And these rejects are still better people than most wannabe humanoids.
And these rejects are still better people than most wannabe humanoids.
Angela Merkel used to say that “the European Union is about 5% of the world’s population, about 25% of its GDP, and about 50% of global welfare spending.”
The real data is more concerning.
The European Union is:
Something has to give.
The EU average tax burden on workers is 44.9%. The average worker in the EU spends half a year working for the tax man.
Ease of doing business remains below the leading economies of the world.
Bureaucracy is asphyxiating. The EU approves on average 80 directives, 1,200 regulations and 700 decisions per year.
The main EU economies remain significantly below the leaders in economic freedom.
At the same time, despite massive tax burden and constant confiscation of wealth, the EU’s average debt to GDP is 90%. Continuously making science fiction estimates of tax evasion and calling to tax the rich as a mirage, has led to unsustainable levels of government burden on the real economy and hinders investment and capital investment as policies are increasingly aimed at taxing the productive to subsidize the unproductive.
Using unrealistic estimates of tax revenues made by politicians — that are always missed — for very real expenditures — which are consistently above budget — has made the EU miss its debt reduction expectations.
The cost of hyper-regulation and excessive taxes to job creation, investment, and innovation are evident. The EU has an unemployment rate that almost doubles the leading economic peers, and taxation hinders the growth of SMEs (small and medium enterprises), which shows a ratio of development to large companies that is half the same ratio in the US.
The EU has many positive things, as I explained here. But we cannot let bureaucracy and confiscatory taxation take over a worthy project. Because ignoring those risks, we would make the EU implode.
Unless the EU politicians change their mindset of a model built on massive taxation and bureaucracy and start putting at the forefront of policy cutting taxes, slashing red tape, more open business, more economic freedom, focusing on job creation and attraction of capital, the welfare state will implode.
The EU’s welfare state can only be protected by defending growth, investment, and job creation. However, it will likely be destroyed by the same ones that say they defend “the public sector.” By making it unsustainable.
May 1st, 2017
While we all loved President Trump’s campaign pledge to bring jobs back to America, there are powerful economic forces at work that suggest the shift to cheap labor is pretty much irreversible. Yes, Trump has spoken with the leaders of some of America’s biggest companies and he’s been successful at getting those chief executives to commit to creating or keeping a few thousands jobs here and there, but when you consider that the competing foreign labor force primarily responsible for manufacturing America’s consumer goods numbers in the hundreds of millions of people, the notion that we’re somehow going to see explosive manufacturing growth over the next four or eight years is nothing more than a pipe dream.
But don’t take it from us. A Chinese factory worker explains exactly why we have absolutely no way to compete with the near slave-like conditions found in foreign factories:
Zeng walked CNBC through his decision to spend six weeks in a factory working 12 hours shifts Monday through Saturday, mostly during the night, and what he discovered along the way.
“They just gave me the address of the factory and I just went. I just showed up. When I was there I saw people holding luggage waiting in a long line, so I just stood in the line,” Zeng told CNBC in an interview.
“When it was my turn they asked for my ID, asked to see my hand and asked me to recite the English alphabet. I got in after that. It took less than 30 seconds. You don’t have to apply or have any skills.“
“The first thing I can think of from a labor perspective is that the wages are unacceptable for American workers. So, in the factories, I was getting paid about 3100 yuan, or $450, per month. I don’t think American workers can accept those kind of wages based on living conditions and prices here,” Zeng said.
“Even if they relocate factories to the U.S. they’d replace workers with robots,” Zeng said. He said Pegatron already uses robots to apply cameras to iPhones, and to drop batteries into the devices. Robots, Zeng said, are more precise than human workers, and precision is particularly important for those two components.
If President Trump wants iPhones manufactured in the U.S., Apple will need to front the cost to pay the much higher wages required in the U.S., which means that consumers will have to be willing to pay more. Either that, or it will have to rely a lot more on machines, which won’t create jobs, and might end up taking them.
Source: Yahoo News
For those who are having trouble visualizing the cumulative effect of what Zeng describes, this chart pretty much sums it up and shows how much manufacturing jobs as a percentage of America’s total workforce have declined since the 1960’s:
At first glance you may be thinking that we have no where else to go but up.
The problem, of course, is that if you do try to shift jobs back to America, and even if you triple the wages from what factory workers are making in China, those taking a monthly paycheck and benefits from the government already make more money for doing nothing than they would assembling mobile phone components for 12 hours a day.
One recipient of welfare summed it up succinctly in the following shocking interview:
While workers out there are preaching morality at people like me living on welfare, can you really blame us?
I get to sit home… I get to go visit my friends all day… I even get to smoke weed…
Me and people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid.
Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month… and it’s gonna be on time… and we get subsidized housing… we even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas… Why should I work?
Ya’ll get the benefit of saying “oh, look at me, I’m a better person,” but when ya’ll sit at home behind ya’lls I’m a better person… we the ones gettin’ paid!
So can you really blame us?
There’s always hope, we suppose, that the millennial generation, currently demanding free college and living in their parents’ basements, will rocket America into its next great manufacturing boom.
But we’re not going to hold our breaths.
By Mark Gollom
Apr 25, 2017
One might assume that the Ontario Liberal government’s pilot project to provide a guaranteed basic income would be roundly dismissed by those on the political and economic right as yet another government-led social welfare scheme doomed to failure.
But the policy has adherents among some free-market economists and libertarian thinkers who believe this type of program is the most efficient way to provide assistance to the poor.
“If you accept the idea that there’s going to be some sort of redistribution taking place in our system, then you want to do it in the most transparent and efficient way possible,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “And you want it to actually benefit people. And our current welfare system does neither.”
In the U.S., all levels of government combined spend over $1 trillion a year on at least 126 anti-poverty programs, Tanner wrote in a piece for the Cato Institute in 2015. Yet these programs, he said, are doing little “to help the poor get out of poverty or become self-sufficient.”
“We spend a lot of money and get very little bang for the buck,” he said.
On Monday, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne announced the province is launching a three-year pilot project to provide up to $17,000 to 4,000 low-income residents of Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay. The current welfare system in Ontario is designed to provide financial relief to low-income individuals, provided they are attempting to look for work or will take part in activities to help them find a job.
The financial assistance from this pilot project, based on a report delivered by former Conservative senator Hugh Segal, would come with no strings attached.
It’s an idea that, in some form, was championed by Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, who wrote about “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or sort of floor below which nobody need fall.”
Noted free-market economist Milton Friedman also supported a guaranteed national income — he preferred to call it a negative income tax, meaning those whose income falls below a certain level would receive cash benefits.
“A negative income tax provides comprehensive reform which would do more efficiently and humanely what our present welfare system does so inefficiently and inhumanely,” he said.
Those on the left see it as a move toward social justice, wrote conservative social scientist Charles Murray, an advocate of the policy, in 2016. But its libertarian supporters, he said, “see it as the least damaging way for the government to transfer wealth from some citizens to others.”
To free-marketers, basic income is preferable to market intervention measures such as minimum wage hikes.
Interfering in the price system is just about “one of the worst things you can do in an economy,” said Matt Zwolinski, founder and director of the University of San Diego’s Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy.
“If you want to help the poor, then giving them cash is simply a much more direct and effective way of doing that than forcing employers to pay people more than the market value of their labour,” he said.
Basic income has also been embraced by many Silicon Valley business leaders, who predict increasing automation and artificial intelligence will eliminate low-skilled jobs at an increasing rate. Self-driving vehicles, for example, could cost millions of jobs for those who make their living transporting goods or people.
The fear is that the government, to stem that job loss, could intervene by implementing anti-technology measures.
“[Basic guaranteed income] would take care of those low-skilled wages replaced by technology in a way that would not limit innovation and advancements in computing and robots,” Zwolinski said.
Murray agreed, writing that guaranteed basic income “will be an essential part of the transition to that unprecedented world.”
It “would present the most disadvantaged among us with an open road to the middle class if they put their minds to it,” he wrote.
And for some libertarians, who generally believe the government should keep its nose out of people’s private business, a basic guaranteed income is preferable to other social welfare schemes.
“When you have social welfare programs that have work requirements or that provide in kind benefits rather than cash, all of that involves the state trying to make decisions for people about what’s best for them,” Zwolinski said.
But it’s important, he said, not to overstate the enthusiasm that those on the right have for this policy.
“Most right-leaning folks, by and large, are still going to think of basic income programs precisely as you think they would, as another bloated government program.”
And even among those supporters, there’s a significant caveat: They believe this policy should replace existing welfare programs, and not be in addition to those already in the system.
Tanner said he’s a “sympathetic skeptic” of the basic income. While he thinks the philosophical case is strong, the math is hard to make work.
“You can’t provide basic minimum income for everyone.”
Conservative commentator David Frum, who opposes the plan, said the program ignores something more fundamental, that people need work.
“And not just for money. They need work because without work life doesn’t have purpose.”
This basic income idea, he said, is very much an economists’ idea.
“To an economist, a dollar is a dollar. How you get it doesn’t matter.”
The president of the US should begin learning how to play the violin?
Welfare Statistics and Demographics
|Total number of Americans on welfare||110,489,000|
|Total number of Americans on food stamps||41,700,000|
|Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance||10,200,000|
|Percent of the US population on welfare||35.4 %|
|Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment)||$131,900,000,000|
|Percent of recipients who are white||38.8 %|
|Percent of recipients who are black||39.8 %|
|Percent of recipients who are Hispanic||15.7 %|
|Percent of recipients who are Asian||2.4 %|
|Percent of recipients who are Other||3.3 %|
|Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare||$1000|
|Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job||39|
|Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job||6|
|Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher||8|
|Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)|
|Time on AFDC||Percent of Recipients|
|Less than 7 months||19%|
|7 to 12 months||15.2%|
|1 to 2 years||19.3%|
|2 to 5 years||26.9%|
|Over 5 years||19.6%|
|Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.|
|State||Hourly Wage Equivalent|
|<< PRIOR DATA SET||NEXT DATA SET >>|
Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. The Welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Opponents of Welfare argue that it affects work incentives.
|Food Stamp Statistics|
|Home Foreclosure Statistics|
|Play the Statistic Brain Weekly Quiz!|
|History of Welfare|
|Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed.
State financed public assistance programs were often inadequate to meet the challenges of large-scale unemployment and urban poverty that often afflicted states and urban areas. But it was the Great Depression of the 1930’s that led to the collapse of state financed public relief programs. Conditions were so grave it became necessary for the federal government to step in and help with the costs of public relief.
A number of government agencies were created to oversee the welfare programs. Some of the agencies that deal with welfare in the United States are the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education.
Welfare can take a variety of forms, such as monetary payments, subsidies and vouchers, or housing assistance. Welfare systems differ from country to country, but welfare is commonly provided to individuals who are unemployed, those with illness or disability, the elderly, those with dependent children, and veterans.
|Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute|
|Research Date: January 23rd, 2016|
Questions: How many people are on welfare? Welfare demographics? How long does the average person stay on welfare?