Your piece was from 1995.. and isn't much help. .
It shows that 4.7 million families are on long term...
The previous study I quoted showed that 19.6% of welfare recipients are on long term.
Is the 4.7 million equal to 19.2%??
Have there been 22 million welfare recipients in the last year?

It also isn't clear whether a "family" is a recipient or whether it is say 3 recipients if it is a mother and two kids?

Your link is very interesting in that it points out reasons why welfare children get locked into welfare. Apparently growing up under welfare makes kids dumber. I don't doubt that.
But I do doubt that arbitrarily cutting off benefits to single mothers would solve anything. What does a single mother with a grade 10 education and 2 kids do?

On the other hand, preventing young women from getting pregnant would seem to be a great way to break the cycle of welfare mothers... If as part of the child's health care, they received sex education and counseling and if, when they became of age they also had access to contraception ... that would seem to me to be a great way to avoid the trap. Add in a solid education and many of these young women might reach adult hood with a high school degree, single, and without children....and on there way to self supporting lives.

Could You live on $1172/mo?

The question is, "would you willingly choose to live on that amount eschewing a job that would pay more? " and how much more would that have to be for someone to not bother taking a job offered?

In Denmark only 4% of people are unemployed. Thats where they received 90% of their old wages.... Even if all 4% (and apparently its only 1% whoa re long term unemployed) are dodging the effort to seek new employment ...its not an indication that high benefits create a mass of slugs? HArdly.

You really think you have high unemployment because the unemployment benefits are too high?
You really think you have large welfare rolls becasue the benefits are so good?

MEAN YEARS ON WELFARE 6.97
(By outcome status)
Program drops-c,d,e 7.15
Employed-f,g 6.93
Dropped early-c 3.36
Dropped in program-d,e 8.94

http://www.impactresearch.org/documents/fryelementssuccess.pdf

Granted this is a Chicago based local study that is skewed terribly race wise. But 7 years! That goes against less than 2 years that was proffered. If it is two years nationally, one must ask what the government of Chicago and Illinois did to cause/remedy the problem of extended welfare.

rickyp wrote:Could You live on $1172/mo?

The question is, "would you willingly choose to live on that amount eschewing a job that would pay more? " and how much more would that have to be for someone to not bother taking a job offered?

In Denmark only 4% of people are unemployed. Thats where they received 90% of their old wages.... Even if all 4% (and apparently its only 1% whoa re long term unemployed) are dodging the effort to seek new employment ...its not an indication that high benefits create a mass of slugs? HArdly.

You really think you have high unemployment because the unemployment benefits are too high?
You really think you have large welfare rolls becasue the benefits are so good?

In the US (not Denmark) my answers are
1.) YES
2.) YES

Green

MEAN YEARS ON WELFARE 6.97

Yeah, mean years of the people who are studied in this specific train to work program.Not welfare as a program in total.
And the people in this study are primarity single women with kids.... This isn't representative of welfare recipients over all.
It stand to reason that a single mother with two kids and a high school diploma only, might not be able to get a job that would pay for her day care, and still provide more money than she made on welfare... Pregnanacies trapping her till her kids didn't require day care... Which might be 6 or 7 years...

From your study:

Table I shows the aggregate characteristics of the entire group of 843 cases. The sample was
overwhelmingly female (96.7%), and African American (89.0%). Forty-three percent of the sample was
between the ages of 25 and 34. The mean number of children across the sample was 2.57. When broken
down by age, most of the children (72%) fell in the “five years and older” category, and 23.9% were
between the ages of one and four.

rickyp wrote: And the people in this study are primarity single women with kids.... This isn't representative of welfare recipients over all.

Can you provide a citation for this? I ask because through my job, it is my experience that this is actually extremely representative of welfare recipients. Granted this is extremely anectdotal but from my understanding the application review process is skewed towards single mothers with children?

What I mean is that the study he quotes isn't representative of the universe of welfare recipients . Its 97% female and all have kids. They are going to be the ones who are long term welfare cases... So when he quotes their average time on welfare he's quoting only a subset.
Other welfare recipients (women without kids, men) are far more likely and able to get off welfare because they don't have babies.

I agree with you that welfare tends to go to single mothers most ...but not at a 97% level. . Plus, it is reasonable to assume that once they have a kid or two that many young women are indeed trapped into taking welfare until their kids are school age at least - and perhaps longer.
Lets say you say to these women, two years is all you get on welfare. Does that motivate them to do what? Give up their children becasue they can't work and raise younger than school age kids at the same time?

rickyp wrote:steve

The same principle applies whether the issue was pay, the nature of the work, or even the schedule

So?
Are you still claming that Americans choose to remain on welfare because they enjoy the life style they enjoy ?

Actually, I never clammed that--or claimed it either.

It's not a question of enjoying the lifestyle. It is a matter of becoming comfortable in it--comfortable enough to think it beats working for a living.

And, in the quote you cite, I was actually talking about Denmark--the fact is that people decided not to work until they were faced with losing their benefits.

In the US, no matter how low the benefits are, people stay on them--often for long periods of time. Sometimes they work under the table. Sometimes they move in with family. It doesn't matter why they are doing it--apparently they find a way to survive.

And that by arbitrarily setting a time limit, at which point their $350 a month stipend would end, that they would only then be inspired to find work?

For some, yes.

Do you talk to people who are "disabled?" I do. They call me fairly often looking for help. The first question I ask is the nature of their disability. I talked to one man who told me it was "depression." He told me he was unable to work, but frequently volunteers at a soup kitchen.

Here's my point: the State too often coddles people. That man could work and probably would be a lot less depressed if he did. It's almost a game in the States to see how much you can milk the system for. It's not a safety net, it's free money. If there was a deadline, I think a LOT of people would find jobs.

Your example of Danish Unemployment beenfits is a non-starter. It doesn't compare with the the welfare payment situation in the US.

Meh.

To you, it's a non-starter. You don't get it. They offered benefits for 5 years and people got jobs in 4 1/2 years and change. They cut it by one year and the average unemployment length was cut by a year, etc. Coincidence?

No.

When people HAVE to work they will take whatever work is available--even work "Americans don't want to do."

GA - do you think that single mothers with pre-school children should be forced into work? Or should children be brought up with a parent around?

I wonder how many people on such benefits are in such circumstances? I would say that a period of 5-6 years out of work to look after a child from birth to school was not unreasonable at all.

As for the $1172 per month, well, that wouldn't cover my rent and basic bills. Food would be an optional extra. Lucky I don't have to look after kids as well.

And how is any of what you've brought up fraud? Is your beef that people cheat, or that they get it at all? Come on...

rickyp wrote:Other welfare recipients (women without kids, men) are far more likely and able to get off welfare because they don't have babies.

well they are less likely to get welfare in the first place. It is next to impossible for a single person without children to get public assistance. Here in Pennsylvania we have some of the highest UC benefits (our current rates are double NY and NJ). It is possible to be single with no children, collecting UC and not qualify for public assistance.

I should say that by public assistance I mean cash assistance but am not including food stamps.

Isn't UC a form of welfare? It sounds like perhaps the high rates in Pa mean that people are on too much to get other benefits.

Well, I don't consider UC a form of welfare because it is not a guarantee. If you voluntarily leave a job or if you are terminated for cause you are not eligible for UC benefits.

Welfare is automatically granted as long as you meet the income criteria

So it's a universal insurance with stricter criteria than simply poverty? Still part of the welfare state, as far as I can see. It looks like it's part of the amounts in the piece that GA linked to.

archduke, the study that Green quoted may not be representative of welfare recipients time on welfare becasue it studied one program. But I retract and admit that it is close to the national demographic average. From my own source quoted earlier:

Some may think that even two years is too much, but one should remember that almost all welfare is for mothers with children. (There are no federal welfare programs for adults without children.) In 1993, the average person collecting state unemployment benefits did so for four months. (9) But the search for work is greatly complicated when one also has a child. A great deal of money, time and energy must go for the care of the child, which significantly detracts from any job search. There is also the bias of employers against women, especially single women with children. Therefore, we should expect mothers with children to take longer getting back on their feet. Society could make it easier for them by providing child care during their job search

Danivon,
Others bring up other statements that don't have anything to do with fraud. Remember Denmark?

Do I think that mothers of school age children be forced to work? Not for the first 2 years, while they are on my opinion of welfare reform. That is unless they are physically disabled. Then there should be long term assistance.