WorkFare causes poverty
Henry Noble
WorkFirst Program will create poverty, not cure it!
The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services WorkFirst
Program will "cut the safety net out from under the most vulnerable people
in our society and tell them to swim or drown," asserts Anne Slater,
organizer for Seattle Radical Women. RW supports a resolution adopted by
the Greater Seattle Area Local of the American Postal Workers Union that
calls for a massive protest march on the state capitol demanding repeal of
the state welfare plan and the establishment of a broad jobs and social
welfare program in its place.
WorkFirst adds insult to injury:
According to Slater, the DSHS plan will "toss out on the treacherous
seas of the labor market" the disabled, the illiterate, mothers without
childcare, teen parents (and their babies) who are not living at home with
their own parents, victims of domestic abuse, and grandparents raising
abandoned grandchildren.
"WorkFirst is not about putting people into jobs. Money for vocational
training has been cut," she notes. "It is geared to throwing 11,000 people
off the welfare rolls as soon as possible, no matter what happens to them
next. WorkFirst doesn't even provide a guarantee that those forced to 'work
off' their welfare payments will be paid minimum wage."
Slater is joined in her condemnation of the plan by Guerry Hoddersen,
Freedom Socialist Party spokesperson, who calls it "a shameful recipe for
multiplying homelessness and the number of children in foster care."
Hoddersen calls the new program "a scheme to force down wages, bust unions
and boost profits. It will produce a new pool of labor--not just cheap, but
free--for private and non-profit employers to draw from." She urges working
people in Washington state to oppose WorkFirst "as a matter of justice and
our own survival."
Hoddersen points out that poor people did not create the current
economy, with its corporate downsizing, lack of decently paid jobs, underfunded
schools, and exorbitant health, housing and childcare costs. "The poor are
not responsible for the fact that they can't afford the necessities of
life," she said. "Most people with fulltime jobs can barely afford them!
The real culprit is the dysfunctional capitalist system, which maintains
unemployment and low wages in order to raise profits."
Mass action can win humane solutions:
Radical Women believes that the way to get people out of poverty is to
generate more jobs and to legally require employers to pay a living wage for
every job. The organization campaigns for raising the minimum wage to
$10.00 an hour and taxing corporate profits to provide a guaranteed annual
income of $20,000, universal healthcare, free childcare, free education at
all levels, affordable housing for the poor, and a jobs program run by the
unions and the state.
RW and the Freedom Socialist Party are calling on labor, welfare
advocates and recipients, civil rights organizations, religious organizations,
feminists and gays, housing and disabled activists, and elders and youth to
endorse the postal workers' resolution. The aim of that resolution is to
spur the labor movement to lead a broad, powerful march on Olympia to stop
implementation of Washington's welfare reform legislation (known as SHB
3091) and win the establishment of measures that will create jobs, raise
wages, and guarantee a reasonable standard of living for all.
"Militant mass action is the only way to get anyone in Olympia to
listen to people at the bottom," Slater concludes. "If we speak with
one voice, at one time, we have the power to overturn these laws and
make real, beneficial reforms to help workers and the poor.
For more information about WorkFirst or to obtain a copy of the
American Postal Workers Union resolution, call Radical Women
at (206) 722-6057.
From: Radical Women
New Freeway Hall
5018 Rainier Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98118
(206) 722-6057
# # #
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <5pmtfb$kro$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
Henry Noble <hno...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> Hoddersen points out that poor people did not create the current
> economy, with its corporate downsizing, lack of decently paid
The notion that jobs no longer pay what they once did is a myth
that stems from an abuse of statistics. Those who decry what the
"current economy" has done to job opportunity typically focus on
declining *family* earnings. But these statistics are a mixture
of economic trends (job availability, wages, etc.) and
demographic trends (family size and composition). Changes in
*either* the economy *or* in the family can cause changes in
family earnings, and looking only at family economic data
provides no way of knowing how much of either is behind any such
change. Henry Noble's source quickly and incorrectly implicates
the economy without even mentioning the much larger and quite
obvious changes in the family!
Looking at the two kinds of data separately reveals a very
different story. To find out what the kind of jobs the economy
provides, one must look at *individual* earnings, NOT family
earnings. Median(!) individual earnings have declined only a
little or even improved over the last two decades (depending on
what inflation adjustor is used), and they have significantly
improved for women. Contrary to Noble's sources, the economy is
providing as many jobs at as good wages as it ever did, and is
more fairly (though still not fairly) making these jobs available
to women.
So why is family wage declining? And why are there so many more
children born into poverty? The causes stem almost wholy from
the demographic trends: people are bringing children into
families with fewer adult wage earners, and they are having
children at a younger age, when their earning powers are less.
There may be non-economic reasons to applaud some aspects of
these demographic trends, and to condemn other aspects. But we
should at least honestly face the fact that it is *these* trends
that are mostly responsible for a decrease in family wage and an
increase in child poverty, and NOT a largely mythical shift in
the number or quality of jobs available.
What does this say about workfare or other kinds of welfare
reform? First, it says that trying to address the problem from
the economic side (as workfare does) is doomed to failure. This
much, Henry Noble got right: workfare will NOT work. If, more
than ever before in American history, people are deciding to
raise children without help of partner or larger family and
before they have economically established themselves, there is no
reason to think that the economy will do what it has *never*
before done, providing a job to everyone in this situation,
suitable to a single parent of young children, that will pay
enough to support their family. Second, it says that *if* these
demographic trends continue, existing welfare programs (if their
funding had continued at the same level) would not keep up with
the problem.
Russell
--
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that
the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence
on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
--
David Fenton
Russell Turpin wrote:
>
> -*-------
> In article <5pmtfb$kro$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> Henry Noble <hno...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > Hoddersen points out that poor people did not create the current
> > economy, with its corporate downsizing, lack of decently paid
> > jobs, ...
>
> The notion that jobs no longer pay what they once did is a myth
> that stems from an abuse of statistics. Those who decry what the
> "current economy" has done to job opportunity typically focus on
> declining *family* earnings. But these statistics are a mixture
> of economic trends (job availability, wages, etc.) and
> demographic trends (family size and composition). Changes in
> *either* the economy *or* in the family can cause changes in
> family earnings, and looking only at family economic data
> provides no way of knowing how much of either is behind any such
> change. Henry Noble's source quickly and incorrectly implicates
> the economy without even mentioning the much larger and quite
> obvious changes in the family!
>
If we standardize family size at four in order to remove the family-size
variable, and measure the work it takes to support such a family,
studies have shown that in the early 1970s it took approx. 40 hours per
week of outside labor to support this family in middle-class fashion. To
support the same size family at the same standard of living today takes
approx. 70 hours per week of outside labor. Why?
The change in this case does not appear to be due to breeding early or
often. The increase in the number of families where both parents work
seems to me to be largely due to necessity, not preference. Your broad
hypothesis obscures this middle-class reality.
--
*************************************************
DAVID S. FENTON
Writing * Training * Research
Science, Technology, Environment
Russell Turpin
-*-------
I wrote:
>> The notion that jobs no longer pay what they once did is a myth
>> that stems from an abuse of statistics. Those who decry what the
>> "current economy" has done to job opportunity typically focus on
>> declining *family* earnings. But these statistics are a mixture
>> of economic trends (job availability, wages, etc.) and
>> demographic trends (family size and composition). Changes in
>> *either* the economy *or* in the family can cause changes in
>> family earnings, and looking only at family economic data
>> provides no way of knowing how much of either is behind any such
>> change. Henry Noble's source quickly and incorrectly implicates
>> the economy without even mentioning the much larger and quite
>> obvious changes in the family!
In article <33C12F...@web.net>, David Fenton <ly...@web.net> wrote:
> If we standardize family size at four in order to remove the family-size
> variable, and measure the work it takes to support such a family,
> studies have shown that in the early 1970s it took approx. 40 hours per
> week of outside labor to support this family in middle-class fashion. To
> support the same size family at the same standard of living today takes
> approx. 70 hours per week of outside labor. Why?
I hate studies that are so stupidly done (or so cleverly
reported) that the reported result leaves one with no idea what
was studied, but provides great ammunition for propaganda. The
study reported above provides an example of just this.
Note, first, that the way it is reported tells nothing about
*whose* labor. If the study looked at the earnings of people who
are parents of young children, then this study may indeed reflect
that people are having children at younger ages and when they are
less economically prepared to support a family, contrary to
Fenton's comment on it:
> The change in this case does not appear to be due to breeding
> early ...
If, on the other hand, this study looks at median wage, then it
seems to conflict with other statistics on this. One possibility
is that it applies a different inflation adjustor that in the
study's opinion more accurately reflects costs for families
(which, if different from the more usual inflation adjustors,
would indicate that economic changes have made raising children
more expensive). Another possibility is that the study's notion
of the "same standard of living" actually embeds changing ideas
about how to raise children (some of which may be subtly
institutionalized), or of what constitutes being the same.
So let's list the possibilities so far:
o The study *might* support what I wrote.
o The study *might* be indicating costs of raising children
that are under represented in the usual inflation adjustors.
o The study *might* be pointing out that times have changed
in ways that are worse for families (by some measure), and
that can only be made up with greater expenditure.
o The study *might* (unintentionally) be comparing differences
in standards in how children are raised, between the 1970's
and now.
o The study *might* be contending that the official statistics
on median wage and inflation are wrong.
o The study *might* be even more confused than is indicated
by the way it is reported.
We have no way of knowing from the way it is reported which of
these is the case. What we do know is that, through mistake or
cleverness, the study is reported in a fashion that obscures any
facts it might reveal, but that makes a great quip.
Russell Turpin
> DAVID S. FENTON
> Writing * Training * Research
> Science, Technology, Environment
--
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that
the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence
on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
David Fenton <ly...@web.net> writes:
>Russell Turpin wrote:
>> Henry Noble <hno...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> > Hoddersen points out that poor people did not create the current
>> > economy, with its corporate downsizing, lack of decently paid
>> > jobs, ...
>> that stems from an abuse of statistics.
What replaced all the 20-40 1970 dollars per hour manufacturing jobs
in the rust belt?
>If we standardize family size at four in order to remove the family-size
>variable, and measure the work it takes to support such a family,
>studies have shown that in the early 1970s it took approx. 40 hours per
>week of outside labor to support this family in middle-class fashion. To
>support the same size family at the same standard of living today takes
>approx. 70 hours per week of outside labor. Why?
But is it the same standard of living? Certainly compared to 1960
the "average" "middle class" family has far more material goods.
(two or more cars, at least one color TV, a VCR, air conditioning,
more bedrooms and bathrooms per person in the family, 40% I think have
a PC)
This is not a simple question, I don't know how the price of cars has
followed inflation, but I am relatively sure that TVs are much cheaper.
High-end houses are not just a matter of demand, they are more profitable
as are high-end apartments, so the mid and espesially the low end
are neglected, giving the lower middle class the choice of trailer parks,
apartments or 50 year old tract houses. And the apartments tend toward
either a major drain on finances (if you want to live in a "good"
neighborhood with decent schools for your children) or being run down.
If you have both parents working, then two cars can become a necessity
(depending on the availability of public transportation and needs for
dealing with children) Also as supermarkets and now SuperStores took
over from the neighborhood grocery better transportation is needed.
As far as overbreeding is concerned, the last I heard the U.S. population
was increasing only because of immigration.
Regarding having children early and often among the very poorest mothers,
especially teenagers, that is another very long and thorny discussion,
but I see little evidence that those mothers would have fought their way
out of poverty even if they had waited until they were 18 or 19 or 20 to
have their first baby.
>The change in this case does not appear to be due to breeding early or
>often. The increase in the number of families where both parents work
>seems to me to be largely due to necessity, not preference. Your broad
>hypothesis obscures this middle-class reality.
Robert
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
Russell Turpin
-*------
David Fenton <ly...@web.net> writes:
>> The change in this case does not appear to be due to breeding
>> early or often.
In article <5ptnrd$8...@corn.cso.niu.edu>,
<mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> wrote:
> As far as overbreeding is concerned, the last I heard the U.S.
> population was increasing only because of immigration.
Indeed. I don't know why Fenton brought up the notion of
"overbreeding," since until his negative comment about it,
no one had mentioned any such thing. I interject here only
because these things tend to take on a life of their own,
with everyone vehemently arguing the same thing.
Russell
--
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that
the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence
on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Chloe Carter
>But is it the same standard of living? Certainly compared to 1960
>the "average" "middle class" family has far more material goods.
>(two or more cars, at least one color TV, a VCR, air conditioning,
>more bedrooms and bathrooms per person in the family, 40% I think have
>a PC)
>
>This is not a simple question, I don't know how the price of cars has
>followed inflation, but I am relatively sure that TVs are much cheaper.
Of course it's not "the same standard of living". The definition of
"middle-class" has changed over the years, in terms of the specific
items of consumption that constitute a "middle-class lifestyle". Some
things that we consider middle-class today didn't exist in 1960; of those
that existed both now and then, some are cheaper, some aren't. Televisions
may very well be cheaper, but housing and college educations aren't.
Rather than arguing over what is or isn't "middle class", it's probably
more meaningful to study the changes in the distribution of income
over the period in question. Such studies almost universally show that
increases in national income are overwhelmingly going to those who
already have the highest incomes. The bottom 80% of the workforce has
seen little or no real increase over the past 15 years (actually,
closer to 20 years).
>Robert
>
- Chloe
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
qpc...@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) writes:
>Rather than arguing over what is or isn't "middle class", it's probably
>more meaningful to study the changes in the distribution of income
>over the period in question.
>Such studies almost universally show that
>increases in national income are overwhelmingly going to those who
>already have the highest incomes. The bottom 80% of the workforce has
>seen little or no real increase over the past 15 years (actually,
>closer to 20 years).
Other studies argue that while the top 20% has gained the lion's share
the bottom 80% has done just fine, thank you. This is, I beleive, the
point that Russell is trying to make.
I have not seen the studies to make any judgements, but I would
point out that the CPI is not necessarily a very accurate indicator
of inflation. I don't think the current complaints about it can be
fully applied to those who live at the bottom end of the scale but
it certainly appears that it over estimates inflation by at least
1/2 of 1 percent per year. (and that during 3% inflation, I do not
know how that applies to the inflation of the late 70s very early
80s)
My (very loose) definition of a just society is that working 40 hours
a week with some reasonable promotion prospects means that you can have
a clean warm place to stay, a reasonable diet and a decent chance of raising
a family.
Robert
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
--
David Fenton
Russell Turpin wrote:
>
> -*------
> David Fenton <ly...@web.net> writes:
> >> The change in this case does not appear to be due to breeding
> >> early or often.
>
> <mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> wrote:
> > As far as overbreeding is concerned, the last I heard the U.S.
> > population was increasing only because of immigration.
>
> Indeed. I don't know why Fenton brought up the notion of
> "overbreeding," since until his negative comment about it,
> no one had mentioned any such thing. I interject here only
> because these things tend to take on a life of their own,
> with everyone vehemently arguing the same thing.
>
> Russell
> --
Fenton did not mention "overbreeding" as the quotes you yourself cite
show. The "breeding early or often" comment that was made was in
specific response to earlier assertions that poor reproductive decisions
cause poverty, kind of like the title of this thread.
If it is the use of the word "breeding" that you don't like, then say so
and say why. Some of us prefer bluntness to euphemism, especially when
others of us are in the process of blaming the poor for being poor.
David