Actually there is contrary evidence. A study was carried out on the streets of London where they gave larger sums of cash no-strings-attached, and it showed that people in general took that money and used it to set themselves up in a job. One started a gardening business, for instance [0]. The idea that work is what people need is very Victorian, and reminds me of the tread-mill in the workhouse. Surely we should be looking for ways to remove the tyranny of physical labour. I most certainly do not need to be working in a regular job to feel successful.
On the matter of terminology the poverty trap as I have seen it looks very different. There is a trap that means in the UK if I am out of work I can get job-seekers allowance and housing benefit and child benefit. If I can find a single days work I lose all of it (although I may get some working tax credit it will not cover the loss), so anything other than a full time job has to be avoided at all costs. That is the poverty trap, benefits systems that penalise attempts to get off them.
> If I can find a single days work I lose all of it.
I can't speak to social programs outside of the US, but here, most of our programs (SNAP, Section-8, unemployment benefits) are on a sliding scale. This allows for benefits to somewhat decrease as earnings increase.
That said, I anecdotally have noticed a couple things:
1. Many low income people actually aspire to be accepted into these programs, especially Section-8 (US housing assistance).
2. Once people are accepted into these programs, they never leave.
I own dozens of rental properties, some of them low income where we accept tenants who receive housing assistance. I've never seen a singe person lose this benefit or have it decreased because they start earning more.
Now, I'm not sure whether these programs are a trap or not. I think it is waaay more complicated than that. Some people need help. Some people will leverage this assistance to climb up or make it through a tough time. Some people will take advantage.
In the UK they are on a stepped scale. So you hit a trigger point a lose a lot, especially housing benefit. In some benefits you have to be out of work so-long to get them again, so a day's work can lose you a whole weeks benefit.
I was out of work for a few weeks during the recession. It took a month to receive any housing benefit and two weeks to get unemployment by which time I was behind on my rent. I took the first job I could find at a little over minimum (with best intentions) and applied for working tax credits which were sorted a few weeks later. The tax credits were back-dated to when I started earning so now I had 'earned too much' in a prior period to have claimed housing benefit and I got a bill to pay it all back. Then because I had claimed a benefit I was not entitled to I was pulled in for an interview under-caution for benefit fraud! I was read my rights and they put two tapes in a machine just like in the films and started questioning me. We got to the end of the first tape before they accepted that their chronology was rather unfair.
So yes UK benefits are a severe poverty trap
I have a relation who was manager of a number of low waged workers and none of them would take extra hours for fear of upsetting their tax credits. Something about 16 hours a week, but I don't know whether it was a time or a wage limit. Imagine a society incentivising people not to work?
This is largely not true. Most housing assistance in most places is in bands. For example to receive low income housing you need to have income below a certain fixed level or else you’re not eligible at all.
Many other benefits are lost entirely if you get a job.
I can recall two students I knew at Stuyvesant who lived in a couple of the more violent public housing projects who went on to college. My anecdote proves your anecdote wrong. That said I will need for you to come with studies and real data that show you are not wrong. This is because what you are saying has very real world implications that will hurt children who do need sometime up to 18 years of housing assistance so that they can also go on to college and become productive members of society.
> This is because what you are saying has very real world implications that will hurt children who do need sometime up to 18 years of housing assistance so that they can also go on to college and become productive members of society.
They're sorta on a sliding scale. I have a friend here in Texas who lost $900 a month in family benefits for finding a job that paid $4 an hour better.
Actually there is contrary evidence. A study was carried out on the streets of London where they gave larger sums of cash no-strings-attached, and it showed that people in general took that money and used it to set themselves up in a job. One started a gardening business, for instance [0]. The idea that work is what people need is very Victorian, and reminds me of the tread-mill in the workhouse. Surely we should be looking for ways to remove the tyranny of physical labour. I most certainly do not need to be working in a regular job to feel successful.
On the matter of terminology the poverty trap as I have seen it looks very different. There is a trap that means in the UK if I am out of work I can get job-seekers allowance and housing benefit and child benefit. If I can find a single days work I lose all of it (although I may get some working tax credit it will not cover the loss), so anything other than a full time job has to be avoided at all costs. That is the poverty trap, benefits systems that penalise attempts to get off them.
[0] : https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/providing-personalised-support...