Centerfield

Well, that's gonna be a tough nut to crack. Whatever ends up happening, it seems to me that it hinges more on what kind of a society we want to be than anything else.

Forcing people on Welfare to take the nearest burger-flipping job will guarantee a poverty class of some size, IMO.

The long-term solution to the swollen ranks of welfare recipients lies not in wages...but in taking low-cost risks and focusing on the worker. It takes extra time, but a partnership between corporations and the government to allow for rebates if workers stay beyond a set time limit would help ease the burden employers may feel. A motivated welfare worker is much more likely to stay employed and work his or her way into self reliance and out of the welfare pit. This challenge is far more difficult than Republicans - or Democrats, for that matter - give credit for.

First question/comment: Swollen? ARe the ranks swollen or have they flucuated up and down over the past several years based on the economy?

Second: What is the "right" level of unemployment. Both economists (and other higher sources) have stated that "the poor will always be with us". I don't want to sound hard-hearted but what is the governments interest in completely eliminating unemployment? Will that benefit outweigh the costs. From a humane perspective I'd like to get everyone work (though I'm not sure everyone wants to work) but these are important operational questions to address. In addition, I'm not sure government does a good job at encouraging "simple humanity".

The poor will always be with us. It is a sad fact. However, we have seen under Clinton that the unemployment rate could be down to a low level, and the disparity between the lowest earner and the highest could be far less stratified than it is now. That's what this idea aims for - a better balance than what we have now, and moving to an actual solution over rhetoric.

According to this article, the "swollen ranks" of welfare have actually decreased over the last 3 years during a recession. It seems like you're confusing welfare with unemployment which are two completely different things.

Something about that report doesn't click...

That article is quite interesting, but we don't know if it's good news--that former welfare recipients kept jobs while high-paid tech workers like me were laid off--or if it represents the punitive aspect of welfare reform--that welfare recipients had reached their time limits, and were left to starve. I haven't heard reports of the latter, so I'm inclined to believe the former.

To follow up Max, let's not forget that government policy is to keep a certain percentage of the population unemployed. That is, if unemployment rate drops too low, that indicates an overheating economy and the Fed is supposed raise interest rates to cool things off.

Always a fun fact to mention when someone starts going off on welfare recipients.

However, we have seen under Clinton that the unemployment rate could be down to a low level, and the disparity between the lowest earner and the highest could be far less stratified than it is now.

Unemployment down when the economy is strong therefore down during Clinton years and now in the 4th year of the Bush admin. Yet, policies different. Cause and effect?

While I'm bothered by that wage disparity what should the government do? It seems the company that pays the CEO 20 million would have the greater motivation to fix that.

There is clearly a structural issue at play in the economy separate from any specific policies undertaken by Republicans or Democrats. The fact is that industrial jobs, which were the great propellant of middle class mobility, no longer really exist; the service jobs that have replaced them are much lower paying. Thus, it has become much more difficult for the working poor to move up.

I'm not sure what to do about this. Income is becoming increasingly stratified by education as we become much more of an information society. But it's not so easy to just say, well, everybody get educated. Traditionally, the first generation would work in factories, the next generations would go to college, etc. It's difficult for people to focus on education when they are having to worry about making ends meet.

This, IMO, is where the welfare state, in the broadest sense, comes in. It's more than just welfare itself; it's also providing the wherewithal for training and education. Ultimately, it involves providing a baseline means of existence for those that are struggling.

The issue, I think, is what responsibility does the government, or more generally, society have toward people that are struggling. I supported welfare reform because it seemed to me that there were generations of people who had become stuck on welfare. I'm not sure how true that really is based on stuff I have read, but I do think that people become resigned and lose their initiative (or maybe have little initiative to begin with). I think programs should be aimed at making people productive members of society rather than just giving them a dole. I agree with Max; some of these people have to be taught how to work. So it's more than money. On the other hand, let's be honest; in a market economy, there are always going to be winners and losers, even when the economy is strong. There are always going to be people that need help. Unless you want to see people living on the streets (which I see everyday in Washington, DC), you have to accept the fact that there are always going to be some people that can't make it. You can either ignore them or decide that we need to help them even if it amounts to a dole.