Japan: Welfare payments to be slashed ¥74 billion to root out the comfortably poor

[^_^ 5,021]

Welfare benefits will be slashed by ¥74 billion over a three-year period starting from fiscal 2013, after a government panel found that some people are making more on the dole than the average low-income person who is not spends on living costs, it was learned Sunday.

The decision to lower standard benefit payments by 6.5 percent was made by welfare minister Norihisa Tamura and Finance Minister Taro Aso. The reduction will hit in August.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/28/national/welfare-payments-to-be-slashed-%C2%A574-billion-to-root-out-the-comfortably-poor/#.UQbCj799LpX

[catknit 144]

When you say "welfare" - what programs are you talking about specifically? TANF [cash assistance] or food stamps or section 8 housing or ssdi??? Plus, a lot of the programs here in the US are block grants where the actual amounts of money are set up by the state/intra-state region - not federally as it appears is happening in Japan [unless they also use a block grant style system - they do mention in the article an "area of residency" component].

Because I take all P&R polls quite seriously , my answer would depend on that...

[^_^ 5,021]

When you say "welfare" - what programs are you talking about specifically? TANF [cash assistance] or food stamps or section 8 housing or ssdi??? Plus, a lot of the programs here in the US are block grants where the actual amounts of money are set up by the state/intra-state region - not federally as it appears is happening in Japan [unless they also use a block grant style system - they do mention in the article an "area of residency" component].

Because I take all P&R polls quite seriously , my answer would depend on that...

Pick any program you like and imagine an across the board % payments cut. Would you support that?

Personally, I think an across the board cut has the advantage that you can't "game" it but the disadvantage of being thoughtless.

[catknit 144]

I agree with you that cuts can be "gamed" in a ton of ways but across the board cuts can be thoughtless.

Now that I'm working in a much more social services type job instead of a corp type job, I see stupid stuff all over the place that angers me but being in a not-for-profit/social services agency there is an across the board acceptance of crazy for certain things.

We don't have the capability to say no to some scenarios legally even though a more fiscally-minded for profit business would, without a doubt, say "no, we don't service your area" [rural area - we have a transportation system, if someone meets the criteria and it adds 40 miles to our daily run, we have to suck it up].

That said, there are things that we could control from a management side but are so entrenched in tradition and poor practices I want to bang my head against a wall at least 3 times a week.

A few cases in point - idling cars/vehicles. Seriously, everyone and their brother bitches about not getting raises or how we've closed down certain programs in our agency but the thought that having a 20-passenger van idle for an hour every afternoon waiting for the next group needed to take home doesn't cost something? How does that makes sense???

Burning gas = burning money [never mind the environmental effects]. Now, times that by 7 vans at 7 different sites. Every day. I know we aren't talking about tens of thousands of dollars worth of gas here, but every little bit counts. I don't think our transportation dude has ever really looked at the way people are picked up on the routes either. Adding an extra 20 miles a day 3-5 days a week - again stupid. However, I don't think the mentality [at least here and with my specific agency] is to find ways to work better/smarter, tradition and "well, that's how we do it" are ingrained like dna. Slowly - and I mean slowly - I'm making progress with management on what may be "better".

Sadly, what will happen with a major slashing of funding will be based, at least at in my experience where I'm currently working, is dropping whole programs from the budget instead of shrinking individual programs. The mentality has not been "learn to work the same for less" [beaten into me by working in the corporate world for 14 years] but how do I get $150,000 off the books by next quarter - oh look Program ASDF is $152,000, problem solved - shut it down.

This is similar to what I've heard time and again from other friends in social services, social workers, and other not-for-profit agencies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My take is this: Welfare should cover only the existential minimum and not a dime more. If that is the case and welfare is more generous than the lowest paying job then that would clearly indicate that the lowest paying job isn't paying enough. Every job should pay a living wage - i.e. pay more than what a person on welfare would receive. Not sure that you can push people under the existential minimum. Well, you can but that will increase cost elsewhere.

[^_^ 5,021]

Every job should pay a living wage - i.e. pay more than what a person on welfare would receive.

That strikes me as a curious way to define "living wage".

The more traditional definitions I've seen of "livable wage" have to do with costing a bare minimum basket of goods which typically include rent on a small apartment and healthy (but not lavish) food.

As for the concept that every job should pay a livable wage, I disagree. If a job only takes up 8 hours a day out of an individuals 24 hour day, there's no reason that 8 hour job should pay a livable wage. 50% of livable wage is sufficient and the individual can go get another 8 hour job to get the other 50%.

[Póg mo 1,749]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359398495' post='5945947]

Pick any program you like and imagine an across the board % payments cut. Would you support that?

Personally, I think an across the board cut has the advantage that you can't "game" it but the disadvantage of being thoughtless.

Cutting welfare while having a policy of encouraging inflation is a little cruel in my opinion.

[^_^ 5,021]

Cutting welfare while having a policy of encouraging inflation is a little cruel in my opinion.

Inflation reduces the real value of consumer debt. Which class of consumer does that benefit more?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359401462' post='5946036]That strikes me as a curious way to define "living wage".

The more traditional definitions I've seen of "livable wage" have to do with costing a bare minimum basket of goods which typically include rent on a small apartment and healthy (but not lavish) food.

As for the concept that every job should pay a livable wage, I disagree. If a job only takes up 8 hours a day out of an individuals 24 hour day, there's no reason that 8 hour job should pay a livable wage. 50% of livable wage is sufficient and the individual can go get another 8 hour job to get the other 50%.

I see that you are not a family values person. Too bad. I am and that is why I believe that an honest day of work - that would be an 8 hour work day - ought to pay a living wage. One should be able to work and have some time for one's family. Otherwise, we are saying that the family is no longer the bedrock of this nation.

And why is saying that "a job ought to pay more than welfare" is a curious way of defining a living wage. If welfare provides for the bare, existential minimum which it should then a living wage would be somewhere north of that. Nothing curious about it.

[^_^ 5,021]

I see that you are not a family values person. Too bad. I am and that is why I believe that an honest day of work - that would be an 8 hour work day - ought to pay a living wage. One should be able to work and have some time for one's family. Otherwise, we are saying that the family is no longer the bedrock of this nation.

Minimum wage jobs are no way to raise a family. If you're on minimum wage, your life should be uncomfortable enough where you have the incentive to go to college and/or get vocational training. I'd be supportive of a society that pays for all that but people on minimum wage must know their life sucks.

[catknit 144]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359401462' post='5946036]

That strikes me as a curious way to define "living wage".

The more traditional definitions I've seen of "livable wage" have to do with costing a bare minimum basket of goods which typically include rent on a small apartment and healthy (but not lavish) food.

As for the concept that every job should pay a livable wage, I disagree. If a job only takes up 8 hours a day out of an individuals 24 hour day, there's no reason that 8 hour job should pay a livable wage. 50% of livable wage is sufficient and the individual can go get another 8 hour job to get the other 50%.

That's nice in theory and may work with some types of employment. But, for those who do general labor it can be darn-near impossible to find the perfect match of 2 jobs that will mesh enough to make this work long term. There is a lot of shift work available in this area but the places that have those positions have, in general, significant travel time [25-35 minutes] between sites. You can't piggy back to shifts easily that way.

Another option that seems to work for some is providing in home care [babysitting or elder care] on your "off" shift. For example, you work 1st shift 6:30-2:45 at a plant then get home to meet the bus for your neighbor's kids and watch them while the neighbor and her husband work 2nd shift. That's all great and wonderful until your supervisor pulls mandatory OT on your department and you need to stay until 5. Or, you are told starting Monday, you're working nights...####### like that happens all the time in the large general labor sector here.

Those who are being paid more in more stable work environments [the local schools, hospital, library, for the county] are usually getting paid just enough to not need that second shift. And, if they do want to get ahead, their expectation of what their time is worth will most likely preclude them from taking the more flexible [care-taker] type positions.

I think if you really and truly need help [and there are a lot who do], they should be getting enough help to have a size appropriate place to stay [no shoe-horning a mom and 3 kids into a studio apartment], reasonable quality and quantity of food [part of this would be food/cooking education - SNAP is a nightmare of frozen pizzas and soda for too many families who then have nothing by the middle of the month], some general cash for non-food items [laundry detergent, soap, shampoo, feminine hygiene products, condoms, toilet paper - these are not covered by EBT/SNAP in VA at least], help with utilities and heat.

[Golden Gate 530]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359402652' post='5946075]

Minimum wage jobs are no way to raise a family. If you're on minimum wage, your life should be uncomfortable enough where you have the incentive to go to college and/or get vocational training. I'd be supportive of a society that pays for all that but people on minimum wage must know their life sucks.

That would be good if there were enough jobs upon graduating university to obtain a 'living wage' job and be able to pay back the loans you have to borrow to go to college in the first place, because on minimum wage it is impossible to have money to go to college or improve your life in this country, and probably you are almost like a zombie from the inanity of your work as well, especially if it is labor-intensive and monotonous, which makes improving your life doubly hard.

[Póg mo 1,749]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359401539' post='5946042]

Inflation reduces the real value of consumer debt. Which class of consumer does that benefit more?

The class that can take most advantage of an impoverished underclass I would guess!

[^_^ 5,021]

The class that can take most advantage of an impoverished underclass I would guess!

No, the class with the most debt as % of their income.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

We should cut cash payments by 100%. Let the churches and other NGO's get out there and take care of the poor and indigent without gouging the job creators.