theprof00 said:
Just a quick question: When I was young, my family was pretty poor for boston standards. We were probably slightly above the poverty line. So, of course, we could never afford things like Nike's or a car or a nice tv etc etc. However, people who were on foodstamps and welfare that I knew always had the new air jordans (250$), multiple big screen tvs, civics or other such 16k$ cars, went to the movies, bought new clothes all the time, and had new computers compared to my DOS based tandy. If increasing the profits of a company increases the wealth and income of its board and brand, then how is welfare worse than just barely living above the poverty line? From what cursory research I've done, about 1.2 trillion gets pumped into welfare systems every year, and for food based benefits, for every dollar the state gives, 1.50$ gets put into the state economy. So I'm curious to know why welfare is such a bad thing, when it seems like the 1.2 trillion that gets sent out goes directly into big business and banking, whereas the family budget we had barely went anywhere. All we bought were groceries, medical, insurance, and clothes from salvation army. We also didn't pay for rent since my family just did repairs and maintenance on the apartment building |
The money people who are paid welfare put into the economy would have been put into the economy anyways.
If your economy has 100% of its workforce doing productive work everyone will be better off than an economy where 75% of people do productive work and 25% of people are paid to do no work at all. In this case the 25% of people are given money to buy goods or services from the other 75% of the people, but they do not produce any goods or services of their own; and as a result the total quantity of goods and services produced is lower (and more sparsely distributed throughout the population).







