...I have been seeing a few things posted on the Internet about the program signed into law by F. Roosevelt. One neat little statistic I saw (from the Census Bureau) noted that between 1959 and 2011, poverty rates among Americans aged 65 and up fell from 35% to 9%. I was wondering if this was also a convenient statistic. That is, what did those rates look like prior to 1959? Prior to the Social Security Act? I googled for a few minutes and couldn't find the numbers (except the ones I just posted, repeatedly). Anyways, I was wondering if anyone knew what those numbers would be, and would care to discuss/interpret them here.
<sarcasm>I mean, I know we are all in favor of entitlement programs and government force and taxation, especially because the government is so efficient and all, so why not celebrate one of America's crowning achievements in progressive policy that survives to this day from the era of the New Deal!</sarcasm>
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
There's a chart that shows the poverty rate over time. It decreases steadily until the Great Society Programs. Then it stagnates. Can't find it, though. Also, even if the chart looks amazing, I am not sure we can say correlation/causation.
I don't know about any chart that says as much, but this is exactly what Tom Woods says in his speech he'd deliver to all of America (I think you posted it in an LCT, Wheylous).
That was what I was going to say, but Woods' comment is regarding poverty period, not poverty concerning those age 65 and up. I think Tom said the numbers were 95% at 1900 and 12% or 11% at the start of the Great Society (whereby the number stagnated). But, yeah, correlation/causation.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Ok, so there is this:
http://www.economicsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/poverty-rate-historical1.png
But I don't like how it only shows a few years before the Great Society.
Also, this article brings up a good point:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/13/the-new-us-poverty-numbers-everyone-just-everyone-gets-this-wrong/
The type of government aid has changed from cash to others like food stamps and EITC which is not included in the income. Hence, we're not measuring the poverty which we are alleviating, so to speak. I'd like the revised numbers.
Oh, I do completely agree that correlation does not equal causation. And I have listened to the lecture by Tom Woods where he speaks of poverty in general declining rapidly until stagnating after the Great Society programs really started getting funded. That's what I was wondering, essentially: do the full spectrum of statistics paint a different picture? Of course, if they do not, then, we still can understand that correlation does not equal causation. However, if the statistics indeed show a different implication, it would be very handy (at least for shutting down the pro-SS arguments about the poverty rates from 1959 to 2011.
Even if the statistics are on our side I am not sure we can honestly cite them...
Why not?
Correlation/causation. Who knows? Maybe 13% is some "resting rate" of poverty at least for the moment. Could be due to Vietnam war, could be due to Fed policies, could be due to other regulations.
Oh I see. Well I suppose I should point out that if the statistics were on our side, I would never cite them as evidence. The only purpose for me would be to turn the statist argument on its head, like:
statist: "From 1959 to 2011, poverty among senior citizens dropped from 35% to 9%. Social Security rules!!
libertarian: "And before that, the rate was [less than 35%]. So what?"
Of course, the statistics may not be on our side anyway, but I was just hoping someone knew where to find the numbers.
OH and today is ALL Americans birthday of becoming Keynesians! Happy b-day fiat currency!
There is probably causation. If you steal money from workers and give money to non-workers, non-workers will likely have a lower poverty rate.
Woods implied that he knows that correlation does not prove causation. His point (more broadly) was that the people in favour of this stuff were cherry pickers. As he points out, if poverty had decreased while said subsidies were in place, and then increased or stagnated after they would have been removed, people would have been jumping all over this. When the exact opposite happens, nobody says anything.