
Uber for Welfare - yummyfajitas
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/1/uber-welfare-sharing-gig-economy-000031#ixzz3yfWmNK9i
======
fredfoobar42
This is ridiculous. The stereotype of welfare recipients as lazy, unemployed
people is completely inaccurate. I'm a former Welfare Clerk, and the vast
majority of welfare recipients I dealt with---in a district that covered West
Philadelphia---were employed.

The work varied: childcare, retail, and hair salon work were the most common,
but there were also school staff, church secretaries, and construction workers
who needed welfare. Some of these jobs were under the table, but most were
legitimate, W-2 jobs. If anything, my district had a higher percentage of
people not employed, as we covered the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel
University campuses---so there were often grad students applying along side
single mothers working in hair salons.

~~~
yummyfajitas
A quick google search suggests a significant portions of welfare dollars flow
to non-workers: [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-
wel...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-
recipients-already-have-one/)

36% of families receiving TANF (which is what this article discusses) work.

Why not spend 30 seconds googling to determine if your anecdotes reflect
reality?

~~~
fredfoobar42
Typically, TANF benefits went to the elderly, disabled, or to new mothers. Do
you really want to force them to work the gig economy?

Also, don't forget that the "T" in TANF means _temporary_.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If only the authors of the article thought of that. Then they might have
written this:

 _Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are
physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy
can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to
work, but exemptions would still be available as needed._

Why not read the article to see what it actually advocates rather than
criticizing some unrelated idea no one advocated for?

~~~
pjc50
The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial;
there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes;
as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in
starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health
problem.

At least that's how it's turned out in the UK.

[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-
die...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-
fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between
welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved.
Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single
coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation.

Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main
effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an increase in the labor
supply.

~~~
anon1385
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232911/Mother-
leaps...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232911/Mother-leaps-death-
baby-arms-benefits-stopped.html)

>A pregnant woman jumped to her death while clutching her baby son after her
benefits had been stopped, an inquest heard. Philosophy graduate Christelle
Pardo, 32, plunged from the balcony of her sister's third-floor flat, killing
herself and five-month-old Kayjah.

>She became pregnant shortly afterwards, but in December her JSA was withdrawn
because she was within 11 weeks of giving birth and was considered unable to
work. As a result she also lost her automatic entitlement to housing benefit.
The mother, from Hackney, east London, was advised to apply for income support
but her application was rejected because the Department of Work and Pensions
said she had not proved that she had been in continuous employment in the UK
for the previous five years. This was despite having worked or been a student
in Britain since 1997.

>In April, her application for child benefit was also rejected when officials
learned she had been denied income support. Hackney council then demanded she
repay £200 in overpaid housing benefit.

>Coroner Dr Andrew Reid said: 'She was not in a position around the time her
son was born to be actively seeking work, and was not in a position to claim
Income Support, which eventually stopped her housing benefit.

------
clavalle
Absolutely horrifying point of view.

I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get
benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow.
It's work camps without fences.

Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then
they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only
people that helps are the people consuming those services at exploitative
wages. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it
actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it
for themselves.

Yes. Train bureaucrats that administer this programs and deal with those
seeking welfare about these gig economy options. Make sure that those who want
to engage know about them and have the ability to engage, but let's not force
them 'or else'.

Imagine losing your job, having to get on welfare to feed your family, and
being told (probably through an impersonal text) "15 min foot massage at 111
Anywhere street. $5. $20 an hour equivalent. Appt. in 45 min. Confirm or lose
benefits."

We're better than that.

~~~
yummyfajitas
They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create
value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability
to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby
making a person less risky to hire.

 _Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn 't exploitative and it
actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it
for themselves._

It's true that many people will choose free money + watching TV over doing
things beneficial for others.

It's kind of funny how expecting welfare recipients to work is "exploitative"
but expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not.
Could you explain that?

~~~
clavalle
>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create
value for other humans.

Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is
worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their
time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them.

Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching
TV example) it is true. But if they were sufficiently incentivised with added
value, they would create value for others in order to improve the remainder of
their own time. That's how it works. Enlightened self-interest, and all that.

> I assume that you also believe taking money from others involuntarily and
> giving it to non-workers is not "exploitative"?

Yes, I do because of the marginal utility of money. Taking $1000 from someone
who has $10 mil. to feed a family a four for a month is not exploitative. The
person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money.
That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might
die, or at least be in pain, without it.

Telling someone on the brink of total poverty, where they very well might
starve over the next month, that they must work or die is exploitation.
Exploitation is not about taking money it is about extorting someone with the
threat of pain or death. It is a sure way to destroy value in a transaction.

The alternative is to entice someone to create value for other humans through
a value add transaction -- they end up with more value for themselves rather
than bargaining to limit their loss through death or pain -- you know, why the
rest of us that happen to be more wealthy choose to create value for others.
The way to guarantee such a transaction is to make sure the person agreeing to
that transaction is not making the decision to engage based on a physical
threat.

I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection
rackets are illegal.

~~~
danjayh
> _Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is
> worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their
> time we wouldn 't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise
> them._

Friend, hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate _many_ people
to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, _many_ people choose to be
unproductive, and it makes society as a whole poor. If you take too heavily
from those who are productive to enable this, it dicencentivises them. This
has been demonstrated repeatedly -- in the USSR, in China's old system, in
Cuba, in the DPRK, in Saudi Arabia (who, with less oil money, are having
serious problems), and even in the Internet's beloved Denmark ... literally
over and over and over.

(ref for Denmark, since I know that will be one of the more contentious
entries on my list: [http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-
stud...](http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-
debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6) )

Asking them to take what someone else is willing to give them for their work,
without the threat of imprisonment from the government to motivate the giving,
is _not_ asking them to work for less than they're worth. Quite the contrary,
it's asking them to work for an amount that exactly reflects the value other
humans assign to their labor.

~~~
locopati
There's another option to those who are hungry and suffering. Perhaps you
should read up on the French Revolution. There's a rational self-interest
argument to helping other people so that they do not reach levels of
desperation where violence is a reasonable alternative.

~~~
barry-cotter
That's a terrible argument. If you're in a position of power over a hostile
population you should preemptively destroy their capacity to harm you. There's
a reason the French revolution happened during an economic contraction after a
long period of growth. Same deal in Russia with its revolution. The revolution
is always lead by people who see themselves as being on the verge of losing
something they had a tenuous grasp of.

People who are hungry and suffering don't revolt. They starve. The ambitious
gentry and clerisy who see themselves sliding down the social ladder attempt
to revolt and are usually crushed. Anyone who is hungry and suffering is
incapable of organising enough to be a threat to any military or paramilitary
organisation.

Are there any successful slave revolts besides Haiti, ever?

------
khirasaki
How about hell no? I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber?

How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American, which will do far
more to address poverty as well as raise wages (if you're already receiving
money, you'll be able to demand a higher wage for working a job).

Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the
government doesn't need to invent more regulations and punish poor people.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
> How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American

> Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the
> government doesn't need to invent more regulations

A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on
consumer goods, putting us in the same position as before.

The regulations will not stop under this model - they will simply change.
Where regulation exists now to keep prices artificially high and interest
rates artificially low, the regulation policy resulting from a minimum pre-tax
income will be that of price controls and the rationing of goods.

~~~
bryanlarsen
"A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on
consumer goods"

Why? BI does not increase money supply, it takes from the rich and gives to
the poor. An increase in the money supply is the only thing pretty much
guaranteed to increase inflation.

BI will definitely have localized effects on prices. It may increase money
velocity, which could cause inflation. However, that's not "without question",
and almost definitely wouldn't "put us in the same position as before"

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
> An increase in the money supply is the only thing pretty much guaranteed to
> increase inflation.

An increase in the money supply _is_ inflation - the very definition of it.

> BI will definitely have localized effects on prices.

Yes, I said this in my OP. It will lead to increases in prices for consumer
goods in particular, as opposed to other goods. If every consumer has $X,000
dollars to work with that they didn't have before, then demand for consumer
goods is going to rise, leading to lower inventory and therefore, higher
prices.

~~~
bryanlarsen
But without top-level inflation, there is going to be a definite cap on that
effect.

And it's not every consumer that has $X,000 more. It's only the poor
consumers. The middle class has their BI taxed back. And the poor are a very
small portion of the economy.

------
chadwickthebold
To be clear, this article is advocating forcing people in poverty into gig
economy jobs where there have been issues of low pay, terrible working
conditions, and few if any employee protections. As a civilized country we
should not demand that people give up their basic rights to earn a living.

~~~
pjc50
Yeah, it's worked out pretty badly in the UK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Work_and_Pensions)

(the latter is particularly odious; having been told by a court that it owed
people £130m in back-dated benefits, the government _retroactively changed the
law_ to avoid paying them. This is almost certainly a human rights violation
but that litigation has not finished yet).

~~~
crystalmeph
Yeah, making people work for free at for-profit businesses is not a valid
precondition for welfare. I didn't see that in this article though.

There has to be a social safety net, but I think it's a valid goal to
encourage welfare recipients to work if they are able. One thing we should
definitely do is reform the "vertical cliff" of payments, where once you make
above a certain threshold, you stop receiving all benefits. That's a definite
disincentive to get a better job past a certain point.

~~~
pjc50
The article talks about work requirements, but does not specify a minimum wage
or minimum _effective_ wage. Is someone who is signed up for one of these task
apps but only given one hour work a week "working"?

Not to mention that the flood of workers forced into this position will
necessarily bid down the hourly rates.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Of course it will bid down hourly rates. That will increase demand for such
services, thereby allowing more people to enter the workforce [1]. Unemployed
workers get jobs, consumers get more services - a win for everyone!

[1] It's interesting how the gig economy can reduce sticky wages, making
inflationary stimulus unnecessary.

------
dccoolgai
This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read. Uber and
the "gig economy" are the death throes of an economy that is suffocating
itself with rotten ideas about globalism ("We can all be rich if we stop
making things and have other people do it for us!") hatched by corporate
economists... Suggesting that we should all do each others' laundry more is
just a brutal exacerbation of the underlying problem no one wants to confront.
We need farms, factories and things so that the work of everyone can
participate in creating actual value and system can create more value for the
people working again.

~~~
yummyfajitas
We never stopped making things. We have farms and factories and they produce
more than ever before.

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO)
[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN)
[http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productiv...](http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productivity.gif)

No one is suggesting we all do each other's laundry. Instead, the article is
suggesting that people currently _producing nothing_ will do laundry for
people who actually _are producing things_.

~~~
pjc50
_suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people
who actually are producing things_

This is called a "job". If we could find a job for everyone, we wouldn't be
talking about unemployment. Unemployment is when people are not able to find a
job.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The article is proposing a mechanism that would find a job for more people,
reducing unemployment.

It also proposes that if a person _claims_ to be unemployed, but actually just
refuses to take work, that their welfare payments should be stopped. But
surely you aren't discussing those people, right?

~~~
pjc50
The article talks about work requirements, but does not specify a minimum wage
or minimum effective wage. Is someone who is signed up for one of these task
apps but only given one hour work a week "working"?

The process of determining 'refusing' to take work is surprisingly fraught as
well. But again the question arises: if you cut off the money that someone is
using to eat, what happens to them? They do _not_ magically find a job that
pays enough to eat.

------
hapless
If you believe you can make $19 an hour as an Uber driver, I have a very fine
bridge to sell you.

------
noam87
A bold proposal indeed from Mr. Conda.

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great city, or travel
in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded
with beggars, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These
beggars, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced
to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless
infants: who as they grow up also turn thieves for want of work.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this is, in the present deplorable
state of the country, a very great additional grievance; and, therefore,
whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these beggars
sound, useful members of society, would deserve so well of the public as to
have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

------
imartin2k
I wonder what on demand services think about this idea. On the one hand: more
supply of gig workers. On the other hand: People who are forced to work in
jobs (or gigs) they didn't choose voluntary might not be the best way to
ensure good service quality for customers.

------
firstworldman
Oh cool! Another dystopian policy idea! My first thought was, doesn't the
person advocating for this realize they are rooting for the bad guys in the
film? Then I realized, in science fiction, the bad guys often don't realize
they're the bad guys. They are industrialists, or wayward idealists, or Ayn
Randian capitalists. They are made villains by their philosophical tunnel
vision and the belief that money is more important than human suffering.

------
wollstonecraft
[http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

------
bluedino
This truly does enslave the lower class. I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal
but this just trivializes everything they do.

------
jefe_
At least we've got a killer army.

------
rogersmith
Soon in a neo-liberalist paradise near you:

\- Uber for law enforcement \- Uber for constitutional rights

