Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Unemployment & the minimum wage
Message-ID: <217@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 09:03:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.217
Posted: Fri Jul 20 09:03:01 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 03:46:21 EDT
References: <215@idi.UUCP> <465@ccieng2.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 26

[money is the / of all evil...]

Brad Miller seems to think that poor people would be better off
without welfare:

>........................Not only is welfare a disencentive to work, but
>it lowers the quality of life to those who accept it. At least people who
>survived and were poor one hundered years ago had a feeling of self-worth;
>they were survivors. What do the poor have today but an intimate knowledge
>of the correct government agency to apply for money to?

Most people know what is in their own best interests, and this
includes the poor, too. Most who are eligable for welfare accept it,
demonstrating their judgment that they are better off with it than
without it. Now, it may very well be that welfare is unwise, wasteful,
or whatever, but to maintain accepting it lowers the quality of life
implies those who so state are either condenscending (i.e. they know
what's best for the poor, even if the poor don't) or unrealistic (i.e.
those poor folks are really upset over getting that welfare check).
Brad Miller should have stated, that for him PERSONALLY, welfare 
lowers the quality of life rather than asserting his feelings were
the Truth; however, until he is eligable for welfare, I will take his
protestations at being so demeaned as being hypothetical.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david