including DCHA will tell you that when you sign up. We could talk about how housing vouchers drive up the price of low-income housing so damn high no one can afford unsubsidized rent anymore and a one-bedroom in Anacostia costs $1000/month. We could talk about how it is cruel to have people move from place to place, with no address for years on end, because if they DO find housing between when they signed up a decade ago and their name finally gets called on the list, they are ineligible for emergency housing as they are no longer homeless. We could talk about the perverse incentives of getting a mental health diagnosis to get onto different voucher systems. We could talk about any one of these things that are damn fucking valid arguments against the status quo of the welfare state. But apparently, the family you have chosen to examine and generalize all your findings from doesn't have any of these problems. They have gained the maximum benefit allowed and live comfortably in a government-financed home.
(I'm not even going to touch Medicaid benefits here. [twitch])
Well fuck you. Seriously. I can't even begin to describe how much damage it does to libertarianism that we assume to know what it's like for poor people without asking them a goddamn thing. We assume to know what the tradeoff between work and welfare is only by calculating the most efficient economic solution (i.e. maximum welfare payoff vs. maximum low-wage employment payoff). Moreover, a big-old double fuck you because YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE RIGHT! That's right, the tradeoff between welfare and work is still tilted towards welfare! Your analysis is dogshit, but unemployment is unbelievably high in the poor parts of DC. It's fucking hard to get a job there. Social welfare programs may be degrading, bureaucratic nightmares, but at least you get a check for as long as you can.
Next time you want to study the tradeoff between welfare and work, why don't you step outside the numbers and ask people who use these programs what their experiences have been? Maybe this way you can actually come to know who it is you are trying to help.
