So, I got in a conversation with someone I’m close to today, and
they went off on one of their predictable rants about welfare fraud.
Basically, they think that because they see people in the supermarket
filling up their carts full of food while talking on their cell phone
and wearing bling and having their nails done, that these guys are
obviously scamming the system and are not worthy of aid. They also made
generalizations about welfare and how so many people are taking
advantage of the system. He claimed the welfare fraud rate had to be
like 50%. I decided to spend some time earlier researching the truth
behind welfare fraud and the like, and felt like I should share the
results here.
Before we begin….anecdotes are flawed
Look, I studied social sciences in college. I know statistics. I know that there’s more that meets the eyes, and that sometimes personal experience is a faulty measure to acquire knowledge. People who tell these stories of perceived welfare fraud are talking strictly from their experiences. Experiences are subject to the biases of the observer, and are often far more limited than the full situation. If you want to understand the situation on a real big picture level, you need to know statistics. You have to know your experiences are not everyone’s experiences, and that there are serious limitations to them. You also have to know that you don’t know the whole story of the people you see. People like to look at others and judge based on a surface appearance of that person, without knowing anything about them or their situation. This leads to a lot of faulty judgments that confirm one’s biases, even if they are completely off base.
So what is the welfare fraud rate?
Well, the rate of intentional fraud is very low, probably around 2%. SNAP, the program this person was complaining about, has a fraud rate of 1% currently. However, the error rate of payouts in government programs can be higher, around 9% on average, but varying by program. This number is not just taking intentional fraud into consideration, but all errors, including ones that are totally the government’s fault. Some people get money they’re not supposed to, while others don’t get money they deserve. It happens, and generally the more complicated a program is and the harder it is to ascertain how much is owed, the more error there can be. SNAP, only has an error rate of 3.2%, which is very low. All things considered, these claims of welfare fraud, especially with food stamps, being widespread is completely bogus and not backed up by facts. At the very best it can be said that the true rate is not known because fraud goes undetected, but even then, the claim of 50% is outrageous. Even 10% would be ten times higher than what is reported, and at this point, it’s just unfounded speculation to begin with. There’s no evidence, just unfounded claims based on unreliable, unscientific anecdotes in which the person at hand does not have perfect information in the first place.
But they’re loading their carts full of groceries and spending hundreds of dollars!
SNAP gives a decent amount of money to people in need, but it’s not crazy or anything. The idea of a $400-500 grocery bill is not TOO outrageous, but it should be noted this is likely all a family of 3 would be buying for a whole month. For a larger family, this could be a biweekly thing, with them having $1000 a month or so to feed a family of six or seven. This is not outrageous at all considering how much things cost for a family that large. The fact is, people don’t know how often these guys go shopping or how much money they have or how many mouths are being fed. They just assume that they’re ripping off the system by getting hundreds of dollars and spending it. This is why making snap judgments and assumptions of people you see in public is an awful idea. You don’t know their situation.
But what about cell phones?
Well, if you’re eligible for food stamps, you’re probably eligible for an “Obamaphone”. You see, the government provides free/low cost cell phones to those who are in poverty, because these phones are a 21st century necessity to get jobs and stay in touch with the world. And despite the name, Obama didn’t even come up with the idea. The original idea was implemented under Reagan for landline phones and supported and expanded by many presidents previous to Obama. That being said, seeing someone on food stamps with a cell phone isn’t too strange. This is even true if it’s a smart phone. Some carriers like Budget Mobile provide smart phones under the program. Now, I’ve heard the people making these accusations claim they saw then with an Iphone 6, which does sound excessive for a free government provided phone, but there’s no guarantee that they even got it under the Obamaphone program. Maybe they got it when they worked, or from an employed relative. Again, there are so many unknowns here and it’s just flat out wrong to go around making snap judgments of people you don’t know anything about. For all I know it wasn’t even an iphone 6! it could’ve been some old iphone 4 that they gave them as part of the program. Who knows. There are too many unknowns.
But bling! And nails!
I brought this up to someone else and their first response was “I didn’t know pyrite and plastic was so expensive”, implying that their bling is likely fake. This is very possible. There is a lot of fake jewelry out there that looks real enough to the common observer, but is actually about as fake as a three dollar bill. Getting your nails done might only cost $10 or so. They might’ve done it before getting on the program, or maybe they spent a little money to make themselves a little fancy.
Now, one legitimate point
This person discussed one legitimate point. Someone who was recently let go from their company tried to get on food stamps and could only get $16, I’m guessing because their last month’s income was influenced by still having a job. In light of all this, they were dumbfounded. It’s a common refrain among conservative types. They complain about how the system doesn’t work for them or people they know but then they see others “exploiting” it. Well, the fact is, in many cases, the people who get those benefits are way worse off than those complaining about them all things considered. Our safety net is extremely limited in the help it provides, and extremely coercive. They don’t want people on benefits for long. They want to kick them off as soon as possible, which puts intense pressure and stress on the person getting them. They don’t provide cash in many situations, but limited aid redeemable only in certain forms, like food stamps and housing vouchers. And as the story of this person applying points out, sometimes the means testing is strict, making it extremely difficult to get on in the first place. And honestly, despite trying to push people off of them, getting ahead is punished. Some programs have strict asset limits. Some claw back benefits in ways that make people worse off than before if they try to work. It’s broken, it’s broken, it’s broken. I know this.
Honestly, this is yet another reason why I’m so gung ho on the universal basic income idea I’ve mentioned here a couple times (get used to it, I love this idea and believe it would be the largest single step we could take toward fixing capitalism). By making the program universal, the whole conservative argument of the programs not benefiting them is detoothed. When everyone gets benefits, and everyone is treated the same in a transparent manner, where it’s quite clear everyone is following the same rules, and there’s no fraud going on, then people will be less likely to complain about it. It sucks to think that you’re paying in all these tax dollars to programs that don’t benefit you, but reward people who cheat the system. However, if the system were simpler, more open, more transparent, and had a decent claw back structure, this division between the middle and lower classes would vanish, as both would benefit from the same programs. Look at all the conservatives flocking to Trump. Trump seems to talk a lot about cutting welfare fraud and abuse, but he also seems very intent on preserving social security without benefit cuts or age increases, a program his voting base sees the clear benefits of. So, maybe we should move to a guaranteed income. It would likely cause a lot less complaining about how unfair the system is, and on top of it, it would make a more fair, less coercive system in the first place. Just my opinion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, much of the opposition to welfare, and the accusations of widespread fraud among conservatives is very overblown. Cited fraud and error statistics show that the actual rates of abuse are very low. Moreover, many of these people make all kinds of snap judgments about people when they don’t understand their situation at all. Anecdotal evidence based on incomplete information is very unreliable, and leads to the viewer seeing what they want or expect to see. Only through rigorous scientific approachesand statistics can we get to the truth, and the truth is that so many of these claims are unsubstantiated. Moreover, what we do know seems to contradict these narratives, or explain them in an alternate context that makes more sense. So please, next time you go to the supermarket and see people loading up their carts while talking on their cell phones and paying with food stamps, recognize that you don’t know anything about this person and that any negative image that pops into your head is likely fundamentally misjudging the situation.
Before we begin….anecdotes are flawed
Look, I studied social sciences in college. I know statistics. I know that there’s more that meets the eyes, and that sometimes personal experience is a faulty measure to acquire knowledge. People who tell these stories of perceived welfare fraud are talking strictly from their experiences. Experiences are subject to the biases of the observer, and are often far more limited than the full situation. If you want to understand the situation on a real big picture level, you need to know statistics. You have to know your experiences are not everyone’s experiences, and that there are serious limitations to them. You also have to know that you don’t know the whole story of the people you see. People like to look at others and judge based on a surface appearance of that person, without knowing anything about them or their situation. This leads to a lot of faulty judgments that confirm one’s biases, even if they are completely off base.
So what is the welfare fraud rate?
Well, the rate of intentional fraud is very low, probably around 2%. SNAP, the program this person was complaining about, has a fraud rate of 1% currently. However, the error rate of payouts in government programs can be higher, around 9% on average, but varying by program. This number is not just taking intentional fraud into consideration, but all errors, including ones that are totally the government’s fault. Some people get money they’re not supposed to, while others don’t get money they deserve. It happens, and generally the more complicated a program is and the harder it is to ascertain how much is owed, the more error there can be. SNAP, only has an error rate of 3.2%, which is very low. All things considered, these claims of welfare fraud, especially with food stamps, being widespread is completely bogus and not backed up by facts. At the very best it can be said that the true rate is not known because fraud goes undetected, but even then, the claim of 50% is outrageous. Even 10% would be ten times higher than what is reported, and at this point, it’s just unfounded speculation to begin with. There’s no evidence, just unfounded claims based on unreliable, unscientific anecdotes in which the person at hand does not have perfect information in the first place.
But they’re loading their carts full of groceries and spending hundreds of dollars!
SNAP gives a decent amount of money to people in need, but it’s not crazy or anything. The idea of a $400-500 grocery bill is not TOO outrageous, but it should be noted this is likely all a family of 3 would be buying for a whole month. For a larger family, this could be a biweekly thing, with them having $1000 a month or so to feed a family of six or seven. This is not outrageous at all considering how much things cost for a family that large. The fact is, people don’t know how often these guys go shopping or how much money they have or how many mouths are being fed. They just assume that they’re ripping off the system by getting hundreds of dollars and spending it. This is why making snap judgments and assumptions of people you see in public is an awful idea. You don’t know their situation.
But what about cell phones?
Well, if you’re eligible for food stamps, you’re probably eligible for an “Obamaphone”. You see, the government provides free/low cost cell phones to those who are in poverty, because these phones are a 21st century necessity to get jobs and stay in touch with the world. And despite the name, Obama didn’t even come up with the idea. The original idea was implemented under Reagan for landline phones and supported and expanded by many presidents previous to Obama. That being said, seeing someone on food stamps with a cell phone isn’t too strange. This is even true if it’s a smart phone. Some carriers like Budget Mobile provide smart phones under the program. Now, I’ve heard the people making these accusations claim they saw then with an Iphone 6, which does sound excessive for a free government provided phone, but there’s no guarantee that they even got it under the Obamaphone program. Maybe they got it when they worked, or from an employed relative. Again, there are so many unknowns here and it’s just flat out wrong to go around making snap judgments of people you don’t know anything about. For all I know it wasn’t even an iphone 6! it could’ve been some old iphone 4 that they gave them as part of the program. Who knows. There are too many unknowns.
But bling! And nails!
I brought this up to someone else and their first response was “I didn’t know pyrite and plastic was so expensive”, implying that their bling is likely fake. This is very possible. There is a lot of fake jewelry out there that looks real enough to the common observer, but is actually about as fake as a three dollar bill. Getting your nails done might only cost $10 or so. They might’ve done it before getting on the program, or maybe they spent a little money to make themselves a little fancy.
Now, one legitimate point
This person discussed one legitimate point. Someone who was recently let go from their company tried to get on food stamps and could only get $16, I’m guessing because their last month’s income was influenced by still having a job. In light of all this, they were dumbfounded. It’s a common refrain among conservative types. They complain about how the system doesn’t work for them or people they know but then they see others “exploiting” it. Well, the fact is, in many cases, the people who get those benefits are way worse off than those complaining about them all things considered. Our safety net is extremely limited in the help it provides, and extremely coercive. They don’t want people on benefits for long. They want to kick them off as soon as possible, which puts intense pressure and stress on the person getting them. They don’t provide cash in many situations, but limited aid redeemable only in certain forms, like food stamps and housing vouchers. And as the story of this person applying points out, sometimes the means testing is strict, making it extremely difficult to get on in the first place. And honestly, despite trying to push people off of them, getting ahead is punished. Some programs have strict asset limits. Some claw back benefits in ways that make people worse off than before if they try to work. It’s broken, it’s broken, it’s broken. I know this.
Honestly, this is yet another reason why I’m so gung ho on the universal basic income idea I’ve mentioned here a couple times (get used to it, I love this idea and believe it would be the largest single step we could take toward fixing capitalism). By making the program universal, the whole conservative argument of the programs not benefiting them is detoothed. When everyone gets benefits, and everyone is treated the same in a transparent manner, where it’s quite clear everyone is following the same rules, and there’s no fraud going on, then people will be less likely to complain about it. It sucks to think that you’re paying in all these tax dollars to programs that don’t benefit you, but reward people who cheat the system. However, if the system were simpler, more open, more transparent, and had a decent claw back structure, this division between the middle and lower classes would vanish, as both would benefit from the same programs. Look at all the conservatives flocking to Trump. Trump seems to talk a lot about cutting welfare fraud and abuse, but he also seems very intent on preserving social security without benefit cuts or age increases, a program his voting base sees the clear benefits of. So, maybe we should move to a guaranteed income. It would likely cause a lot less complaining about how unfair the system is, and on top of it, it would make a more fair, less coercive system in the first place. Just my opinion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, much of the opposition to welfare, and the accusations of widespread fraud among conservatives is very overblown. Cited fraud and error statistics show that the actual rates of abuse are very low. Moreover, many of these people make all kinds of snap judgments about people when they don’t understand their situation at all. Anecdotal evidence based on incomplete information is very unreliable, and leads to the viewer seeing what they want or expect to see. Only through rigorous scientific approachesand statistics can we get to the truth, and the truth is that so many of these claims are unsubstantiated. Moreover, what we do know seems to contradict these narratives, or explain them in an alternate context that makes more sense. So please, next time you go to the supermarket and see people loading up their carts while talking on their cell phones and paying with food stamps, recognize that you don’t know anything about this person and that any negative image that pops into your head is likely fundamentally misjudging the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment