WWYD

[Belle]

Originally Posted by Hungry Caterpillar Yes, that. I don't understand when people say that the "extra" amount above the deduction in aid "isn't worth their time" or is too paltry of an amount. Any amount over the wash-out amount with assistance should be an acceptable amount worth your time.

I sort of understand it, the welfare "cliff" is very real and is actually a real discouraging thing to a lot of people. If someone views the "extra" income as equivalent to $2.50/hour instead of the actual payment they are getting, and they view what they receive in assistance as equivalent to wages earned, then it is going to be very hard for someone to see the value in working more and "earning" less. This chart sort of explains why.

[happysmileylady]

I was all set to say no until I saw that you are talking about a NET increase of $200, after losing government aid AND paying for gas. For a net increase of that amount, ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY. ESPECIALLY when it means being off government aid. 1000% yes. When in a situation where you are receiving government aid, all increases are good, and just getting started making those increases is a great step to getting more of them. Not accepting the opportunities to increase income really just results in continuing to stagnate on government aid.

[MamaJules]

Originally Posted by Belle I sort of understand it, the welfare "cliff" is very real and is actually a real discouraging thing to a lot of people. If someone views the "extra" income as equivalent to $2.50/hour instead of the actual payment they are getting, and they view what they receive in assistance as equivalent to wages earned, then it is going to be very hard for someone to see the value in working more and "earning" less. This chart sort of explains why.

Unfortunately, that is all too true. And that is exactly what is wrong with our government assistance programs here in the US. For too many, there is little incentive to get off of assistance.

But to answer the question, I would need more details to say for sure, but would lean towards yes. 20 hours a week is very doable for most people.

[Hungry Caterpillar]

Originally Posted by Belle I sort of understand it, the welfare "cliff" is very real and is actually a real discouraging thing to a lot of people. If someone views the "extra" income as equivalent to $2.50/hour instead of the actual payment they are getting, and they view what they receive in assistance as equivalent to wages earned, then it is going to be very hard for someone to see the value in working more and "earning" less. This chart sort of explains why.

Yes, you are correct. I misspoke. I suppose I don't mean that I don't understand if their view is predicated on viewing it as the actual payment or the additional payment.

If unemployment is the assistance, they are supposed to be spending something like 40 hours per week looking for a job, so it's not like going from zero time working/looking to working. If it's simply TANF/etc with someone already with a job and this is another job, the extra 20 hours per week is like picking up a part time job, which is reasonable, lots of people do this. I am assuming that the idea is that there is no work happening right now, and this NET increase in $200 is working either part time as a single job, or part time as a second job. I honestly feel either are reasonable.

I'm very liberal. I argue all the time on DS for the necessity for social programs, assistance programs and I am a happy taxpayer, so this is definitely not any bash on anyone being on these programs. My personal view is that anything over the amount given by assistance is more money than you have without assistance, and with any NET increase, it means more money for the family. In cases where working full time only nets something like $50 or less I can see an argument to not work. But, this is $200 which if on assistance could be a lot of money - that's half my grocery budget for the month.

I thought about going back to work earlier, and here's how it breaks down in my area, in my situation for full time, with fairly high earning potential and this really blew me away --

I can earn $30 per hour going back to my old job with a slight demotion after being out of work for two years, and this would be full time.
$240 per day
approx 1/3 to taxes
$160 after taxes
childcare $80 per day here
$80 after childcare
My job is 40 miles away, my current car is 15 miles per gallon highway
Gas is $4.50 here per gallon
$4.50 per gallon at 15 MPG, going 80 miles per day is $24 in gas (30 cents/mile)
$56 after that per day
My $30 per hour turns out to $7 per hour when you factor all that in, which is a net of $560 per 80 hours worked

That doesn't factor in that none of my size 0 corporate clothes would fit me anymore since I chunked up pregnant, lunch, random other things that happen because I work and cannot take care of the home, no benefits needed because we are on my husband's, etc etc. But, I am not on assistance so this is extra money, truly extra. I hold no moral obligation to at least attempt to get off it. I'm not trying to be a jerk at all, I just feel that if you have the chance to make extra, it's extra money for your family and less money from the government, which is not sustainable to continually give out when someone is able to work and make more than assistance. $200 is not a paltry amount.

I understand your chart, and I am thankful that you found it to put up here because it's a great visual way to understand the issues. But, just because assistance and the difficulties psychologically and monetarily in getting off it are there doesn't mean we can just decide that $200 is not "worth it." JMHO

Also - if the net after childcare, taxes, gas, and all that is $2.50 per hour, in my situation that would be in the mid-teens dollars per hour, which is a crazy thing to turn down. Of course I have no idea what the childcare or gas costs are where OP lives, but would you tell someone to not take a $15 per hour job because the end isn't worth it?

($15 per hour, after taxes say $11.50 per hour, childcare lower cost of living $40 per day, after childcare $6.50 per hour, after gas costs let's say $3.50 per hour or $280 for 80 hours. What's the national average wage, it can't be more than $15 per hour?)

I'm hopped up on Sudafed and I may have some faulty math there, if so please let me know gently, we are dealing with ear infections all around here.

Again, the whole reason for this looong post is to put it into perspective. A net amount can look like not that much but translate into quite a bit of per hour wage before all the stuff is taken out. Where do we draw the line at "go work" or "nah, not worth it" when the wage needs to be SO high to achieve "Worth it?"

The system may be messed up, but people not working isn't going to change that.

[Belle]

Originally Posted by Hungry Caterpillar just because assistance and the difficulties psychologically and monetarily in getting off it are there doesn't mean we can just decide that $200 is not "worth it."

I don't know if your whole post was directed at me, but I totally agree with this (and pretty much everything you wrote, aside from being pretty liberal -- I'm definitely not! ). I just put the chart up to say that even if I don't agree with it, I understand why people find it so hard to want to work if there's that huge gap there where they could be making more not taking the job.

ETA: I'm totally hoping that the way the OP worded the question and failed to mention/edited out the part about assistance is the reason the poll results skew the way they do...otherwise I'm going to be very sad.

[Hungry Caterpillar]

Originally Posted by Belle I don't know if your whole post was directed at me, but I totally agree with this (and pretty much everything you wrote, aside from being pretty liberal -- I'm definitely not! ). I just put the chart up to say that even if I don't agree with it, I understand why people find it so hard to want to work if there's that huge gap there where they could be making more not taking the job. ETA: I'm totally hoping that the way the OP worded the question and failed to mention/edited out the part about assistance is the reason the poll results skew the way they do...otherwise I'm going to be very sad.

No not directed at you in whole I'm seriously on my third day of Sudafed so I quoted you and then feverishly typed. And I understand the psychology, I do! The whole thing is a mess. I was just trying to put that mess into perspective with numbers.

[Rdesonia]

A person *might* qualify for what is called "transitional" assistance. This is a partial assistance ... so they might get free daycare at an income level where they qualify for food stamps & once they get off food stamps, they qualify for 18 months of partially paid daycare. State insurance is also like this. Often a child will be covered for 6 to 18 months after the parents no longer financially qualify for the program.

I think the OP should check with their case worker to see if there are any transitional benefits that would come into play if they increased their income. They might be surprised at what services they can receive temporarily while they transition from assistance to living on wages.

[umphreysmommy]

Originally Posted by Belle I don't know if your whole post was directed at me, but I totally agree with this (and pretty much everything you wrote, aside from being pretty liberal -- I'm definitely not! ). I just put the chart up to say that even if I don't agree with it, I understand why people find it so hard to want to work if there's that huge gap there where they could be making more not taking the job. ETA: I'm totally hoping that the way the OP worded the question and failed to mention/edited out the part about assistance is the reason the poll results skew the way they do...otherwise I'm going to be very sad.

Yes. I voted no but didn't understand it was a NET increase and removing government dependency. My answer is now YES I would take the job but can't change my vote.

[ulawolf]

If it gets you off assistance and you don't lose $ I say yes.

[pinktoes]

Originally Posted by Hungry Caterpillar Yes, that. I don't understand when people say that the "extra" amount above the deduction in aid "isn't worth their time" or is too paltry of an amount. Any amount over the wash-out amount with assistance should be an acceptable amount worth your time.

This