Welfare recipients to be drug tested

Part of the point of this is to make welfare less comfortable, in hopes that it will encourage people to get off welfare faster. If you don't like being subjected to regular drug tests, you can get a job that doesn't require testing and get off welfare.

As long as you are being supported directly by the state you are subject to whatever rules the state decides.

And for comparison, military members are subject to random drug tests at any time. They are always tested at least once per year, randomly throughout the year and sometimes called in on evenings and weekends for testing as well.

If the government can put a requirement like that on people who are actually working for the money they receive, can't they do the same for people who are collecting money without working?

 

what is the unemployment rate in these places?

and what factors influence the unemployment rate?

 

Also a lot of state/gov employees are subjected to randoms. Especially high risk jobs and drivers/operators. Gov/taxpayers money=elected officials/politicians rules.

 

What does that have to do with requirements to accept welfare?

 

someone said these people should get jobs.

are there plenty of jobs?

 

I was only able to find references for about 2,000 unfilled positions in Florida, but I didn't try hard.

Either way, shouldn't the people taking free money from the government be under requirements at least as stringent as the people who are being paid by the government for working?

 

I take a pretty dim view of drug taking in general, however you have to recognise that many people who rely on income support have a whole range of issues, including quite serious mental health issues.

many of these people may be self medicating with illicit drugs.

while I agree that one of the best roads to better mental health is having stable employment, often a person in this situation may not find it easy to get a job, both because they are not psychologically able to cope without support in making the transition - but also because the employer is often unwilling to give them a go (this is often quite understandable. I have certainly come across people who, no matter how much I think they may benefit from a steady job, I recognise that it would be risky to take them on - and wouldn't employ them myself).

 

I agree that drug testing is a violation of the right to privacy.

Welfare is the last line before destitutution- and they know it.

Those who milk the system know that without that welfare check, they're homeless.

As drug users as they may be- this is the contract between America and the welfare recipient... they know the line.

 

I fail to see how implementing drug test will solve the problem of homelessness or joblessness where the participants involved can't be "handed" jobs by the government, but, apparently, can be denied and disparaged in their privileges and immunities via arbitrary command economics by republicans claiming that Captialism and free trade works better that communism or socialism.

We don't do what you suggest for corporate welfare recipients who are not in official poverty and can afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory, and even qualify for multimillion dollar bonuses; so why should it be considered any better if a person who is not gauranteed a job should be gauranteed a drug test for being on welfare under our current regime, even in a "right to work" State.

 

In many cases, these people have paid into the system, so in essence, its not free.

 

I don't quite understand your point here, but the underlying fact is doing drugs does not make you productive, and hinders your participation in a capitalist market.

What I suggest? I don't remember supporting corporate welfare at any point. Anyway, test them too, I don't care. If they're responsible for government money you're (*)(*)(*)(*) right they shouldn't be high.

 

Why not simply provide recourse to unemployment compensation on the same at-will basis as employment relationships, and not need to worry about whether people on means tested welfare use drugs or not? Less efficient labor market participants may opt to not provide labor input and self-select themselves, saving that cost to an employer.

By solving official poverty, drug abuse can be viewed as a potentially rational addiction and less desirable rational choice by any given market participant.

If a person cannot claim to be in official poverty, what excuse could an individual have to not use their income, for seeking help or treatment and become more productive in the market for labor by commanding and earning a prevailing, market based wage, on an at-will basis, in our money based, mixed market, political economy?

 

No matter what though, if they are getting free money, which is only given with the intention to get them on their feet, they should be doing everything they can to be as productive as possible and get off of that free money.

Of course, in a regular market one can choose to do whatever they want.

 

Those are the drug tests I faked.

The problem there is that marijuana can stay in your system up to a month and a half. If you don't know that far in advance, it's walk around with a condom full of urine in your pants or go to jail. If you were in this situation, I can easily tell you which one you would pick.

 

is this illegal where you are?

some people use this stuff instead now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabis

there are also a range of techniques for masking other substances, which enable drug users to pass urine tests quite easily, but which would not be effective if more thorough testing was undertaken.

not that I would encourage anyone - but that kind of information is out there.

 

A minimum wage via public sector intervention in the market for labor can correct for the market based inefficiency of a natural unemployment rate. It would be up to a potential labor market participant to utilize that money to best promote their general welfare; why do you believe we would be better off with free laws that only deny and disparage individual liberty, shouldn't people be trying to get off that, with even more effort?

 

The easier you make it to get on and stay on the dole, the less likely they are to put forth the effort needed to get off the dole.

 

You may be stereotyping less efficient public policy decisions with a public policy choice that could ensure full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Why do you believe that a person with recourse to unemployment compensation in the form of a minimum wage that pays people to not provide labor input to the economy would not act just like any other market based metric in our mixed-market political-economy? It would be analogous to claiming that most people would not want to earn a prevailing, market based wage if they could command one, if they are currently earning only a minimum wage now.

 

Most people already work hard, get educated and command a wage far higher than minimum wage. Only a tiny minority of Americans live off the dole and that is the group we are talking about.

That group has the opportunity to get GED training and a GED for free, yet many choose not to, even though they know that doing so will give them a chance to improve their income.

That group has the opportunity for free technical training, college, and job placement programs, yet they choose not to do so, even though they know that it would improve their income.

That group of people has shown repeatedly that they would rather sit at home and collect a tiny paycheck than work to better themselves and collect a bigger paycheck.

The majority of our society seems to be willing to work to better themselves, but that majority isn't who this program would affect. This program would target the people who seem content with the tiny dole they currently get. How would providing more money easier encourage these people to better themselves?

 

How does everything you mentioned, account for a natural unemployment rate?

Even a republic which only engedered a populace with doctorates would still not eliminate poverty through market friendly means, if there is a natural rate of unemployment.

From a philosophical perspective, I subscribe to the belief that a social safety net should end when it is no longer required. A dole system that pays individuals a minimum wage to be couch potatotes on the same at-will basis as employment relationships would only engeder poverty on that same at-will basis unless it meets or beats official poverty guidlines. Why do you believe that a person would want to forego a prevailing, market based wage through labor input to the economy, for a minimum wage to not provide labor input to the economy as an opportunity costs?

In any event, generational forms of poverty would only be accomplished on the same at-will basis as employment relationships. Other than religous forms of poverty, can you explain how or why a person would want to convince a family member to stay in poverty, merely to obtain a minimum wage as a dole?

 

But a company would have to exceed the dole amount by enough to push people to get off the couch and work. A minimum income level for not working pushes the minimum wage up even farther to get people to work and does nothing to get the welfare class working. All it does is encourage more people to go on the dole.

 

And I know people who have gone straight to jail failing drug tests.

Yeah, I'd pick the not smoke marijuana one.

 

The best way to get rid of poverty is to make it uncomfortable.

Basically. It's like being a kid, you get taken care of but you better follow the rules. This is tough love.

 

I am not sure I understand your point.

 

Quote:
In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

Source: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20060621/

"2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives"

two things; I doubt most ceo's, especially the top paid ones, only work 260 days out of the year,
second, this article is misleading a bit. top paid as in the top 10? 5? 2???
not that any of this has to do with welfare recipients having to take drug tests.