For Further Discussion
1. Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein maintain that the majority of welfare recipients they interviewed were planning to leave welfare but could not afford to take the dead-end, minimum wage jobs available to them. James L. Payne argues that welfare recipients have no incentive to give up their carefree welfare “careers,” since they would have to find jobs paying more than $9.18 an hour to equal their earnings from welfare. Which author makes the more convincing argument for the reasons mothers remain on welfare? Why?
2. In their viewpoint, Michael Tanner and David B. Kopel cite several studies in support of their contention that easy access to welfare has increased unwed child-bearing and hastened the decline of the nuclear family. Michael B. Katz contends that the research linking welfare and out-of-wedlock births is flawed. Which author’s use of evidence do you find more effective? Why?
1. James L. Payne contends that welfare recipients who commit fraud are taking advantage of lax enforcement by welfare officials. Karen Seccombe asserts that welfare recipients engage in fraud as a survival tactic to make up for inadequate benefits. With which author do you agree most? Support your position using examples from the viewpoints.
2. John Smith argues that collecting child support in welfare cases produces no benefit to the mother or children because the money often goes to the government...
(The entire section is 748 words.)
Want to Read More?
Subscribe now to read the rest of this article. Plus get complete access to 30,000+ study guides!