The problem is one of real estate. Even in a moderately inexpensive place like Tucson, a studio is about 400 dollars a month. Split between three people, that's a little less than 150 a month. Food, at just above minimum, is 80 a month. (Food is more expensive in the southwest due to a lack of arable land.) Electricity should add about 10 bucks a month a person. Transportation will run 15 a month for bus due to subsidies. You'll be losing 3 hours a day to transport if you're unlucky, and the bus isn't wonderfully reliable, but let's go with it. (And a bike can cost more in repairs and you may just lose your job if you show up in the condition you'll be after biking in 100 degree heat.)
So, at your bare bottom essentials, you're looking at 260 a month, and hope you don't break an arm or have a life-threatening injury, because that's more money than you may make in a year.
That means, at a minimum, you would need to make ~3200 to survive. That assumes no crisis ever. And most importantly, that assumes no children. After all, you have no extra money for condoms or other birth control, and if you're raped, you have no money for an abortion.
And that's to live three to a studio eating a step above gruel. 3200 goes a heck of a lot further in India. We just can't compete.
But what we forget is that welfare isn't for the mother -- it's for the child. It's to make sure we don't have kids begging in the street rather than going to school, that we don't have emaciated children nutrient-deficient, lowering their IQs by nutrition -- no fault of their own. The question becomes, how do you make sure we establish a baseline for children so that those who have the ability to rise out even have a chance?
You are arguing against a straw man. I proposed replacing our current system of paying people not to work by an alternate system in which the government gives people a guaranteed job that provides the bare minimum essentials to live.
Under my proposal, there are no starving children. At most, their parents have a lower social status because they live in government issued dormitories and wear government issue grey sweatsuits. This gives the parents a social incentive to get a job with no deprivation.
As for my comparison to India, adjusted for purchasing power, the top 5% of India are poorer than the bottom 5% in the US. This accords very well with my anecdotal observations. I have far more sympathy for the Indian professional working 8-10 hours/day + 2-3 hours commute (who still can't afford AC or a car, unlike the poor American) than I do for a poor American sitting on the couch watching Jerry Springer.
What I'm saying is you can't compare dollar to dollar. Below $3000 in America, you're homeless or dependent on another's income in even an average city. If you're a skilled homesteader, you can get by in Wyoming on less, but at that point you need a piece of land to get started.
Yes, someone on welfare is doing pretty well by Indian standards, but that isn't available to people without children. Compare the homeless population, not someone on welfare.
PS -- I like the idea of infrastructure help for welfare, but what do we do with the 3 year old left alone at night so that mom can do janitorial work?
So, at your bare bottom essentials, you're looking at 260 a month, and hope you don't break an arm or have a life-threatening injury, because that's more money than you may make in a year.
That means, at a minimum, you would need to make ~3200 to survive. That assumes no crisis ever. And most importantly, that assumes no children. After all, you have no extra money for condoms or other birth control, and if you're raped, you have no money for an abortion.
And that's to live three to a studio eating a step above gruel. 3200 goes a heck of a lot further in India. We just can't compete.
But what we forget is that welfare isn't for the mother -- it's for the child. It's to make sure we don't have kids begging in the street rather than going to school, that we don't have emaciated children nutrient-deficient, lowering their IQs by nutrition -- no fault of their own. The question becomes, how do you make sure we establish a baseline for children so that those who have the ability to rise out even have a chance?