January 15, 2013
It's better for Americans to be on welfare rather than to be employed! Who would have thunk it?
It's better for Americans to be on welfare rather than to be employed! Who would have thunk it?
If you made it past the title, you're probably either
1) familiar enough with my writing to know that it's typical of me to make surprising, well-supported claims
or
2) wondering what kind of commentary could possible accompany such a bizarre title!
Well, I can tell you that I will support my claim. Easily.
The question: Is America better off economically by having a greater proportion of its population working or is it better off by having a greater proportion of its population receiving welfare?
Receiving welfare! It's a no brainer; here's why:
Among Americans who choose to work, many of them would end up working for a corporation that hires foreign workers to manufacture their products. The result is a drain of wealth from America, since the wages are going to workers in foreign countries, rather than to Americans.
So, when an American chooses to work for such a company, they are increasing, not decreasing, the drain of wealth from America.
In contrast, Americans on welfare don't drain money from the country at all. The welfare funds are simply transferred from some Americans (taxpayers) to other Americans (welfare recipients).
It doesn't matter how little a corporation pays a foreign worker...even if only 1% of revenue is allocated to paying foreign workers, that's still 1% that's leaving the country.
In contrast, it doesn't matter how great of an amount is paid to welfare recipients. 100% of the money stays within the country, so there's no drain of wealth at all.
So, given the structure of America's workforce, America would be better off economically if a larger proportion of its population were on welfare!
1) familiar enough with my writing to know that it's typical of me to make surprising, well-supported claims
or
2) wondering what kind of commentary could possible accompany such a bizarre title!
Well, I can tell you that I will support my claim. Easily.
The question: Is America better off economically by having a greater proportion of its population working or is it better off by having a greater proportion of its population receiving welfare?
Receiving welfare! It's a no brainer; here's why:
Among Americans who choose to work, many of them would end up working for a corporation that hires foreign workers to manufacture their products. The result is a drain of wealth from America, since the wages are going to workers in foreign countries, rather than to Americans.
So, when an American chooses to work for such a company, they are increasing, not decreasing, the drain of wealth from America.
In contrast, Americans on welfare don't drain money from the country at all. The welfare funds are simply transferred from some Americans (taxpayers) to other Americans (welfare recipients).
It doesn't matter how little a corporation pays a foreign worker...even if only 1% of revenue is allocated to paying foreign workers, that's still 1% that's leaving the country.
In contrast, it doesn't matter how great of an amount is paid to welfare recipients. 100% of the money stays within the country, so there's no drain of wealth at all.
So, given the structure of America's workforce, America would be better off economically if a larger proportion of its population were on welfare!
Who Would Have Thunk It?
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...