Myth: Welfare programs and the like necessarily foster dependence and increase poverty.

Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielson, F. & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 22-51.

Kenworthy, L. (1999). Do social-welfare policies reduce poverty? A cross-national assessment. Social Forces, 77(3), 1119-1139.

McKernan, S. & Ratcliffe, C. (2006, April). The effect of specific welfare policies on poverty. Retrieved from The Urban Institute website: http://www.urban.org/publications/411334.html

Ulimwengu, J. M. (2008, November). Persistent poverty and welfare programs in the United States. Retrieved from International Food Policy Research Institute website: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/can-us-welfare-programs-cure-persistent-poverty


Note: This video is part of a series which debunks myths pertinent to laissez-faire capitalism. Many points not addressed in this video can be found at the above link.

In which it is explained why although welfare programs certainly can foster dependence if welfare systems are designed poorly, we need to worry just as much about creating suffering and desperation by doing nothing to address poverty.

Myth: Welfare programs and the like necessarily foster dependence and increase poverty.

It's easy to see where this idea comes from. After all, it certainly stands to reason that if you dont give people any motivation to depend on themselves, they will be much less self-reliant. Similarly,if you take away most or all of the consequences for negative behavior, people will be more inclined to act in negative ways. A system failing to take this into account could be very dangerous indeed!

Interpreted as a warning against dependency, this myth makes a reasonable argument for designing welfare programs to hold people accountable for what they do, and for making sure that such programs empower people to take care of themselves (rather than just taking care of them directly). It is not, however, a very good argument for the abolition of social welfare programs. Just as surely as a system will create dependency by doing too much for people, it will destroy motivation and breed desperation if it requires them to be far more capable than they are in order to achieve success. Even if you are an extremely competent and well rounded person, you might have some idea about why this is if you have at least occasionally in your life felt too discouraged to attempt a task. By demanding that people pull themselves up by their bootstraps regardless of whether this is physically possible in principle—and regardless of whether they have bootstraps, boots, or even arms of their own—we vastly reduce their probability of success and rob ourselves of what they might have contributed to society.

A well-functioning system, therefore, needs to strike some kind of balance between the two (each highly undesirable) extremes of making people totally dependent on others or allowing them to suffer or perish when they are unable to care for themselves. A system might, for example, provide the minimal needs of all individuals (shelter, food, education, and health care), but make benefits beyond this contingent on their doing whatever is within their means to be productive.

Formulating a reasonable response to the question of whether to have a welfare system and what kind we should have if we do requires that we ask ourselves two, equally important questions:

1) What happens to our level of productivity and success when everyone is challenged to do what they can to contribute?

2) What happens to crime, abuse, violence, extremism, and fundamentalism when all people have what they need to survive?

Mind you, these are complex issues, and even a system that addressed them very well would neither abolish all social ills nor create unlimited abundance. However, it is very clear that creating a system that challenges everyone to do what they can to contribute while making sure everyone has what they need to survive would make a tremendous positive difference. This suggests that rather than abolishing social programs, we should work to create effective ones, and we should refine and improve those we have.

...for the rest of this video's text, see http://beingism.org/community/?q=node/13

http://Beingism.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• conservative
• libertarian
• capitalism
• socialism
• economics
• republican
• compassion
• religion
• empathy
• charity
• happiness
• reason
• philosophy
• atheist
• atheism
• poverty
• causality
• absolute
• income
• disparity
• disparities
• stimulate
• economy
• welfare
• dependency
• government

[Barrettatsumaki]

Why so many dislikes? This was one of the most reasonable videos I've seen in a while.

[Beingism]

@Barrettatsumaki Our guess is that YouTube attracts ideologues, and our videos attract libertarians. If you post a video expressing something that expresses a philosophy more complex than "government almost always bad, self interest almost always good," such comments and dislikes may be inevitable! Thanks for your comment. :)

[guidedmarkets]

@D503z I think you give the topic a few moments of sincere thought, you'll be able to answer your own question. I understand and even appreciate healthy skepticism on this topic, but if you can't even understand how it might be helpful in some situations, I question your sincere interest in understanding the issue.

Four such studies are provided in the video comments. These should give you a good starting place.

[guidedmarkets]

@wotooo When you have problems, it was the schools who did it, but when others have trouble, the blame rests with them? Your condescending remarks ("poverty pimps") aren't helping. Your attempt to characterize me as someone who makes excuses for behavior is an assumption—& an incorrect one at that. I believe in using consequences to motivate good behavior because that's what works. I also believe that in situations where consequences make the problem worse, we need to look for other solutions.

[wotooo]

@guidedmarkets my grammar is bad because I went to a rubbish school that thanks to the liberal dogma of the day did not teach it. the general level of education was also brought down by the terrible behavior of the people I shared my estate with. I don't complain or stand with my hand out to poverty pimps like you. I wont suffer because I work hard and that is how to succeed, you make excuses for people and say they lack the mental ablity to behave well and call me condersending!

[guidedmarkets]

@wotooo Your condescension was evident from your comment, directed at the video uploaders, to "get out of your liberal ivory tower and visit the real world."

Imperfection is part of being human. For example, it appears from your post that you have some trouble with grammar and punctuation. I could assume that this means that you're stupid and berate you about it, or I could (more logically) assume that there are reasons for this fact and that it doesn't imply that you deserve to suffer.

[wotooo]

@guidedmarkets does not sound like you lived next door to it, I , if you want to tell these idiots that they are ill instead of stupid go ahead but don't call me condescending.

[D503z]

@guidedmarkets

1. Could you explain to me, or even better - give me an example - how can welfare system give an individual a chance to break out of poverty?

2. I have never seen a serious research which tells us that welfare is reducing poverty, but on the other hand I've seen a lot of individuals who became "big children" after going on welfare.

[guidedmarkets]

@D503z You make a fair point. There are important ways that the welfare system is enabling (in the negative sense of the term). However, there are also many examples of ways that makes a major positive difference in terms of supporting people who would otherwise suffer and die, or where it gives people a place to break out of poverty. We also know it works because research tells us welfare reduces poverty. Let's work to eliminate what doesn't work and shore up that which does.

[guidedmarkets]

@kirindrinker In symbolic communication, meaning is created to the extent to which a shared understanding about the meanings of words exists. Interpretation is an inevitable part of this process, and with complex concepts, multiple valid interpretations are likely. Your blatant misunderstandings of my words would be case in point if they weren't emotionally motivated. You're right about one thing, though—you're done wasting my time—and with that, I bid adieu to you and your trollish ways.