Social safety nets are often heralded as a non-negotiable aspect of modern liberal society.
Yet, these generous welfare systems may come at a surprising cost: trapping the poor in a world of maintaining poverty, versus escaping it. The intelligent and creative poor are trapped by artificial standards that such social programmesimpose upon the community meant to uplift them. Within this broken social system, wasted potential finds itself circling a societal drain, sacrificing human beings holding vast potential on the altar of so-called social justice. A long-term effect of welfare dependence is disillusionment, and learned helplessness.
This series tells the tale of the unintended social consequences of blind generosity, sinking under the weight of a deleteriously tempting cycle of social services, resulting in hopelessly inept societal dependents. It’s no wonder that welfare traps so many; many combined state and federal programmes pay more than the minimum wage of a state without requiring a plan to re-enter the workforce.
When pulling back the curtain of the welfare state, it is crucial to understand why the system was developed.
MORE [FREE] MONEY, MORE PROBLEMS
As burgeoning national poverty threatened the societal balance of the 1963 United States, then President Lyndon Banes Johnson officially declared his War on Poverty. After instituting America’s first social welfare system, the country’s poor reduced an impressive 9.6% (from 22.2% to 12.6%)1 within a single year.
Advocates for the War on Poverty held high hopes of bestowing prosperity on the downtrodden, hoping to adjust the trajectory of suffering citizens. When transforming these ne’er-do-wells into fellow contributing taxpayers, supporters bet on this churn justifying the public investment. Alas, no escalator of upward mobility exists for welfare recipients, yet no governmental figure could identify why this was the case.
LBJ also happened to be a keen racist, who used a financial incentive to encourage single parent homes in the black community. Debuting his new welfare plans as part of his Great Society, black single motherhood jumped from 21% (1965) to an astounding 77% (2019). The societal results have been devastating2.
After examining multiple state and federal programs, four reasons that recipients in traditional welfare programs were (and are) set up for failure stood out.
1. UNEARNED SUPPORT
When financial support programs do not require recipients to maintain any responsibility for maintaining welfare payments, this creates an adversity paradox. By reducing the urgency to find employment, due to limited welfare accessibility or agreements such as volunteer work exchanges during job searches, there is no drive to remove themselves from state funding programs.
Certain individuals of more complicated status who would be capable of functioning from day to day with additional social supports (such as counselling, or methadone addiction maintenance) are often held back from hitting rock bottom when paid by the stem to remain addict. In these circumstances, welfare payments ensnare these people within limbo, hovering above catastrophe just enough to avoid having to make decisions that may vastly improve their quality of life.
When withholding natural cause and effect, a necessary mechanism for an individual to reassess their choices and direction is rendered unnecessary. By offering surface level comforts and immediate reprieve without responsibility, the state is enabling a sick person to remain within this restrictive life of mental, physical and financial disability. By creating programs that facilitate voluntary reintegration into communities while providing the support a welfare recipient needs while dealing with their struggles, the State is offering a priceless gift: the satisfaction of earning their own way, supported by a community of neighbours invested in seeing them succeed.
These changes can be calibrated to suit the needs of any recipient. Consider a single mother with two young children; instead of setting her up for clockwork welfare payouts with little hope for a better future for herself or children, she could be receiving welfare while being accredited for a trade. Even supposing the trades training is also paid for by the federal government, the short term cost is astronomically less than a lifetime of social support, while simultaneously providing a strong example of work ethic to her children.
2. INEQUALITY CANNOT BE ARTIFICIALLY REMEDIED
Consider the last time you stood in a room filled with people. Now, imagine scanning the crowd. How many differences between people can you distinguish? There are immediate differences identified (such as height and weight, etc) would be numerous, yet consider the unseen differences. IQ, natural aptitudes and even familial birth order have a lifetime effect on a person’s social and economic status - all of which are randomly bestowed at birth.
Now, imagine a social program that attempts to neutralize the differences between every human characteristic of every person in that room. The many constraints required to attempt forced equalization renders this task unethical, and frankly impossible. If an outside entity attempts to force an individual with talent to be lowered into a group of average talent, they are utterly demoralized3. Those of lesser competence are required to pretend they are of equal standing to the individual made to join their company, feeling resentful towards the outsider and thus more insignificant.
There will always be a proportion of people more able than others, in every aspect of life. Social programs cannot exist based upon a fable of social equality, as they will fail at every attempt. Instead, calibration of social programs towards a goal of client self empowerment through temporary assistance has proven a cost-effective method of elevating citizens in need of a safety net.
3. LOWERING EXPECTATIONS HARMS LOWER CLASSES
When basic social standards are not enforced, communities suffer.
A stark example is found in the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, which de-valued marriage, and inverted how single parenthood was treated by society. While historical social morality was mocked by counter culture rebels, they spoke decisively: we will do whatever we like. Society acknowledged this outcry and responded, "You will be looked after, consequences be damned."
Women’s liberation permitted them to take no responsibility for fathered children, while they married the government instead of the man who impregnated them. While single motherhood and its associated issues metastasized into housing projects, these communities developed into economic ghettos. Welfare incentives for single parents successfully enticed generations into cyclical poverty, while economically depressed populations developed their own subcultures to cope. One notable consequence of unending urban poverty was hip hop, punctuated by violence, and pride in the products of poverty: gang banging, drug dealing, domestic violence, fast materialism, and quicker death.
One notably destructive outgrowth of rap culture was the terms "baby momma" and "baby daddy," denoting a genetic parent versus a constant caregiver and a propensity for multiple children by various men (or women). Removing the terms "father" and "mother" from common parlance was an unsurprising byproduct of feminism's spurning of commitment within relationships, suggesting that women put their personal enjoyment over their children’s wellbeing. The outgrowth of disposability in relationships predictably results in low investment by both sexes within each other, a consequence now observed in all socioeconomic classes.
Tragically, intimacy associated with the unique terms "mother" and "father" effectively neutralises emotional ties for both the man and woman using the replacement "baby" terminology. Unknown damage is done to children who are acknowledged so casually.
As men and women create children with multiple partners, drastic numbers of children are growing up without one parent in the home. Of American men who have children by more than one woman, 36% have four or more children in total.
A 2006 study4 found that 36% of American men who have children with more than one woman have four or more children. Unsurprisingly, relationships between parents produced high conflict, further destabilising children’s home lives.
4. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Beginning in the late 1950’s, negative societal trends (for example, murder, veneral diseases, and teen pregnancies) were in steep decline. Starting at the end of the 1950's, the sexual revolution's "free love" hippie culture facilitated a sharp reversal.
Whereas previously, societal judgement was heaped upon promiscuity and single motherhood, the Sixties relied on birth control and "non-judgemental behaviour" to socially engineer a world of doing whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. Thomas Sowell, noted American economist and social theorist, argues that "what we carry in our heads" greatly affects our actions.
“With the prevailing social vision came a more non-judgemental approach to behavior, as well as multiculturalism, a de-emphasis of policing and punishments, and an emphasis on demographically based ‘fair shares’ for all”
Thomas Sowell. Discrimination and Disparities. 2019, Basic Books
Sowell offers an example of such erosion in ‘a tale of two blackouts’5, which he observed first hand as a Harlem resident. In 1965, a city wide blackout in New York City lasted the entire night. Despite New York and its many residents experiencing complete darkness, the crime rate was lower than usual.
A second city wide blackout occurred again in 1977. Contrastingly, this outage was taken as an opportunity for widespread looting and vandalism and arson - a marked descent from the restrained urban population of 12 years prior. Sowell surmises that “...the first line of defense is morality…if you delegitimize that, all you’ve got are the police. And there aren’t that many police.”
Furthermore, Sowell further evidences societal decline by observing a connection with the expansion of public housing—an expansion of the welfare state. He recalls that as a child, the tenements were considered an honourable stepping stone, where the working poor earned access to government-run housing by meeting stringent residential qualifications. Today, public housing across the United States is, in his words, a "bedlam" of crime.
Prior to the 1960s, only employed applicants with good records were considered for residence in housing projects. Today, these projects exist almost solely for the unemployed and the socially disjointed. For instance, in the 60’s, single mothers were not admitted into residence6, as this was seen-rightly or wrongly-as rewarding such behaviour.
Contrastingly, modern single parenthood is looked upon as equal to a two-parent household, proven differences in children’s behaviour be damned. This is not to demand perfect behaviour to receive assistance; everyone falls down on their luck, and a variety of tailored assistance should be available. The difference lies within the outcome: dependence versus graduation.
CASE STUDY: DETROIT
The city of Detroit is an intriguing case study, proving that no matter how noble the intentions, governments cannot pay for the poor to exit poverty.
Detroit City exemplifies a transformation from a hub of American industry to a city boasting the highest violent crime rate in the United States. An overall federal, state, and municipal debacle, Detroit spotlights how offering generous cash payments to the disaffected poor ensures poverty’s deadly cycle continues.
The beginning of the end began in 1943, when a race riot spurred suburban white flight. A second riot occurred in 1967, when forty-three people died and 467 were injured over the course of five bloody days.
The damage was catastrophic: 2,509 shops were burned or looted, 412 buildings were burned (or damaged enough to be demolished), and 388 families were made homeless7. After the ‘67 riot, further residents and businesses fled, resulting in Detroit's transformation into an economic and social wasteland.
“While the 1967 riots are seen as a turning point in the city’s fortunes, Detroit’s decline began in the 1950s, during which the city lost almost a tenth of its population. Powerful historical forces buffeted Detroit’s single-industry economy, and Detroit’s federally supported comeback strategies did little to help.”
Edward L. Glaeser, In Detroit, Bad Policies Bear Bitter Fruit, The Boston Globe,
July 23, 2013
Today, Detroit City is a model of urban decay.
Cyclical poverty and urban ghettoization ravage its residents, thanks to a whopping 36.4% poverty rate for individuals, with the number of families under the poverty line totalling 31.3%8.
Over 70,000 buildings remain abandoned and decaying, providing a hideaway for crime and squatting opportunities for the homeless. Detroit residents experience an incredibly high crime rate (30.18% higher in reported property crimes and 11.73% higher in reported violent crimes), culminating in a chaotic and unpredictable life completely inconducive to social betterment of any form.
Interestingly, Detroit offers very high welfare payment rates.
As of 2013, Michigan state welfare paid $28,872 USD per year, equivalent to over $15/hr9, nine dollars more than the 2014 hourly minimum wage in Michigan10. By common sense alone, it is no wonder that most Michigan welfare recipients show little interest in getting off the rolls.
Why would they?
Part II coming soon
Califano, Joseph A. What Was Really Great About The Great Society. Washington Monthly. 1999. Retrieved from https://washingtonmonthly.com/1999/10/01/what-was-really-great-about-the-great-society/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/77-black-births-to-single-moms-49-for-hispanic-immigrants
Sowell, Thomas. Thomas Sowell on the Origins of Economic Disparities. Hoover Institution. 2019. Retrieved from
Logan, Ph.D., Manlove, Ph.D., Ikramullah, & Cottingham. Men Who Father Children with More Than One Woman: A Contemporary Portrait of Multiple-Partner Fertility. ChildTrends.org. 2006. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2006-10MultiplePartnerFertility.pdf
Sowell, Thomas. A Tale of Two Blackouts. Hoover Institution. 2019. Retrieved from
Sowell, Thomas. Thomas Sowell on the Origins of Economic Disparities. Hoover Institution. 2019. Retrieved from
Editors Unknown. Decline of Detroit. Wikipedia. 2021. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit#Detroit_riots
US Census. Table 708. Household, Family, and Per Capita Income and Individuals, and Families Below Poverty Level by City. 2009. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20150923235325/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0708.pdf
M. Tanner & C. Hughes. The Work vs Welfare Tradeoff. Cato Institute. 2013. Retrieved from https://cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf
Pioch, Julie. Michigan’s Minimum Wage Workers Get a Raise in September. Michigan State University Extension. 2014. Retrieved from http://canr.msu.edu/news/michigans_minimum_wage_workers_get_a_raise_in_september_2014
Wow nice article. Way to show those poor people who's boss. Bunch of greedy selfish criminals the lot of them. A lifetime of poverty is only the natural consequence of participating in the moral evils of hip-hop.