Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished

Total freedom equals total chaos; the more freedom people with opposing desires have, the more likely disunity is to occur. For any organization or operation to succeed someone (or group of persons) must be an authority, authorized to intervene between the parties involved to set, modify, or enforce standards which would promote the unity and prosperity of the whole. Thus, I would never advocate an absolute free market without any government intervention, and I'm glad we do not have one. "Thus, the price of money in terms of labor has an artificially low maximum price: zero." (Round 2) What is the problem with this, Con? When businesses decide to be philanthropic and give away what would normally be for sale do we complain? No. We commend charity. After we pay taxes, its up to the government and not us to decide how to allocate those funds. If they choose to be charitable to the less fortunate in society from those funds, why should this be a problem? What is the sin of investing in the welfare of our neighbors? If we shouldn't, then why donate to other countries during times of disaster? The country is not just an economy, its also a society, and we need to keep our humanity in it. If we focus only on our own selfish rights to spend our money without supporting the needy, then what are we fighting for? A profitable but heartless market? Yes, this offer is not available to everyone; and true, it's impact is felt all through the labor market, but the question is, is this impact justified? I have given reasons in round 3 why I think it is. I have shown statistically that most people on welfare (using statistics from the US as an example) are genuinely unable to find work for valid reasons and yet have to pay to for their basic needs. Even those who can find work only get seasonal, part-time, low-paying jobs which are not adequate to pay the costs involved in working plus providing all their basic needs. Government is obligated to assure that all citizens have their basic human rights met, hence, this justifies the impact the social welfare system has on the market. Further, I've argued that government has a moral obligation to look after its citizens in this way, and that obligation surpasses that of ensuring the market is as free as possible. "The effect of welfare affects the valuation of the workers to work, and their supply schedule for labor. Now, they will work only for higher wages, and or will work less." (Round 2) I have shown statistically in round 3 that most people on welfare (using %70 from the US as an example) do not shy away from work because they get welfare, but actually have recent work experience, and that it is the welfare itself that allows them to pay the costs involved in working such as transportation and child-care. They would not be able to work if they were not receiving welfare. So without welfare the aggregate supply for labor would be less. So welfare increases, rather than decreases, the availability of people for work. I have shown the genuine difficulties that these folk (mostly women) face in obtaining stable work. It's not that they "choose" not to work, but rather, are unemployable due to circumstances beyond their control. It's not that they "choose" to work less, but rather, their circumstances only allow them seasonal or part-time, low-paying jobs which do not carry the benefits of other more stable jobs in the market. Since %54 of Afro-Americans on welfare are usually employed, its incorrect for Con to claim that welfare automatically causes them to work less or not at all. As I said in round 3, "The notion that the typical welfare recipient is lazy and unwilling to work ignores the fact that welfare recipients have significantly higher barriers to employment than the average of the population. The level of educational attainment and not laziness is a significant predictor of whether a woman would be a welfare recipient or not. Most welfare recipients qualify only for jobs in low-wage secondary markets with the jobs being often temporary and seasonal or part time nature. The jobs offer unstable hours and with no health-care nor family leave benefits." So they don't choose to work less because they get welfare, but rather, can only get jobs that offer less hours. Since they don't earn enough to pay the full costs of working plus paying for basic needs, the welfare is needed to keep them in the labor force. This refutes Con's argument that welfare "impoverishes society by pushing marginal workers out of the labor market and the economy produces less." It keeps people in work, not the other way around. CRIME "Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration…Sociologist and criminal justice scholars have found a direct correlation between poverty and crime. One economic theory of crime assumes that people weigh the consequences of committing crime. They resort to crime only if the cost or consequences are outweighed by the potential benefits to be gained. The logical conclusion to this theory is that people living in poverty are far more likely to commit property crimes such as burglary, larceny, or theft. The city of Detroit…is the poorest large city in America. Michigan has the nation's worst economy of any state. Detroit has the poorest economy in Michigan…In an environment of extreme poverty, system failures abound. For instance, Detroit Public Schools graduate only between 25-40% of its students depending on which report you believe. Low education rates, by the way, are also linked to high crime rates." http://capaassociation.org... I agree with Con that how one is raise has a lot to do with why one commits crime, but certainly between a rich and a poor person raised in the wrong manner, the poor will be more desperate to steal. He needs it, he feels like he has no choice. Welfare reduces that desperate state somewhat, so that less persons would feel compelled to steal and commit other related crimes. Since other things cause crimes, we can expect the crime level to rise even with welfare in place, but, there would be more crime without welfare than with it, for there would be more desperate people out there who aren't raised with a moral enough foundation to resist the temptation to get their needs illegally. In round 3 Con claims that the drops in the poverty level in various countries I cited was not due to welfare programs, but due to advances in technology and medicine. Firstly, innovation tends to create unemployment, which contributes to poverty. In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers as switchboard operators, annually handling 9.8 billion long-distance calls. Today the telecommunications industry employs only 78,000 operators. That's a tremendous 80 percent job loss. What happened? There have been spectacular labor-saving advances in telecommunications. Today more than 100 billion long-distance calls a year require only 78,000 switchboard operators. Not to mention the second industrial revolution which caused widespread unemployment as men were replaced by machines. So I'm not so sure advances in technology would have reduced poverty that much from 1960-1991. Secondly, medicine won't help the sick unless they can afford it and afford transportation to access it. Welfare comes also in the form of medical care, so even crediting medicinal advances is indirectly crediting the welfare system for reducing poverty, weather government gave such welfare in the form of money or medicine. I'm running out of space so I will respond to the rest of Con's arguments in the next round. Thanks for a great debate so far.