Drug Testing for welfare recipients

[DaemonSeid]

PM Mama and co.

The big picture is that there are enough people on welfare who do not abide by the law and make it worse for everyone else who works within the law to get on and WANT to get off.

If you can, write down some of the stereotypes of people that you see on welfare and see what you come up with.


- women (more notably single mothers)

- under educated and functionally illiterate

- 'flashy' clothes

- 'shady' associates

- live in poor areas

add more in...

[SydneyK]

I don't see how making a list of stereotypes is going to help this discussion in any way.

[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".

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Honeykiss1974

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".

and you can lead a horse to water but...who are they to tell welfare recipients how to spend money?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

and you can lead a horse to water but...who are they to tell welfare recipients how to spend money?

They are the people giving them the money. Stipulations are attached to giving money. Its not new. Food Stamps can only be spent on food. If you are getting funds then you'll have to take the budgeting course. The issue here is that once the course is made mandatory only the people who are hell bent on not getting the message will be the ones who just wont budget.

I don't get why some people seem to be under the impression that people who get welfare would not be open to learning. They are. Sensible people do sensible things. Once they learn how to budget they will budget. If they dont know how then they wont.

Its true that you can lead a horse to water but you cant him/her drink, but you cannot expect a horse to drink water you have not led him/her to.

[PM_Mama00]

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.

Ahh ok gotcha. Sorry about that. I just really find it unfortunate that there are people who are really struggling and really trying. If they did drug testing, and stopped giving to those who tested positive or are caught dealing, maybe there'd be more to give to those who really do deserve it.

I feel the same about unemployment. I went to our local unemployment place (Michigan Works) and there was a girl, not more than 18, filing for unemployment. It really pissed me off because when I was 18, I was working at an ice cream parlor, followed by a part time job at a hair salon. I never would have dreamed about filing unemployment back then because at that age there are so many different jobs... fast food, KMart, Target, etc. **all of which are hiring** My point is, I'm on unemployment because I got "laid off" and I am actively seeking a job everyday... but I have known people who receive unemployment who sit on their ass everyday, not looking for a job, who go shopping every chance they get.

I see that the same as the welfare thing. There are those who deserve and there are those who don't. How do you weed them out?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

I see that the same as the welfare thing. There are those who deserve and there are those who don't. How do you weed them out?

I think that you can weed the bad seeds out by creating an effiecient system. If under an efficient system (where there is education, training, etc.) a person is making no progress at all then it is pretty safe to say that this person has no desire to better themselves and intends or wants to be dependent on the "system".

[nikki1920]

I know the state of SC has that kind of program. Whether or not it works, I don't know. If a FS recipient does not attend the employment and training orientation, then their benefits stop until they do OR they can be exempted from it. Budgeting is not a high priority.

IASK: if a person is making no progress because there are simply no jobs available, then what? How do you determine progress?

[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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

IASK: if a person is making no progress because there are simply no jobs available, then what? How do you determine progress?

Progress, to me, is not only determined by getting a job. And in this recession there are going to be plenty of people who cant get one. I think the goal of training and education is not only to make workers more employable, but to also help them better themselves and take steps toward a career and not just a job. The job market isn't like it used to be. It used to be that a person could get a job with one company and work for that same company until they retire (My gdad worked for GM for years after the airforce). That doesnt happen any more so people have to look for more than just a job because those come and go quickly.

If there are no jobs available then the person should be taking steps toward building a career. There isnt much any person can do if no one is hiring. If it is quite evident that jobs arent available (as it is now) then progress would be determined by what the person is doing to better themselves via education and training. If a person hasn't found a job in three months, but has enrolled in a GED course and is investigating educational programs (post GED) then that is progress. If the person is taking the courses that are mandatory and performing well in them then that is progress. Another exhibition of progress is volunteering. If a person is giving their time to community service and are having a positive impact then that is progress. A person also could volunteer to do a job for no pay to gain experience. That is progress.

Progress to me is that person taking steps to make themselves better and to plan and prepare for the future. When that person takes steps job or no job in the right direction then I have no problem with them getting assistance.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

I know the state of SC has that kind of program. Whether or not it works, I don't know. If a FS recipient does not attend the employment and training orientation, then their benefits stop until they do OR they can be exempted from it. Budgeting is not a high priority.

IASK: if a person is making no progress because there are simply no jobs available, then what? How do you determine progress?

This is true in Michigan as well. Additionally, unless you are a parent, there is no welfare. Our only welfare is ADC (Aid for Dependent Children). There is also the Bridge Card (food stamps, basically, in the form of a debit type card) but they aren't for all that much, really.. not nearly as much as I spend on groceries, even if I eliminate the basics, and they are only good for food, not toilet paper, soap, etc. There are food banks also. There is Section 8 housing, but you still have to pay something for that. The thing I see getting abused most is Social Security Disability. I know of people on SSD who are working under the table and collecting their SSD. If they can work, they shouldn't be eligible for SSD.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This is true in Michigan as well. Additionally, unless you are a parent, there is no welfare. Our only welfare is ADC (Aid for Dependent Children). There is also the Bridge Card (food stamps, basically, in the form of a debit type card) but they aren't for all that much, really.. not nearly as much as I spend on groceries, even if I eliminate the basics, and they are only good for food, not toilet paper, soap, etc. There are food banks also. There is Section 8 housing, but you still have to pay something for that. The thing I see getting abused most is Social Security Disability. I know of people on SSD who are working under the table and collecting their SSD. If they can work, they shouldn't be eligible for SSD.

Regarding the welfare and parent thing... apparently it's the same with Medicaid. I have a friend with a serious medical problem. She doesn't have insurance. She is working in her profession, and if the economy was good she'd be doing well. (commission type job, one that you have to go to school for) She tried to get medicaid and they basically told her she could get it if she had kids. (not those exact words) Here she is, a working law-abiding individual affected by the economy, and she can't get any help. You're almost better off going and having a kid out of wedlock so you can get help.