Drug Testing for welfare recipients

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare.

This is demonstrably false using the definition of "utility" that you're alluding to.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families.

Why is it either/or?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is demonstrably false using the definition of "utility" that you're alluding to.



Why is it either/or?

Could you explain what you mean by the definition of utility being false?

What is either/or? I didnt mention either/or. The words arent even in there so im a little by your question.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Could you explain what you mean by the definition of utility being false?

What is either/or? I didnt mention either/or. The words arent even in there so im a little by your question.

You posted: "So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families."

That made it seem like a choice - either you "root out druggies" or you reform the system, but that you couldn't do both. It seemed like RC's post was wondering why you couldn't try to do both.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You posted: "So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families."

That made it seem like a choice - either you "root out druggies" or you reform the system, but that you couldn't do both. It seemed like RC's post was wondering why you couldn't try to do both.

@ bolded:
No it didnt. The underlined portion of your post seems like a choice. I was quite clear. "DON'T waste money trying to root out druggies." What choice is there? If I say dont turn left does that mean either turn left or keep straight? No, it means Do NOT turn left. No option there.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Could you explain what you mean by the definition of utility being false?

You said: "Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare."

This is a theoretical maxim that is almost always violated unless you use an exceptionally broad definition of "utility" . . . for example, credit card debt does not maximize the utility of a dollar, and may or may not maximize the marginal utility of the person's enjoyment (or "need it now" factor), so that's a clear violation of the maxim.

There are really dozens of examples that agree - the individual should work to maximize individual utility, but that doesn't mean that they do.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

What is either/or? I didnt mention either/or. The words arent even in there so im a little by your question.

You are saying that, instead of a low-yield effort to keep out drug users (note: you've not really backed up the fact that it's low-yield - we still have little evidence either way, although the popular assumption is that the number would be higher than the population at large but lower than some people expect), we should focus on efficiency.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider both, or consider the former a part of the later. They can occur together.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

And when I say "people on welfare" I don't mean all welfare recipients.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

@ bolded:
really? I dont get it. To me all people on welfare are welfare recipients and all welfare recipients are people on welfare.

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

So, when people are required to drug test for a job, are they being treated as second class citizens?
I didn't say all people on welfare. READ.
I read what you said. I said I didnt get what you meant. To me people on welfare= all welfare recipients. Maybe you meant specific people on welfare? If you say people on welfare the "all" is assumed. If I said Americans I dont have to say all. It is implied.

Hmmm so it's ok that some (read SOME) people are just plain ol lazy and don't want to work but continue having kids?
HELL NO! It is far from okay. Its ass backward and foolish.

Unfortunately some (again read SOME) people on welfare do see it as that.
I wasnt speaking about welfare recipients who see it as a prize, but about taxpayers who do. But I do understand and agree with your point.
And let me reiterate since you apparently want to read things that aren't there...
I got that the first time. My issue is that you appear to think that the majority of people on welfare are not good law abiding people. Not true.
I have absolutely no problem with good, law abiding people being on welfare if they are trying the best they can. I do have a problem with people who break the law (drugs, theft, violence, etc) who are not trying the best they can being on welfare.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You said: "Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare."

This is a theoretical maxim that is almost always violated unless you use an exceptionally broad definition of "utility" . . . for example, credit card debt does not maximize the utility of a dollar, and may or may not maximize the marginal utility of the person's enjoyment (or "need it now" factor), so that's a clear violation of the maxim.

There are really dozens of examples that agree - the individual should work to maximize individual utility, but that doesn't mean that they do.

From MCConnell Brue, Economicis 17th Edition:

Economics assumes that human behavior reflects "rational self-interest." Individuals look for and persue opportunities to increase their Utility--that is, pleasure, happiness, or satisfaction.

Utility- The want-satisfying power of a good or service; the satisfaction the consumer obtains from the consumption of a good or service.

You are saying that, instead of a low-yield effort to keep out drug users (note: you've not really backed up the fact that it's low-yield - we still have little evidence either way, although the popular assumption is that the number would be higher than the population at large but lower than some people expect), we should focus on efficiency.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider both, or consider the former a part of the later. They can occur together.

I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

From MCConnell Brue, Economicis 17th Edition:

Economics assumes that human behavior reflects "rational self-interest." Individuals look for and persue opportunities to increase their Utility--that is, pleasure, happiness, or satisfaction.

Utility- The want-satisfying power of a good or service; the satisfaction the consumer obtains from the consumption of a good or service.

I understand precisely these definitions - they're common to every Econ class ever. What I'm getting at is that you're applying a macroeconomic definition to a phenomenon that either does not exist in economic terms (as we've shown the situation already violates the definition) or works on a more microeconomic scale and that we should not assume rational self-interest.

It's a very minor nitpick - I like where you're going, but I disagree with using the "rational self-interest" assumption (or test) in this instance.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.

That's completely fair - I agree with your overall point on efficiency, but I'm not convinced one way or another on your specific point on drug testing.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I understand precisely these definitions - they're common to every Econ class ever. What I'm getting at is that you're applying a macroeconomic definition to a phenomenon that either does not exist in economic terms (as we've shown the situation already violates the definition) or works on a more microeconomic scale and that we should not assume rational self-interest.

It's a very minor nitpick - I like where you're going, but I disagree with using the "rational self-interest" assumption (or test) in this instance.

This situation is completely microeconomic. It is individualized. How is it incorrect to assume rational self-interest? Rational self-interest is both micro and macro economic.

1. Humans act in a rational self-interest and as such do what is most satisfying.
2. Person A is human and thus acts in RSI (if they didnt why would they even apply for welfare in the first place?)
3. Person A realizes that they get more (thus incresased utility) on welfare than they do when working (and that they must do one or the other)
4. Person A acting in RSI quits working in favor of welfare

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.

Thank you for posting this. It's been said before in this thread but it doesn't hurt to say it again. Why fight against something that is not the root cause of welfare abuse - that is if reform is truly the reason?? But hey, if you guys think random drug testing will sock a blow to people on welfare who don't deserve it, more power to you. And I won't even bring up how the druggies that you and I work with everyday are passing drug test...sooo people who receive welfare can't figure that out too? Seriously, unless its not that hard to pass a UA.

And for the record DS, you can get people to attend courses with rules such as "don't attend the budget course, don't get your check".

[madmax]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.

If efficiency was really your priority then you would do away with welfare and the slackards would have to get jobs like the rest of the planet.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.

"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.

Also, my question is simply why you think this will decrease efficiency? Simply due to the cost involved?