You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time. About 37 million Americans do.
For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week).
This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts.
You can read about this group of people, their lifestyle and their choices here:
There are not 37 million people collecting welfare. Go look at some budget graphics, welfare and human services are a tiny, tiny slice of our budget. It's a small dividend that they're getting.
(FYI: For things regarding welfare, do not read heritage unless you're applying a skeptical eye. Everyone has an agenda, but their entire purpose of being is an agenda.)
Neither I, nor the article, made the claim that there are 37 million people collecting welfare. Perhaps you should read sources before declaring them incorrect?
Incidentally, this article is simply an aggregations of statistics available from various government sources (e.g., census, BLS). Regardless of their agenda, their facts seem well supported.
The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth.
"Average poor american has bigger living arrangements than the average Paris resident" -- really? The average subsistence farmer has bigger living arrangements than the average Manhattan banker, as well.
The US is a very capitalistic country (in a good way) and we have very little in the way of social welfare (in a sometimes inefficient way) -- being poor here isn't easy, even if it's not an automatic death sentence.
I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why?
What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than those Manhattan bankers, judging by waistlines), a car to drive and all sorts of household appliances. In short, the poor have all their material needs met, and they manage this with only 16 hours of work/week.
In fact, the article shows that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of the recent past. In short, you can take the modern era's productivity gains and spend it on leisure rather than material wealth. Millions of people already do so.
Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have families.
What I consider "ridiculous" about the statistics is that they aren't indicators of anything -- they're just ways of slicing things so that they appeal to the mindset I described above. In reality, many of these people keep trying harder and harder but good jobs are fewer and farther between -- not everybody is in technology or the service economy.
Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below).
Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year.
As for the statistics given in my previous source, they are indicators of the fact that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of recent history. All of which proves my original point: "You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time."
Do you honestly believe that this whole group of people is out there, kicking back, and content/happy about not having productive employment?
I mean, I'm sure there are some, but you really think that, let's say, a majority of the people you're painting with this brush are saying to themselves "yeah man, why get a job, it's not like I'm gonna starve to death"? What % of the poor would you say they are, ballpark? Honest question, or if you'd prefer, how else am I missing your point?
I have no idea if they are content and happy. I never claimed that using productivity gains for leisure would make anyone happy, I just claimed it's possible to do without serious material suffering.
But the fact that 80% of the poor are not even looking for a job suggests they are not that unhappy about lacking productive employment.
For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week).
This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts.
You can read about this group of people, their lifestyle and their choices here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm