Must concede to gbajiFollow

Yes.

Except that unlike those other things (although I'd debate unions), the need for welfare was shrinking dramatically prior to its introduction. Real poverty had reduced dramatically in the 20 years prior to Johnson's "Great Society". Interestingly enough, within 5 years of passage of those laws, the trend shifted from steady reduction of real poverty to a leveling out of real poverty that has remained relatively constant since.

The actual data shows that it was gains in the economic status of the US as a whole that was lifting people out of poverty, and in fact, continued to lift them out. Poverty rates among married families has declined steadily (at a rate similar to those prior to the introduction of federal welfare programs). What happened is that the portion of single parent homes increased, and poverty rates among that group has increased over time. Welfare's primary contribution seems to have been to replace husbands with government assistance, which perversely increases the very "need" for welfare in the first place. Thus, creating a cycle of poverty that is extremely difficult to pull out of.

There is every indication that had we not implemented these programs, real poverty rates in the US would be much lower than they actually are. Self sufficiency would be much higher. Obviously, we can't know that for sure, but there's no indication that welfare at all helped contribute to a reduction in real poverty at all. At best, we can assume that poverty rates would have leveled out at current levels anyway and that welfare didn't hurt. But that's hardly a ringing endorsement.



Of course I acknowledge it. I said just a bit above that if wages were determined solely by the employer, everyone would be paid minimum wage. My argument is that in a free market, the employers can't get away with paying "slave wages" because the skilled workers would move to the employer who's willing to pay more. Apply this across the entire market, and this forces wages to be "fair" based on the actual value of any given workers labor contribution.

The problem with welfare is that it actually does allow people to "get away" with gaining far more economic benefit relative to their labor contribution. The worker no longer has to work more hours or perform higher skilled labor in order to gain the benefits of having done so. And so many will chose to do that minimum.

Exactly, silly you. It's in the constitution, which can and has never been changed in more than two hundred years.