Over at Don Surber’s place, he had this post on the observation of a newspaper owner on “why aren’t people going to work?”
Short answer: Government.
The observation: why aren’t people taking $10 / hour jobs and be self supportive and independent of welfare “strings attached”?
Longer Answer: Due to the welfare system, it pays more to not work. The last column is of $60K / year parent – netting about $34K a year after taxes (which pays for “the system”). Ditto for other annual incomes. The main differences are the “supports” by government welfare programs for the lesser incomes.
I guess what frosts my butt is to look at the $14,500 yearly income. That nets out to $6.97 / hour (40 hrs / week, 52 weeks per year) – not even minimal wage but an almost 10% more net than a better paid person (who is paying more in taxes to give that someone “more economic” benefit. Work minimal wage, $7.25, for a day and a half and you hit the $3,625 mark that is only 8% less than someone working full time.
I ask: is that really Fair? Is that “equality”? Certainly, it appears the system is rigged to provide an equality of outcome – but certainly a huge inequality of effort, of time, and heart. Who put in the effort to get the education to do better? And why are they being penalized for it? How about the “delayed gratification” that probably went into that higher income, or that inequality of motivation that spurred one on to better vs one that said ‘why bother’?
Look, I’m not down with just casting folks to the curb – but I do raise the question, based on the numbers (and go to the post to read even more on them and the assumptions), do we need to revisit the Big Picture to see if we ARE putting perverse incentives in place to “ride in the wagon instead of pulling the wagon”?
