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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxz!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Unemployment & the minimum wage
Message-ID: <224@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 09:22:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.224
Posted: Tue Jul 24 09:22:49 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 01:08:43 EDT
References: <217@fisher.UUCP> <223@idi.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 26

I did not say that removing welfare as a possiblity was taking away
anyone's "right to choose"; I only suggested that welfare receipients'
willingness to accept welfare was prima facie evidence that they
considered it in their own interests to do so.

Rich Kiessig now argues that, though it may be in their short-term
interests to accept welfare, in the long-run it is not. I again
disagree; if it really is in their long-run interests not to accept,
why not make your case to them? 

The people whose interests are harmed by welfare are not the
receipients, but the underwriters. As a society, I agree welfare is to
our COLLECTIVE detriment, but I will not agree to Rich Kiessig's
thesis that welfare is also to the INDIVIDUAL detriment of the
receipients.

Moreover, I do not agree the best solution (from our society's
collective viewpoint) is the elimination of welfare. It would be
better to replace welfare with either workfare (all able receipients
would perform some service in exchange for the check) or, more
radically, a negative income tax (quite a subject in itself). Both
would remove the disincentive to work, while still protecting those
who cannot find work.

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