SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
White Americans' fear of losing their socioeconomic standing in the face of demographic change may be driving opposition to welfare programs, even though whites are major beneficiaries of government poverty assistance, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University.
While social scientists have long posited that racial resentment fuels opposition to such anti-poverty programs as food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families, this is the first study to show the correlation experimentally, demonstrating a causal relationship between attitudes to welfare and threatened racial status.
"With policymakers proposing cuts to the social safety net, it's important to understand the dynamics that drive the welfare backlash," said study lead author Rachel Wetts, a Ph.D. student in sociology at UC Berkeley. "This research suggests that when whites fear their status is on the decline, they increase opposition to programs intended to benefit poorer members of all racial groups."
The findings, to be published May 30 in the journal Social Forces, highlight a welfare backlash that swelled around the 2008 Great Recession and election of Barack Obama.
Notably, the study found anti-welfare sentiment to be selective insofar as threats to whites' standing led whites to oppose government assistance programs they believed largely benefit minorities, while not affecting their views of programs they thought were more likely to advantage whites.
"Our findings suggest that these threats lead whites to oppose programs they perceive as primarily benefiting racial minorities," said study senior author Robb Willer, a professor of sociology and social psychology at Stanford University.
[...] "Overall, these results suggest whites' perceptions of rising minority power and influence lead them to oppose welfare programs," Wetts said.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @06:31AM (3 children)
Welfare....
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Sometimes it costs you more to work than you would receive if you just asked the government for it.
Work? You are expected to have a place to stay, arrive freshly bathed, neat and tidy, spend your day working to make someone else rich, and end up earning just enough to pay rent. And you have to file taxes, which by itself can run into the hundreds of dollars if you don't understand the tax reporting requirements very well and have to hire help.
Welfare? Free camping. Meals for the Homeless/Church Kitchens, free medical, food stamps, and still a lot of people who will give you money, despite your stealing their stuff when their back is turned.
No wonder a lot of people are deprecating to a more relaxed lifestyle. I know in my situation, I have passed up "advancement" because I know I won't be allowed to keep my earnings, unless I can get paid enough to get into the tax havens the one-percenters have had Congress create for them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Saturday June 02 2018, @08:23PM (2 children)
One problem with that logic: the vast majority of welfare benefits are only available to pregnant women and children (through their parents), each child is limited to 60 months total in a lifetime, and the adults must fulfill fairly strict work/training requirements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @11:16PM (1 child)
Which is quite unjust. Basic Income is sounding better every day.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03 2018, @01:38AM
Explain please how any redistribution of wealth is in any way "just". Start from the premise that equality of outcome rather than opportunity is utter communist bullshit and you might present an interesting argument.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.