Some thoughts on this week's WaPo op-ed on welfare reform by @sanfordschram @rfording and @jbsoss . Per usual, let me stipulate that I think welfare reform was a success because it reduced poverty, which is the thing we all profess to care about. /1
There are 6 points the authors make. #1 is that caseload reduction is the wrong metric for success. I agree with that, and most conservative reformers would agree with that too. (I know most of the most prominent ones personally.) But... /2
The authors punt big-time on this when they say that a better metric would be what happened to earnings from employment. I'm not sure they want to go here, but at any rate, they don't. They leave this dangling as if we just don't know the answer. We do. /3
In Table C-11 of this report (fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…), the Congressional Research Service finds that the poverty rate among single mothers in 2013, taking ONLY earnings into account, was only a bit higher than the OFFICIAL poverty rate in 1996 (which includes cash transfers) /4
The poverty rate including all other non-transfer income (but no transfers) was as low in 2013 as it was in 1996 INCLUDING all cash transfer income. I've yet to see anyone do anything but sputter when confronted with these stats, which are from a nonpartisan Congressional body /5
And that was in 2013! By 2016, child poverty was at an all-time low, acc to the liberal Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, and the child poverty rate PRE-TAX & -TRANSFER was only a few percentage points above the POST-TAX & -TRANSFER rate in 1996 (including noncash xfers) /6
I show that by 2014, poverty among the children of single mothers was at an all-time low after accounting for those noncash transfers (not including health care), tax credits, and changes in cohabitation. See Line 4 of Fig. 3 manhattan-institute.org/html/poverty-a… /7
But I digress. The point is that if welfare reform only reduced caseloads, without reducing poverty, it would be a failure. That didn't happen though. Welfare reform reduced poverty, period. /8 forbes.com/sites/scottwin…
Oh, & CBPP has found that all but the bottom 10 percent of single-mother families had higher income in 2012 than in 1995. /9 manhattan-institute.org/html/yes-96-we…
Here's the direct link: cbpp.org/research/famil…. They also found that increases in private income among single moms was greater than declines in welfare 1995-2005 for all but the bottom 20% of single moms. /10
Imma come back to that bottom 10/20%. For now, let's turn to the authors' 2nd point: labor force participation was rising among single mothers well before welfare reform. /11
The authors show the LFP rate, but the EPOP also began rising among single moms before welfare reform. Because the unemployed are in the labor force, the EPOP is the more relevant measure. /12
However, the single-mother employment rate doesn't appear to have been rising very fast in the decade before WR. See Figure 2 of brookings.edu/wp-content/upl… /12
From 1987 to 1996 (9 years), employment among never-married moms rose by 10 points, but from 1996 to 1999 (3 years) it rose by 15 points. /14
Like the LFP rate, the EPOP fell somewhat after the 1990s, but here's the thing: if you want to argue that the 1990s rise was about the economy, that's an argument about business cycles.... /15
You wld expect, then, that when the economy turns south, employment would return to pre-reform levels. But it never did. At its trough, in 2011, it was still about 10 points higher than in 1996. It never ceases to amaze me how people explain a secular rise with a cyclical arg /16
Point #3 of theirs is that the expansion of the EITC in 1993 "enticed more single mothers into getting jobs." That's an ambiguous phrasing--it's not clear whether they're saying that it was more important than welfare reform, or just that it was important. /17
Let me say that the EITC expansion was really important! But so was welfare reform. I should also note that the research has really only looked at the 1990s boom. We don't have good evidence since 2000. /18
The most often cited study, by Grogger (2003) has been mischaracterized a bit, but it shows that welfare reforms were about as important as the improvement in the labor market, but less important than the EITC expansion, in increasing employment among single moms. /19
I could believe that. But I also believe that the EITC expansion and welfare reform made each other more effective than either would have been on its own. The exercise of ranking which is more important is kind of fruitless. /20
The authors of the op-ed, though, have given the reader no reason to think that welfare reform was unimportant. OK, I'm counting slowly to 10, because Point #4 invokes extreme poverty.... /21
They say that welfare reform "may have" increased extreme poverty, citing Edin & Shaefer and some other research I critique in manhattan-institute.org/html/poverty-a…. Let me be clear: the extreme poverty research is garbage. Why? /22
Here are 3 reasons (though I could list more). First, better measures of income than used by Edin-Shaefer indicate much lower levels and a much smaller rise in extreme poverty. And even those probably mostly reflect bad income data. /23
You don't have to believe my CPS-based research (though you really should!). If you aren't convinced by Bruce Meyer's recent work, I don't know what to tell you aei.org/events/reexami… /24
2nd reason extreme poverty research is garbage: EVEN IF you believe the cash-income $2-a-day numbers (you shouldnt), extreme poverty begins rising 20 years before welfare reform! No one has explained to me how the 1996 reform could have initiated an increase starting in '70s /25
3rd reason extreme pov research is garbage: EVEN IF you believe the cash-income #s, extreme pov supposedly rose among groups unaffected by welfare reform, including childless households, elderly households, married college graduates. How did welfare reform do this? /26
(Incidentally, Edin & Shaefer recently replicated my results to show that extreme pov "rises" even in the CPS after mid-90s. Despite having provided comments on my paper draft, they failed to note in this work that extreme pov began rising in the 1970s & among other groups) /27
I could go on and on about extreme poverty, but you're not going to read my report or listen to Meyer's presentation, so I'll just drop it. Point #5 of the authors' is that welfare reform led to racial discrimination in some states. /28
I don't know this lit, and the authors seem to cite only their own work. I could certainly believe it. What I do know is that black child poverty is at an all-time low. Even by the official measure, it was as low in 2016 as at the end of the 1990s boom /29 datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44…
Wrapping up...Point #6 is that 2/3 of adult Medicaid recipients (and most SNAP recipients) already work. Well...technically 60% of non-elderly, non-disabled adults that had Medicaid AT SOME POINT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR worked AT SOME POINT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. Oh. /30
Here's the link: kff.org/medicaid/issue…. These academic authors cite...Vox, which cites KFF, which includes methods details at the end of a long post. /31
And we don't know how many of them could work more weeks in a year or more hours in a week. Nor do we know how many of the rest could work--we just know why they say they didn't work the (entire) previous year. /32
Key to work requirements, I've argued ad nauseaum, are the policy details--in particular, the generosity of exemptions. It's shoving your head in the sand to simply "oppose work requirements." There are certainly reasons to go slow, but opponents don't "know" what will happen /33
...any more than they "knew" what would happen in 1996. Most importantly, opponents of work requirements should really grapple harder with the evidence that welfare reform reduced poverty. Your case is not strong. And if you're wrong, you're not helping poor people. /fin
Doh-- initially forgot the link to their op-ed: washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/m…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Scott Winship

Scott Winship Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @swinshi

Jul 19, 2018
OK, @coldxman picked a bad day for his essay arguing that black culture is "primarily" to blame for the black-white wealth gap, as I'm home with my sick kid and need a break from Teen Titans. /1
First, let me applaud him, as he is apparently an undergrad writing a decently sophisticated argument and an African American, which makes his contrarianism on the topic that much more risky. But a few thoughts in no particular order /2
First, there are a couple of straw-man args in here: the idea that the wealth gap is ALL due to slavery and New Deal discrimination and the idea that people who want government to address the wealth gap just want cash transfers. /3
Read 10 tweets
May 7, 2018
.@AndrewCherlin is the latest to argue that economics is at least as important as culture in explaining Trumpism, saying that “The economic distress of the white working class has been building since the 1970s.” /1 nytimes.com/2018/05/06/opi…
These kinds of statements are too rarely backed up by stats, so here are some hourly wage trends by race and sex. These are for the 20th percentile—the worker (within race and sex) that is poorer than 80% of workers—and the median. /2
Theyre from @EconomicPolicy epi.org/data/#/?subjec…* . I’ve changed the price adjustment so that it uses PCE deflator, which is definitely better than CPI-U-RS that EPI uses. But relative comparisons by race/sex arent affected, since they all use the same adjustment. /3
Read 18 tweets
Jan 9, 2018
New research fr Treasury & JCT economists indicates top 1% share of pre-tax & -transfer income rose not from 9% to 20% 1979-2015, but fr 10 to 15. Add transfers: fr 9 to 13. Account for taxes: fr 8 to 10. Increase fr 1989-2015 just from 9.5 to 10.1. davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-…
Which econ journalist will write it up first?
Even if you go with pre-tax & -transfer income, the rise from 1989 to 2015 was from 11.5% to 14.9%. It was 11.3% in 1960. Thanks to @boblerman for drawing my attention to the paper.
Read 7 tweets
Dec 11, 2017
Just out! “Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing,” the latest from @SenMikeLee ‘s Social Capital Project within @JECRepublicans (If you gagged at the title, that’s all me.) /1 lee.senate.gov/public/index.c…
@SenMikeLee @JECRepublicans We suss out why the share of births to unmarried couples jumped from 5% in 1960 to 40% today. Half of all births begin as an unwed pregnancy, including 2/3 of first births to women under 30. /2
@SenMikeLee @JECRepublicans That’s a major social capital problem. In our first report, What We Do Together, we note the Project’s emphasis on the “middle layers” of society—space btwn individual & state. In words of Yuval Levin, middle layers “begin in loving family attachments” /3
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(