You do understand the point I'm trying to make: that there should be _some_ _significant_ economic incentive for people to get off welfare and on to work! Right now the incentive is minimal at best.
So how do you create the gradient that moves people off of welfare and on to jobs? You can either take away welfare benefits; or you can give much more rewards for working.
A third, mostly unexplored option, is to reduce the status/luxuries of people accepting welfare.
I.e., instead of receiving housing vouchers and money to buy food/clothing, they could receive dormitory rooms (no TV or XBox), healthy dormitory meals and government issued grey jumpsuits.
Under such a system, there would be a significant incentive to get a job and no one would go hungry.
Depends on what you mean by "abuse". Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, preferring to collect free money. That's not "abuse" in the sense that welfare rules allow people to do this, but it is behavior we should try to prevent.
Ultimately I favor eliminating welfare and replacing it with a guaranteed unskilled job having below market pay. That's the perfect way to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor - no work, no welfare.
I'm not sure how this relates to the republican platform - as far as I know, the two front runners (Romney and Santorum) are basically democrats on economic issues. But I haven't followed closely, so feel free to correct me.
I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that there has been no mention yet in these comments of Marshall Brain's story "Robotic Nation". It is a well-reasoned exploration of exactly this issue.
---------------------------------------------
The January 20, 2003 issue of Time magazine notes the trend:
"Cities have lost patience, concentrating on getting the homeless out of sight. In New York City, where shelter space can't be created fast enough, Mayor Mike Bloomberg has proposed using old cruise ships for housing."
This is not science fiction -- this is today's news. What we are talking about here are massive, government-controlled welfare dormitories keeping everyone who is unemployed "out of sight". ...
---------------------------------------------
He says there would be many sectors where human jobs are replaced. I'd say many sectors gone, completely. Who needs to go to a fast food restaurant when your robot can make it for you for... the price of bread? Who needs tax accountants when your computer can do it?
If you want to incentivize with $20 / hour minimum wage, you'd have to mandate hiring, or change the laws governing firing employees. Businesses would rebel against it immediately otherwise.
Bill Clinton & the Republicans worked together in the mid 1990s to successfully overhaul the existing welfare system by altering the terms of how you could get welfare and for how long and so on. Prior to that, the system was largely resulting in a stagnant perpetual welfare cycle, where people went in and never came out. It seemed to work great right up until the big economic implosion of the last few years.
As for the welfare reform: people route around obstacles. I think people have been able to game the current system too. "Disability" is one such option; claim a physical disability, and get $1000/month in disability payments (or that's what I've heard). Earned Income Credit is another such option.
My basic point is: just like in any learning algorithm, we need a gradient that will drive people in the right direction. The larger the gradient, the faster the movement. :)
Some stores on the margin will be driven bankrupt by the increased costs, and these stores will close up shop.