Quote:That's not what you said, you said that "When people leave the workforce and receive welfare that's actually an economic positive..." so I'll ask again do you really believe that?

 

what you just described is changing the way the system works, we can debate that all day, I'm asking about the comment you made stating welfare as an economic positive.

 

I just explained it, I'm sorry you didn't understand what I'm talking about.

 

When the labor force shrinks the price of the quantity of labor demanded necessarily increases, which has two effects.

 

First, it drives up wages for labor, which increases and distributes more widely spending power, and increased spending power creates a positive feedback loop that increases the marginal propensity to consume. In effect money given to people at the bottom of the labor force as the strongest stimulative effect on the economy.

 

Second, it increases the tax base. With wages increasing the federal tax base widens out, something Republicans claim they want.

 

Really, the only downside to a real social welfare system with no idiotic requirement to work or limit on benefits is the possibility of disenfranchisement for people who want to work but remain out of the labor pool for too long. Though I think adding more social welfare to make all public universities free to anyone straight up to PhD level would also fix that problem.

---