rich people always agree when it comes to "cutting off the oxygen" to poor people. on the establishment "right" they blame the poor for their own lot in life actively punish them for their standing. the "left" hates to throw money at them too, they'd rather divert those funds into tax cuts for themselves, they just dont want poor people rising up and causing instability.
@@deathbycognitivedissonance5036 i say what i see based off the bills pushed in congress. and also the history of revolutions and political struggles. i should probably clarify that by rich, i mean the ownership class of society (the holders of capital), and the politicians they buy.
@@sheepwshotguns42 The rich don’t care? The rich pay most of the taxes. The top 1% of the country in any given year pays 40% of the income taxes which go to funding Medicaid, the military, the VA, roads, highways, EPA, food stamps, etc. The only program which they contribute less to is social security.
Welfare has destroyed black families. In 1960 80% of black kids were born in two-parent, and often extended, families. Today hardly 20% are born in a two-parent home. Today Democrats have turned them into pets and keep them this way all to keep their votes. I don't think there is anything that will change it. After three generations of having no male head of household, I don't believe that there is anything that will make a young black male, who has never had a male role model, want to marry his girlfriend, start a career, and have children he plans to raise with his wife. What will ever make that happen? It's getting worse because some families have grandfathers trying to be that kid's role model, but that's coming to an end. Studies also show that black children (and families) who are two-parent homes do as well as their white counterparts. So the driving force is Single parent homes; it drives poverty, literacy, crime, and illegitimacy. I think the only way to address it is to require that a child's paternity be established in order to receive support. With that, once the father is established, the father must be placed on a child support program. He must become financially responsible for the children he sires. There has to be a limit to the amount of support someone receives for being unemployed and having children. If I tell HR tomorrow my wife and I are expecting they will congratulate me, but my pay will not change. As my grandmother said, "we just put more water in the soup." Don't add to the benefits, deduct what she gets and replace the value with WIC. Don't give them more, force them to do what everyone else has to do. I have a friend who went through SADA to learn Auto painting and bodywork. He was from a poor family, his dad died when he was three, but his grandfather spent a lot of time with him. He did very well in the program, got a good job out of training and today owns two body shops, is married to the same woman for 35 years and his kids went to college. He did what most don't do in programs like that - he used it as an opportunity. He told me at a class reunion that he never wanted to be a body man, he never wanted to repair cars or run a business, but it's what he had to do to make a living and raise a family. He's getting an English degree at night and said he might sell his businesses and teach. He's a rare sort, and there are fewer like him today. Murry is right and the only fix is to step off the support and replace it with responsibility. I see girls get pregnant in high school knowing they will never amount to anything while the boys brag about it and run off to do it again. Schools have lost the guts to call it out. The democrats don't want to change it because it works for them, Republicans are reluctant to address it because they get called racist. Trump scared democrats to death with one phrase; "What do you have to lose?" If blacks figure out what Dems have done to them they will never support them again and that's what is driving all the racism, wokism, BLM, Reparations, and white guilt - its democrats trying to hide the truth from blacks at their expense.
The fact that we are still talking about this issue and it has only gotten worse with time, signifies to me no one is willing to actually put the much needed actions into motion to deter such wrongs from occurring in the future. People may have been more polite in the past, but to what resolve. Government is as useless now as is was then.
@@222Lightning honestly, humans do a terrible job governing themselves. I'd love to say there was a better option, but the only thing I can hope for is a omnipotent creator returning or a human created robot God. Really, these problems will just continue to happen here and in every other nation.
My neighbor was a school guidance counselor in an urban elemetary and middle school. When she had 'career day' talking about different jobs half the class laughed at her and said "You don't HAVE TO work! You get a CHECK!" most of these kids were from single parent homes and had a different new 'uncle' every couple weeks. Some had several uncles. Very sad.
Agree with you. But what about the single parents (not just women) who just wont work. Our poor children suffer. At this point, mentorship and a since of pride may be the only reward/ punishment? What would you do?
@@jaynette2011 We cannot compel people to work. I am generally opposed to government intervention in general, but if people are subjecting their children to abject poverty by refusing to do their jobs as parents, perhaps children should be taken in by local orphanages/charities on a contingent on the parents both securing and holding a job. But that solution leads to the inevitable problem that not everyone CAN get jobs, and so what right would we have to separate children from parents? It's a major dilemma. One solution would be to remove the minimum wage laws, thus allowing employers to accept more employees at lower rates of pay, allowing for more employment opportunities.
@@SacredMagic13679 Have a look at this: ruclips.net/video/ZSRgKms0gyg/видео.html Most of these households probably don't fall below the threshold where they're bad enough to have a real lasting impact on the children's future. And for the ones which do, there are probably laws on the books already which allow the authorities to intervene. Caveat: the negative effects of divorce have survived contact with a twin study. That's not definitive, but it's something we must consider. There might be gains from disincentivizing divorce. As for the minimum wage, it's hotly contested whether it has any impact on employment. Both sides of the issue have very impressive literatures and letters signed by hundreds of experts. But if you just look at the funnel plot, it comes out at zero effect of minimum wage on unemployment. Other potential solutions: Bring back the manufacturing sector. It was banished through policy, and it could be brought back through policy. Reverse degree inflation. Restrict supply of degrees, and/or prevent employers from using degrees as a sorting algorithm. Stop putting people into college who will predictably fail. Institute demographic policies to counteract dysgenic fertility. Invest into IVF and GWAS. Restrict immigration of third worlders, and banish whoever can and should be banished. Think long and hard about who you pay to have children, and how you structure those payments. For an example, compare US welfare to Swedish welfare. US welfare pays indolent adults a meagre living, but gives a generous fixed amount per child. Swedish welfare pays out more to adults, less than the US for the first child, and still less for each subsequent child. AFAIK, no one has ever claimed that this causes Swedish welfare to be deficient in some aspect of essential humanity.
If you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you subsidize it. If you examine every tax and social program with this mindset, you'll soon find that the mismatch between the stated goals and the actual outcomes usually makes perfect sense.
Things need to be freed up and people need to be given opportunities. If anyone was actually serious about solving these issues they would implement changes in the law to reflect this. Doing so we could make small business owners a powerhouse to be reckoned with and provide jobs to everyone who is willing to work.
Abolish PERSON-directed social WELFARE. Institute PEOPLE-directed social INFRASTRUCTURE. I mean, everyone complains about food stamp and Section 8 housing but no one complains about schools and libraries.
Sin is the cause...welfare is the results if you have no other resources. The only difference is money makes sin look good. Rich girl does it still sin....just looks better.
Fixing welfare and addressing rising illegitimacy under the welfare system are two different things. Without attempting to address the former, we can substantially end the latter by conditioning welfare benefits to single mothers on mandatory birth control, preferably by injection. The birth control shot, Depo-Provera, is a hormonal injection that prevents unplanned pregnancy for three months at a time. The hormone in this shot is progestin. The birth control shot works similarly to the birth control pill. It prevents ovulation and increases the mucus buildup around the opening of the cervix. As long as the woman receives welfare checks, she is obligated to remain on the birth control program. This policy will not prevent the first birth out of wedlock, but it will markedly end the tactic of welfare mothers getting pregnant deliberately multiple times to receive greater welfare assistance. The present policy even discourages those mothers from getting married, since the payments will end if they do. Gaming the system is not limited to low-income urban mothers. It is exactly how the polygamous cults in Arizona and Colorado survive; you tax money and mine subsidizes the child abuse of those cults in the form of increasing welfare benefits for each new child born to wives who are in a "celestial marriage" but are still single women before the law. Mandatory birth control would bring the welfare baby racket to an end. Under the present system, the most capable people in our society are subsidizing the least capable to reproduce disproportionately. In terms of the genetic fitness of our species , the present policy is simply indefensible.
The economist doesn't know much. 1/50th in Government spending for welfare in 1994? In 2022, welfare programs made up almost 20% of the total federal budget, or $1.19 trillion, which is about $9,000 per American household. This includes spending on more than 80 different programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), also known as welfare. However, states also contribute significantly to these programs, especially Medicaid and CHIP, which can add up to an additional $283 billion per year. Spend more money, get more welfare.
Really we know the answer to this question. It's yes the only woman that get assistance all the ones that are pregnant or already have children. Why would a woman have to choose a man that's a provider if the state is going to house her and her kids? Back in the day before they were social safety net if you didn't get with a man that had something it was a death sentence to you and your family. That's what I didn't want to own property or be able to have any form of Independence. Independent Women educated women do not marry do not have children. But I also understand why women needed their independence. There are still very cruel men that mistreat women.
Hmmmm very healthy conversation. I personally believe that cutting benefits for out of wedlock births will be very healthy for our country, but can I watch children suffer- no. That’s the problem, it needs to b done, but it just won’t be done.
At the end of the video they talk about employment and how we need people employed to stay off welfare. I say get rid of minim wage, get rid of long lasting copyright laws and get by doing this you can now afford to get rid of welfare.
Your plan makes no sense, since the federal income is so low that you couldn't afford the basics. At most, you'll lower the income of people on the lowest level making them poorer and make them more relient on welfare.
@Mick Mack I agree with you that we shouldn't have people flooding in over the border. Border control is what essentially makes a country a country to begin with. Without it all sorts of problems rise up like security and yes, lowered wages which hurt those who live in said country. What you may not have considered is who minim wage helps. It helps big business more than small businesses. Consider the fact that one of the biggest proponents of a national increase to minim wage is Amazon. Now ask yourself why they would do that when they would loose money in increasing their workers wage? Amazon is doing this for their own benefit to be certain. By increasing the minim wage they squeeze out the competition by the smaller companies and mom and pop stores who either have to fire people because of the increase or won't be able to hire additional help when they need it. Minim wage helps the elites and rich far more than it does to us common folk. It lets them set the standard and rule and by doing so kills off their competition who are not ready for the change. Good bye mom and pop shop. Lastly, consider how mom and pop shops can compete with large scale businesses. With the rich using their influence on government to push for practices like minim wage it becomes another hurtle a small business owner needs to overcome in order to feed their family. I'm arguing getting ride of minim wage as well as copyright laws so regular people, not the rich can more easily gain ground and become wealthy off of hard work and competition, not through the rigged game the elites have set up. If you still need convincing, go look up Thomas Sowell and minim wage. He lays out a excellent argument why minim wage never needed to be their in the first place and how it is actually a socialist program.
If a person had a spouse or partner in the home, they were often refused cash and food stamps. So for people who need the funds because they do not have enough income, they need the other person to not be present in the home so they can make ends meet in caring for the family.
@@sownheard wrong. There have been several different choices for people who don't want to take care of their own offspring. Ranging from abortion, orphanages and even pure abandonment of a child.
@C P its a very flawed system. All the incentives or carrots have pushed the current behavior. Even more so it has de-incentivized people to become responsible. All this will undoubtedly lead to larger government. One could argue this was the point to begin with. Make more people dependent on the government then what choice do those families and their offspring have other than voting bigger government. Fear not as there is what looks like a ever climbing chance of the whole system falling in on itself. This leads to a eventuality of a restart. Knowing this the best I can tell anyone reading this is to be prepared for the worst, yet expect the best.
A statement no stronger than "that wasn't real socialism. Now if we try it my way it will work this time." There are so many factors on why people aren't getting a living wage which are out of the control of the employer.
Want a living wage? Be worth something. Mechanics, electricians, data analysts, truck drivers all make a “living wage.” But if you don’t have the skills to do those jobs you won’t get them.
This is what a debate between democrats and republicans used to look like 20 years ago.
Murray is the man
Charles & Glenn on one team. Both still fighting the good fight today.
Thank you for your.courage and commitment gentlemen.
hear hear
I am not sure I understand what is going on here. It kinda looks like Liberals and Conservatives talking politely. Is this fake?
rich people always agree when it comes to "cutting off the oxygen" to poor people. on the establishment "right" they blame the poor for their own lot in life actively punish them for their standing. the "left" hates to throw money at them too, they'd rather divert those funds into tax cuts for themselves, they just dont want poor people rising up and causing instability.
Ron Walsh please shut up
@@sheepwshotguns42 While I agree most of the rich are at best indifferent. The rest of your comment was absolute nonsense.
@@deathbycognitivedissonance5036 i say what i see based off the bills pushed in congress. and also the history of revolutions and political struggles.
i should probably clarify that by rich, i mean the ownership class of society (the holders of capital), and the politicians they buy.
@@sheepwshotguns42 The rich don’t care? The rich pay most of the taxes. The top 1% of the country in any given year pays 40% of the income taxes which go to funding Medicaid, the military, the VA, roads, highways, EPA, food stamps, etc. The only program which they contribute less to is social security.
Welfare has destroyed black families. In 1960 80% of black kids were born in two-parent, and often extended, families. Today hardly 20% are born in a two-parent home. Today Democrats have turned them into pets and keep them this way all to keep their votes. I don't think there is anything that will change it. After three generations of having no male head of household, I don't believe that there is anything that will make a young black male, who has never had a male role model, want to marry his girlfriend, start a career, and have children he plans to raise with his wife. What will ever make that happen? It's getting worse because some families have grandfathers trying to be that kid's role model, but that's coming to an end. Studies also show that black children (and families) who are two-parent homes do as well as their white counterparts. So the driving force is Single parent homes; it drives poverty, literacy, crime, and illegitimacy.
I think the only way to address it is to require that a child's paternity be established in order to receive support. With that, once the father is established, the father must be placed on a child support program. He must become financially responsible for the children he sires. There has to be a limit to the amount of support someone receives for being unemployed and having children. If I tell HR tomorrow my wife and I are expecting they will congratulate me, but my pay will not change. As my grandmother said, "we just put more water in the soup." Don't add to the benefits, deduct what she gets and replace the value with WIC. Don't give them more, force them to do what everyone else has to do.
I have a friend who went through SADA to learn Auto painting and bodywork. He was from a poor family, his dad died when he was three, but his grandfather spent a lot of time with him. He did very well in the program, got a good job out of training and today owns two body shops, is married to the same woman for 35 years and his kids went to college. He did what most don't do in programs like that - he used it as an opportunity. He told me at a class reunion that he never wanted to be a body man, he never wanted to repair cars or run a business, but it's what he had to do to make a living and raise a family. He's getting an English degree at night and said he might sell his businesses and teach. He's a rare sort, and there are fewer like him today.
Murry is right and the only fix is to step off the support and replace it with responsibility. I see girls get pregnant in high school knowing they will never amount to anything while the boys brag about it and run off to do it again. Schools have lost the guts to call it out.
The democrats don't want to change it because it works for them, Republicans are reluctant to address it because they get called racist. Trump scared democrats to death with one phrase; "What do you have to lose?" If blacks figure out what Dems have done to them they will never support them again and that's what is driving all the racism, wokism, BLM, Reparations, and white guilt - its democrats trying to hide the truth from blacks at their expense.
The fact that we are still talking about this issue and it has only gotten worse with time, signifies to me no one is willing to actually put the much needed actions into motion to deter such wrongs from occurring in the future. People may have been more polite in the past, but to what resolve. Government is as useless now as is was then.
things only seem to go downhill here in the land of the free
@@222Lightning honestly, humans do a terrible job governing themselves. I'd love to say there was a better option, but the only thing I can hope for is a omnipotent creator returning or a human created robot God. Really, these problems will just continue to happen here and in every other nation.
Glenn and Charles as a tag team is honestly the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen
We had this information then. Now look at us. No one took this seriously, hence the problem has only continued to get worse.
Who is at fault?
A lot of people tbh. But accountability is dead, as you well know.
"Who is at fault?" That's almost always a rhetoric question.
People, rarely if ever, own up to faults or mistake.
"soaring" and that was in 1994.
Professor Loury, fantastic as usual.
My neighbor was a school guidance counselor in an urban elemetary and middle school. When she had 'career day' talking about different jobs half the class laughed at her and said "You don't HAVE TO work! You get a CHECK!" most of these kids were from single parent homes and had a different new 'uncle' every couple weeks. Some had several uncles. Very sad.
Many such cases
I don't know how this can even be questioned. People respond to the incentives.
Agree with you. But what about the single parents (not just women) who just wont work. Our poor children suffer. At this point, mentorship and a since of pride may be the only reward/ punishment? What would you do?
@@jaynette2011 We cannot compel people to work. I am generally opposed to government intervention in general, but if people are subjecting their children to abject poverty by refusing to do their jobs as parents, perhaps children should be taken in by local orphanages/charities on a contingent on the parents both securing and holding a job. But that solution leads to the inevitable problem that not everyone CAN get jobs, and so what right would we have to separate children from parents? It's a major dilemma. One solution would be to remove the minimum wage laws, thus allowing employers to accept more employees at lower rates of pay, allowing for more employment opportunities.
@@SacredMagic13679 Have a look at this:
ruclips.net/video/ZSRgKms0gyg/видео.html
Most of these households probably don't fall below the threshold where they're bad enough to have a real lasting impact on the children's future. And for the ones which do, there are probably laws on the books already which allow the authorities to intervene.
Caveat: the negative effects of divorce have survived contact with a twin study. That's not definitive, but it's something we must consider. There might be gains from disincentivizing divorce.
As for the minimum wage, it's hotly contested whether it has any impact on employment. Both sides of the issue have very impressive literatures and letters signed by hundreds of experts. But if you just look at the funnel plot, it comes out at zero effect of minimum wage on unemployment.
Other potential solutions:
Bring back the manufacturing sector. It was banished through policy, and it could be brought back through policy.
Reverse degree inflation. Restrict supply of degrees, and/or prevent employers from using degrees as a sorting algorithm. Stop putting people into college who will predictably fail.
Institute demographic policies to counteract dysgenic fertility. Invest into IVF and GWAS. Restrict immigration of third worlders, and banish whoever can and should be banished. Think long and hard about who you pay to have children, and how you structure those payments.
For an example, compare US welfare to Swedish welfare. US welfare pays indolent adults a meagre living, but gives a generous fixed amount per child. Swedish welfare pays out more to adults, less than the US for the first child, and still less for each subsequent child. AFAIK, no one has ever claimed that this causes Swedish welfare to be deficient in some aspect of essential humanity.
If you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you subsidize it.
If you examine every tax and social program with this mindset, you'll soon find that the mismatch between the stated goals and the actual outcomes usually makes perfect sense.
Yes
Things need to be freed up and people need to be given opportunities. If anyone was actually serious about solving these issues they would implement changes in the law to reflect this. Doing so we could make small business owners a powerhouse to be reckoned with and provide jobs to everyone who is willing to work.
Side note-- at 2:40, that lady's hair makes NO SENSE . Please explain yourself, lady.
Abolish PERSON-directed social WELFARE. Institute PEOPLE-directed social INFRASTRUCTURE.
I mean, everyone complains about food stamp and Section 8 housing but no one complains about schools and libraries.
Sin is the cause...welfare is the results if you have no other resources. The only difference is money makes sin look good. Rich girl does it still sin....just looks better.
Fixing welfare and addressing rising illegitimacy under the welfare system are two different things. Without attempting to address the former, we can substantially end the latter by conditioning welfare benefits to single mothers on mandatory birth control, preferably by injection. The birth control shot, Depo-Provera, is a hormonal injection that prevents unplanned pregnancy for three months at a time. The hormone in this shot is progestin. The birth control shot works similarly to the birth control pill. It prevents ovulation and increases the mucus buildup around the opening of the cervix. As long as the woman receives welfare checks, she is obligated to remain on the birth control program. This policy will not prevent the first birth out of wedlock, but it will markedly end the tactic of welfare mothers getting pregnant deliberately multiple times to receive greater welfare assistance. The present policy even discourages those mothers from getting married, since the payments will end if they do. Gaming the system is not limited to low-income urban mothers. It is exactly how the polygamous cults in Arizona and Colorado survive; you tax money and mine subsidizes the child abuse of those cults in the form of increasing welfare benefits for each new child born to wives who are in a "celestial marriage" but are still single women before the law. Mandatory birth control would bring the welfare baby racket to an end. Under the present system, the most capable people in our society are subsidizing the least capable to reproduce disproportionately. In terms of the genetic fitness of our species , the present policy is simply indefensible.
The economist doesn't know much. 1/50th in Government spending for welfare in 1994?
In 2022, welfare programs made up almost 20% of the total federal budget, or $1.19 trillion, which is about $9,000 per American household. This includes spending on more than 80 different programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), also known as welfare. However, states also contribute significantly to these programs, especially Medicaid and CHIP, which can add up to an additional $283 billion per year.
Spend more money, get more welfare.
Thank goodness we now know why the increase in welfare during that time… back then they was completely oblivious to the big picture…
Good discussion. The travesty is that it’s only ~20 mins and that MORE government is going to solve this problem when government caused it
Really we know the answer to this question. It's yes the only woman that get assistance all the ones that are pregnant or already have children.
Why would a woman have to choose a man that's a provider if the state is going to house her and her kids?
Back in the day before they were social safety net if you didn't get with a man that had something it was a death sentence to you and your family.
That's what I didn't want to own property or be able to have any form of Independence. Independent Women educated women do not marry do not have children.
But I also understand why women needed their independence. There are still very cruel men that mistreat women.
Hmmmm very healthy conversation. I personally believe that cutting benefits for out of wedlock births will be very healthy for our country, but can I watch children suffer- no. That’s the problem, it needs to b done, but it just won’t be done.
At the end of the video they talk about employment and how we need people employed to stay off welfare. I say get rid of minim wage, get rid of long lasting copyright laws and get by doing this you can now afford to get rid of welfare.
Your plan makes no sense, since the federal income is so low that you couldn't afford the basics. At most, you'll lower the income of people on the lowest level making them poorer and make them more relient on welfare.
@Mick Mack I agree with you that we shouldn't have people flooding in over the border. Border control is what essentially makes a country a country to begin with. Without it all sorts of problems rise up like security and yes, lowered wages which hurt those who live in said country.
What you may not have considered is who minim wage helps. It helps big business more than small businesses. Consider the fact that one of the biggest proponents of a national increase to minim wage is Amazon. Now ask yourself why they would do that when they would loose money in increasing their workers wage? Amazon is doing this for their own benefit to be certain. By increasing the minim wage they squeeze out the competition by the smaller companies and mom and pop stores who either have to fire people because of the increase or won't be able to hire additional help when they need it.
Minim wage helps the elites and rich far more than it does to us common folk. It lets them set the standard and rule and by doing so kills off their competition who are not ready for the change. Good bye mom and pop shop.
Lastly, consider how mom and pop shops can compete with large scale businesses. With the rich using their influence on government to push for practices like minim wage it becomes another hurtle a small business owner needs to overcome in order to feed their family. I'm arguing getting ride of minim wage as well as copyright laws so regular people, not the rich can more easily gain ground and become wealthy off of hard work and competition, not through the rigged game the elites have set up.
If you still need convincing, go look up Thomas Sowell and minim wage. He lays out a excellent argument why minim wage never needed to be their in the first place and how it is actually a socialist program.
Sure As long as every kid results in more money and benefits Why not have more kids
Because you are forced to take care of the kid's
If a person had a spouse or partner in the home, they were often refused cash and food stamps. So for people who need the funds because they do not have enough income, they need the other person to not be present in the home so they can make ends meet in caring for the family.
@@sownheard wrong. There have been several different choices for people who don't want to take care of their own offspring. Ranging from abortion, orphanages and even pure abandonment of a child.
@C P its a very flawed system. All the incentives or carrots have pushed the current behavior. Even more so it has de-incentivized people to become responsible.
All this will undoubtedly lead to larger government. One could argue this was the point to begin with. Make more people dependent on the government then what choice do those families and their offspring have other than voting bigger government.
Fear not as there is what looks like a ever climbing chance of the whole system falling in on itself. This leads to a eventuality of a restart. Knowing this the best I can tell anyone reading this is to be prepared for the worst, yet expect the best.
@@TheFirstTriplefife All that needs to happen is a fair living wage
25:12
Jonah Goldberg
Pay people a living wage.
A statement no stronger than "that wasn't real socialism. Now if we try it my way it will work this time." There are so many factors on why people aren't getting a living wage which are out of the control of the employer.
Want a living wage? Be worth something. Mechanics, electricians, data analysts, truck drivers all make a “living wage.” But if you don’t have the skills to do those jobs you won’t get them.
@@akp167 unfortunately, adults increasingly feel entitled to fat paychecks regardless of their production capacity.
@@akp167Those are male jobs.
@@sr2291 Okay for females: nursing, salesperson , recruiters, data analysts, marketing, librarian, teacher, etc.