The problem I find in talking to "New Democrats" is that they think the moral value of *work* trumps everything: they say "yes, their incomes are no higher, and they're dog tired all the time because raising kids is nearly a full-time job in itself, and their kids go to sub-standard day care, but they're *earning* their way, and that's a moral plus in itself sufficient to make welfare reform a good thing.
By contrast, I'm an economist: I think that consumption is good, that leisure is good, and that where one's money comes from (save for the extent to which the things you do to get it are alienating experiences or enriching experiences) is of little consequence for one's well-being: pecuniam non olet, and all that.
Thus I have a very hard time convincing myself that they are serious...
Brad DeLong
>"Two of the most impressive achievements of the past 8 years have been the
>reduction in the number of Americans receiving welfare, and the increase in
>the numbers of current and former welfare recipients who are working. . .
>
>. . . The 1996 reforms have undeniably been successful in reducing the
>number of people receiving welfare. But reductions in caseloads are not the
>only measure by which to judge the reforms: the well-being of the millions
>of former welfare recipients is at least as important. Much of what we know
>about outcomes for welfare leavers comes from studies undertaken in
>individual States. . . .
>
>. . . Welfare leavers are unlikely to thrive in the workplace if they are no
>better off financially than they were before leaving the welfare rolls.
>Evidence from State studies indicates that, at least initially, few leavers
>are significantly better off. . .
>
>. . . For 44 percent of leavers, household income plus food stamps in the
>year following exit was more than $50 per month higher than in the months
>before; for 49 percent it was at least $50 lower. . . . "
>
>. . . Enrollment in the food stamp program has fallen dramatically since
>1994, from a high of 27.5 million participants to 18.2 million in 1999, in
>part because of the strong economy. Of concern, however, is the fact that
>the participation rate for eligible families declined from 71 percent in
>September 1994 to 62 percent in September 1997. This decline is particularly
>marked for families with children. In 1999 only 51 percent of children in
>families with incomes below the poverty line received food stamps. Even
>among the very poorest children—those in families with incomes less than 50
>percent of the poverty line—data indicate that only 58 percent received food
>stamps in 1999, down from 76 percent in 1993. . . .
>
>
>Chapter 5, Economic Report of the President, 2001
>
>
>[note: a "leaver" is someone who joins the caseload of Temporary Assistance
>for Needy Families (formerly AFDC) and separates from the program, either
>voluntarily or otherwise. It does not include those who never enter the
>program, who might have under other circumstances.]
-- ----------------------------------- J. Bradford DeLong Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3880 delong at econ.berkeley.edu http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/ ----------------------------------- "In one way only can we influence these hidden currents-by setting in motion those forces of instruction and imagination which change opinion. The assertion of truth, the unveiling of illusion, the dissipation of hate, the enlargement and instruction of men's hearts and minds, must be our means..."
--John Maynard Keynes