From: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: [William H. Magill:  Some Welfare Notes]
Date: 17 Aug 1992 09:31:44 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Picked this up today from another group.  Well Carter what do you say?
--bob

**********************
From:         "William H. Magill" <magill@dccs.upenn.edu>
Subject:      Some Welfare Notes

>   I also admit that the above are not the ONLY reasons for poverty.
>   Between 1983 and 1988 an equal number of workers lost their jobs
>   due to plant closings as did during the period 1973-1983.  Obviously
>   we can't blame plant closings on the decline of the family.  (Bureau
>   of Labor Statistics).
>
>   There are obviously two (at least) issues at work.  One being the
>   single-mother welfare, and the other being unemployment welfare.
>   The answer to the first is NOT going to be found in Moynihan's
>   Family Security Act of 1988.  It will only be found by stabilizing
>   the American family.  The answer to the second is NOT going to be
>   found in Keynesian theory, and is seemingly not to be found in
>   "supply-side economics", which is actually little more than a fresh
>   perspective on Orthodox Keynesian (read New Deal) practices.  I'll
>   leave "supply-side economics" for another message....
>
It will be very interesting to see what the period 1991-92 looks like in
terms of job loss. Corporate downsizing has been incredible during this
period. And I'm not just talking about Detroit - I'm talking about Armonk,
Maynard, and Wall Street. Job losses at IBM and DEC and in the Financial
industry are permanent - part of a massive "productivity increase" effort.

I have seen reports putting the job loss during the 91-92 period at 100,000
jobs per day. And remember "downsizing" is NOT related to layoffs.
It's called making less do more, increasing productivity and similar terms.
"Downsizing" is permanent!" When you get RIFFed they don't keep a list of
folks to call back. When they actually do rehire for the "same jobs" they
do it at about half the past rate.

Stabilizing the American Family?

What happens when you take folks making $40-60K per year and put them on
the dole? Yes, I'm talking about friends of mine in the Computer industry.
Many of them are fortunate that both the marriage partners are working.
All that they have to do is to "downsize their lifestyle" - from one based
on two incomes to one based on one. Hopefully both were making roughly
the same money, or that the one with the smaller income got RIF'd.
And because they probably bought a house based on their combined incomes,
it probably means some severe changes unless they are willing to give up
their dream of homeownership. No vacations - bad on the airlines and the
tourist industry in general. Big cutbacks in "consumer goods" 25 inch
projection TVs, VCRs, bread makers, and other silly things in the Sharper
Image and DAK catalogs.

And if they have kids? Quality Day Care ain't cheap - if you can find it at
all, $4-$6K per year. What portion of take-home pay does that represent for
someone whose gross income is $25K? Somewhere between 10 and 30 percent
depending on the tax take. (Yes, you can get a $2500 Federal tax benefit
and if your employer offers it, a pre-Federal Tax deduction account.)
That's a pretty big piece of change just for the privledge of working.

And let's not forget "saving for college." Penn's TUITION this year is
$20k. Even at 4% inflation, by the time my 6 year old is ready for college
that number is seriously frightening. (The miracle of compounding works for
many things besides passbook savings accounts.)

All this becomes more than slightly academic if one considers that the jobs
that I'm referring to are all ones paying at or above the median US income
(which is, or at least was) somewhere around $25K annually. Remember, the
median is not the average. It means that half of the wage earners in the
country made that amount or less and half that amount or more. The last
average income figure I remember was something like $5K above the mean.

We are talking about BIG distortions in the economy of the country.
The loss of the top paying jobs. (And I'm not even talking about the
"union wage scale" here.)

How much do you make?
How much do you expect to make in your first job after graduation?

Middle management has never seen anything like this. For one thing, it
(middle management) didn't exist back in the days of the "Robber Barons"
that gave rise to today's Unions. Today, when companies offer $30K for a
programmer with 5 years experience they get 50 applicants. Two years ago
you wouldn't even bother advertising unless you were offering $40+.

Job loss doesn't really have anything to do with the poverty issue.
Folks who have held a job, high or low paying, float in and out of the
"poverty zone." It has been pointed out many times that something like
60% of those in poverty 5 years ago are not there today for many reasons.
It's those remaining 40% who are the problem.

Welfare is not an economic issue. It's a racial issue.
The "welfare mothers" that everyone talks about are not the "Hillbillies"
or the "Oakies" they're Black and Hispanic (and I think that the latest
numbers point out that Hispanics out number Blacks on welfare today.)
It's Willie Horton all over again.

So far the ONLY politician I've seen with any inkling of what to do about
the "welfare problem" is Jack Kemp. (Not to mention the fact that he's the
only one DOING ANYTHING about the problem.)

George Bush thinks a visit to the ghetto is a trip to buy groceries in
downtown Kennybukport - where they have those high-tech super markets.

Who is John Galt?

William H. Magill                         Manager, PennNet Computing Services
Data Communications and Computing Services (DCCS)  University of Pennsylvania
Internet: magill@dccs.upenn.edu                   magill@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
          magill@upenn.edu

----- End of forwarded messages
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american