FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W5089123> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W5089123 endingPage "99" @default.
• W5089123 startingPage "83" @default.
• W5089123 abstract "This article is about the bearing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWOA) of 1996 on labor markets, and especially on the low-wage labor market. The nationwide debate that climaxed with the rollback of federal responsibilities ignored this aspect of policy. Instead, arguments fastened on questions of personal morality. A lax and too-generous system was said to lead women to shun work in favor of habitual idleness and dependency. Welfare was also said to undermine sexual and family morality. Together these charges spurred something like a grand national revival movement to restore moral compulsion to the lives of the poor. Yet, throughout the long history of relief or welfare, charges that relief encouraged immorality always accompanied measures that worsened the terms of work for broad swaths of the population, as I have been at pains to argue elsewhere in work with Richard Cloward.(1) Here I will show that this episode of is no different. To make my points about labor markets, I first discuss the grounds for the charge that the availability of distorts the individual's choice to work or not to work. Then I turn to the larger question of the systemic effects of policy on labor markets, particularly in the context of the specific conditions that characterize the American labor market in the 1990s. Finally, albeit necessarily briefly, I try to unravel some of the tangled connections between labor markets and family stability, the other electrified pole in the campaign against welfare. I will argue that, ironically, when labor market effects are taken into account, welfare reform is far more likely to weaken the actual families that exist in America than to restore them. The public argument about and work focuses on the impact of the dole on the choices of poor women, as well as on the debilitating psychological and subcultural consequences of those choices. Welfare use or dependency is thus cast as a problem of personal morality. Liberals, for their part, defend a more generous policy by arguing in the same vein, claiming that use is justified because most recipients rely on only for relatively short periods and do not in fact become dependent (a claim that rests, however, on just how the count is made).(2) The defenders also argue that there are not enough jobs for the relatively unskilled women on welfare, especially in the inner cities where these women, many of whom are minorities, are concentrated. Some defenders also point to circumstances beyond the control of poor women that prevent them from working, such as the violence of abusive men who are alarmed at the prospect that their female partners will become independent.(3) This, in sum, is an effort to legitimate the decisions of the poor women who turn to welfare. The arguments made by the defenders have a good deal of truth. Yet they also skirt the central charge, that there is a tradeoff between and work, and a more liberal policy tilts individual choices toward welfare, while a restrictive policy tilts the other way. The skittishness is understandable, because acknowledging the tradeoff raises the question of whether it is morally right for a mother to choose over work, a question on which the American public seems to have made up its mind by large majorities, at least for the time being. The underlying idea of the tradeoff is clear, and it does make sense (Edin and Lein, 1997). It is the logic of incentives and disincentives. The economic rewards of work must be greater than the benefits available from unemployment insurance or social assistance or old age pensions. This is the ancient principle of less eligibility, a principle that asserts that even the lowest paid worker must fare better than the pauper. It is not the whole story, of course, since surviving on the dole can be demeaning, and people may want to work for other reasons than their wages. …" @default.
• W5089123 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W5089123 creator A5080536516 @default.
• W5089123 date "2019-12-31" @default.
• W5089123 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W5089123 title "4. Welfare and Work" @default.
• W5089123 cites W1501142392 @default.
• W5089123 cites W1964676977 @default.
• W5089123 cites W1965704559 @default.
• W5089123 cites W1967523688 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2004131281 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2032453027 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2054787253 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2071624487 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2108973260 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2133578415 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2141200159 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2327064441 @default.
• W5089123 cites W2553154748 @default.
• W5089123 cites W3196766805 @default.
• W5089123 cites W618597405 @default.
• W5089123 doi "https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501728891-005" @default.
• W5089123 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W5089123 type Work @default.
• W5089123 sameAs 5089123 @default.
• W5089123 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W5089123 countsByYear W50891232012 @default.
• W5089123 countsByYear W50891232013 @default.
• W5089123 countsByYear W50891232015 @default.
• W5089123 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W5089123 hasAuthorship W5089123A5080536516 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C100243477 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C145236788 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C200113983 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C2777388388 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C2777433734 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C2778976928 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W5089123 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C100243477 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C127413603 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C144024400 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C145236788 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C149923435 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C162324750 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C166957645 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C17744445 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C18762648 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C190253527 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C199539241 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C200113983 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C2777388388 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C2777433734 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C2778976928 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C2779343474 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C2908647359 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C34447519 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C78519656 @default.
• W5089123 hasConceptScore W5089123C95457728 @default.
• W5089123 hasLocation W50891231 @default.
• W5089123 hasOpenAccess W5089123 @default.
• W5089123 hasPrimaryLocation W50891231 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W2326762 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W23797744 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W31544882 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W35256418 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W43371492 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W44441630 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W5089123 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W5606814 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W725407 @default.
• W5089123 hasRelatedWork W7857927 @default.
• W5089123 isParatext "false" @default.
• W5089123 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W5089123 magId "5089123" @default.
• W5089123 workType "book-chapter" @default.