moonbattery logo

Aug 19 2013

Welfare Pays Better Than Entry Level Jobs

America was a classless society. But fundamentally transformed America has three classes: (1) the ruling elite that runs the government/media; (2) the dependency class bred by the elite to keep it in power; and (3) the suckers who pay for it all by working instead of voting for a living. To create this system, or rulers are passing out our money in welfare benefits that pay better than getting an entry level job:

Today, the Cato institute is releasing a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother with two children. In the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities (like milk and cheese) would have a package of benefits worth $38,004, the seventh-highest in the nation.

Since these benefits aren’t taxed, someone in New York State would need to earn $21/hour to beat welfare. That is more than starting teachers get — and not because teachers are underpaid.

Welfare is slightly more generous in Connecticut, where benefits are worth $38,761; a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn $21.33 per hour to be better off. And in New Jersey, a worker would have to make $20.89 to beat welfare.

Nationwide, our study found that the wage-equivalent value of benefits for a mother and two children ranged from a high of $60,590 in Hawaii to a low of $11,150 in Idaho. In 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states and DC, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job.

Of course, not everyone on welfare gets all seven of the benefits in our study. But, for many recipients — particularly the “long-term” dependents — welfare clearly pays substantially more than an entry-level job.

It is conceivable that some rank and file Democrats are so ideologically obedient that even after FDR’s disastrous prolongation of the Depression and LBJ’s lost War on Poverty they still believe the purpose of welfare is to help the poor. But by now our rulers must know what they are doing. The purpose of welfare is to keep people dependent and relatively poor, so they will continue voting Democrat. An entry level job is the first rung on a ladder socialists would prefer most of us not to climb.

The shrinking number who work anyway and are forced to finance the indolence of those who don’t are slaves as surely as an African imported to work a plantation in the days of yore. The welfare state is economically unsustainable and morally intolerable.

On a tip from Dr. 9.



  • IslandLifer

    It’s unbearable to the point I’ve decided to put my home up for sale next year and relocate to a conservative state. Parasites are making their way here by the droves. Taxes are being raised at alarming rates and the state bleeds the hard working every chance they get. Shopping centers are not just filled anymore on the weekends but now the weekdays as well. People have multiple EBT cards when they purchase wagons full of food. The entitlement mentality has reached a point where people get down right evil if somebody dares challenge them and I’ve had multiple complaints filed against me because I tell it how it is. I’ve been fighting an uphill battle every day but I fear the only way complacent people will join is when the bottom finally falls out. I would rather be surrounded by like minded people when it finally does. Communists are my enemy. Those who enabled their advances will surely regret it.

  • John Knoefler

    I was wondering how long it would be before someone decided to call income tax what it really is. Theft. And wage earning what it really is. Slavery.

  • Huh

    Whites Need Not Apply

  • Rotohammer

    Yeah, that’s upside down. If you make it too easy to be poor, you’ll get a lot of poor people. You could eliminate government welfare now and in one generation you’d have such a small number of truly poor people that charitable organizations could cover it and do a better job. Also, most of those poor people wouldn’t be poor for long because they would get a job ASAP.

    We’ll often hear that we need to pay for some luxury for the poor because it’s “cheaper in the long run”. But when you foster a class of dependents by making poverty comfortable, that costs society a whole lot more “in the long run”.

  • Son of Taz

    IslandLifer, you read my mind. Either you’re in the northeast or Californicator. Regardless of you may be, it’s the same. Idiots in power that are hell-bent to make the working people pay for the non-working crowd.

    I’ve believed that a significant reason we’re in this fix is because of voter fraud. Many say it can’t be that bad. Well, I think it is and I now see many others starting to think this way too.

    I just can’t believe, or maybe don’t want to believe, that we could go from a hard working, productive nation to a European socialist/banana republic in just a few years.

  • Pingback: Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn | pundit from another planet()

  • Pingback: WHY WORK? YOU CAN LIVE ON WELFARE BETTER THAN THE IDIOT WORKERS! : Dr. Pinna()

  • Jimbo

    That’s as much as many folks retire on after working their butt’s off and paying in to the system for 50 years.

    Retiring on welfare because the stinking politicians wasted all the money.

    Since I was born in ’55 the government says I can’t start getting the full benefits I’ve paid in full for until I’m 66 and some-odd months. If I do it at 61 or 62 I only get about half-pay or something. I think it’s a vast government conspiracy to keep us working (paying taxes) until we’re darn near dead so they can get full benefits for life after one term. In fact, I KNOW it’s a vast government conspiracy. 90% of our elected are bast.. uh, of questionable heritage and don’t give a flying flip about anyone but themselves.

  • Innerpanetglanet

    Do starting teachers get health benefits?

    If it is assumed that the entry-level worker does not get health insurance through work, and that the average welfare recipient also gets food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities, this is a fair enough comparison.

    Does anyone now see why this
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=22217
    was NOT a fair comparison? Or was, at least, intentionally misleading.

    Welfare is both unconstitutional and immoral. As is disability. As is Social Security (retirement) — at least, nowadays.

    They would all be both unconstitutional and immoral even if the amount received by “beneficiaries” were minimal, rather than almost $40k. So what’s the point of these stories, especially if they intentionally misrepresent things to gin up angst over the amount among people who cannot understand that these programs should be ended, regardless of the amount received by the “beneficiaries”.

    I also note that the anger is largely toward the “beneficiaries” who are making what’s called in economics a “rational decision”. The anger and blame should be with ourselves for allowing those we vote for to let these “entitlements” continue, whether “beneficiaries” get a lot or only a little.

    I might add that forcing the poor or disabled to eat only beans & rice at government expense wouldn’t make it constitutional OR moral, just mean and unnecessary. Especially given that the mere existence of these “entitlements” has eliminated any ACTUAL charities that might serve the same purpose.

    Government “entitlements” are simple theft, no matter what the monetary amount.
    Only charity is charity.
    Not that I would expect those who want only to punish the poor or disabled, to donate to such charities even if they existed.

    By the way, does anyone here have flood insurance?

  • Innerpanetglanet

    Jimbo, you’re actually lamenting the fact that you don’t get to steal from actual working people for another few years.

    That money you paid in? It’s gone. Stolen and spent long ago.

    The money you will recieve is simply stolen from someone else.

    Let’s say that instead of paying social security taxes, you received the money when you earned it, and then “paid in” to a special fund that you kept under your mattress. Then, when your house is robbed, and the thief is long gone after a coke & hooker filled month in Las Vegas, you say “But I deserve that money, I ‘paid in’ to the under-the-mattress fund my whole working life.” Then, you go and burgle your neighbor’s house and raid his under-the-mattress fund, and you feel justified in doing so because you “paid-in” to your own “fund” which was stolen and can’t be gotten back.

    You’re not just a thief, you’re actually bitching about the fact that you can’t break into your neighbor’s house to steal his money (that you feel you’re entitled to) until he leaves on vacation.

    There’s no point complaining about the government we have, because if you had it to do over, hypocrites like you would fuck it up in exactly the same way all over again.

    When you get your first check of OPM, invest in a clue.

  • Pingback: Welfare Can Pay More Than That Entry-Level Job – NationalJournal.com | Ye Olde Soapbox()

  • Pingback: Money For Nothing… | Not Your Normal Blog..()

  • Pingback: Welfare: Creating Wealth Around the Country? | Me & My Big Mouth()

  • Pingback: 18YOQTs, SUPPLY OF JOBS, CRIMEA RIVER, HNNGG HNNGG HNNGG | UFMLL: How To Stop Being A Morally Lazy Loser()

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy