Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
"RSI" requires the "rational" part to apply. Clearly the self-interest involved isn't always rational (as a term of art) so let's just ignore that part and consider this a social system rather than an economic system. It is a social system. I am not saying it is an economic system I am saying that the people are making economic decisions (ie: to keep welfare or not)
Also, my question is simply why you think this will decrease efficiency? Simply due to the cost involved?
|
I think that this will decrease efficiency in many ways. The cost will be huge and I think that the number of drug users will turn out to be insignificant (as in the amount wouldnt be enough to warrent all the testing). I'd say less than 20 percent of people on welfare are on drugs so that means that you'll be paying for 80% of the people to take tests (an inconviencing them) when they really dont need them. If you're going to test you'd have to do so randomly and multiple times in the year (because if you just scheduled it then people would be able to "beat" the test). And if these are tests where the person goes into a closed room and is not monitored then they could cheat the test as well. Then there is the issue of what you're going to do after a person has failed the test. Are you going to simply kick them off of welfare and let them fend for themselves? That doesnt seem likely because most of the people on welfare have children (or are in some way or another incapable of caring for themselves) and it is defeating the purpose to make more children homeless because of their parents drug use. If you do just completely cut them off then you have to spend money to increase law enforcement and place more stress and need for money on the court system because crime will surely go up. These children will end up in foster care which is already streched to its limits and thus that will need more funding. If you don't outright kick them off of welfare then it would make lawmakers look like idiots for having known drug users on welfare taking up tax dollars and not do anything about it. This means that they'd have to put more money into rehab programs (that druggies may or may not want to get into and that may or may not be successful). If rehab doesnt work out then you're back to the original point where you either kick them off of welfare and place the burden elsewhere or keep them on welfare and look like a complete idiot. And the big kicker is that all of this will be over only 1/5 of the people actually on welfare. More of the dollars that are going into welfare are ultimately going to be used by those that deserve them the least. So that means that 1/5 of the people then are pushed to the forefront of an issue that already has a plethora of image issues. Now the image of welfare suffers damage and even fewer tax payers will want to pay for it while it needs more tax payer dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB
So what does the person with an MBA, or an engineering degree, or masters degree, and 10-15 years experience in their field do? Not all unemployed people are uneducated or inexperienced or non-professionals - in fact, in my state, which is the most educated in the country, I'd say the vast majority are not. I will never forget going to the unemployment office for a mandatory "audit" and class and being surrounded by people with graduate degrees (including PhDs) who were all being told that they needed to check out getting their GED or an associates degree from the local community college. WTF? The "teacher" of the course was embarassed giving that kind of lecture to people who were mostly more educated than he was! There is nothing they can do for people who already have an education and vast job skills; they just haven't been set up for that.
Also, if people don't have jobs, and banks aren't loaning money for student loans as freely as they used to, how are people supposed to pay for more college and training?
The government would be paying for that training. Im not talking the government paying for your BA or BS but maybe medical assistant program or something.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, if people think it's bad now, just wait til six months from now, when people's unemployment runs out! You ain't seen nothin yet!
|
@bolded:
Im willing to bet that the education level on average of welfare recipients is a high school diploma (though that is changing now with the economy where it is). So, the people on welfare being highly educated is probably specific to your state or very few states.
Welfare was not designed for highly educated highly capable people. Unemployment can only go so far and it can only help so much. This program wasnt made to help everyone out. If you have a PhD my expectations of what you should be doing for yourself without the government are much higher. Our schools are in desperate need of teachers and our military needs people as well. If you have a PhD then it is my opinion that you have far more options than a person with no education does. There are plenty of foreign countries and companies that need educated people. They need doctors and lawyers and professors. Your opportunities are so much more vast with a masters or a PhD that honestly I am much less concerned about you than I am about someone who is uneducated. The military wont take you if you dont at least have a highschool diploma or the equivilant. If you have a PhD and you cant get ANY other job then the military is always in need of people and you'll make much more than you can on unemployment. You wont make what you're worth, but you'll make enough to survive.