In 2020, Australia massively increased welfare payments and conducted a live experiment in ending poverty, but when the subsidy was removed, many were thrown back into hardship. Leaving aside the moral dimension, would it be cheaper to end poverty than to maintain it?
It’s not really cheaper for those who matter (the bourgeoisie).
The reason being it’s a labor discipline tool. If no one is at risk of poverty you get more uppity workers who unionize and/or demand more pay, more benefits, etc which ends up costing the ruling class more at the end of that spiral. That’s what studies like this don’t take into account, the actual utility of poverty, homelessness, etc to the ruling class in aiding their theft of worker value.
The poor traditionally are kept around in some amount as a reserve labor force as well. To be called in to strike break or to pull into the lowest rungs of the most exploited industries to replace those who are uppity and most likely to be uppity due to being most exploited. Their existence allows poor pay and conditions in the worst industries which allows higher profit margins. They also serve as a way of funneling government money into private pockets (if the poor were killed off then there goes the money the grocers, the food companies, the farmers, etc get via them redeeming food stamps and so on) with a veneer of social charity.
Cheaper for government isn’t the point that drives policy. It would also be cheaper for government to not pour hundreds of billions into weapons and wars but that serves a function of moving money into the pockets of arms-maker corporations and the ruling capitalist class as well.
I don’t buy this. You wrote, “It’s not really cheaper for those who matter (the bourgeoisie).” and then “Cheaper for government isn’t the point that drives policy.” Yes, it is! Because the government is the government of the bourgeoisie. It is the ruling assembly for their capitalist economy. Ultimately, it is the working class who funds the government because it is the class which does all work. So, you could pretend that costs do not matter for the capitalists. But the working class can only pay in taxes what they got in wages. This means higher costs for government lower the profits of capitalists. (And we know that capitalists want to slash government spending wherever possible.) And that is why it is a cost to everybody in society when politicians decide to punish the poor for what is not their fault, when, for example, they maintain a homeless population at great costs while it is cheaper to house them in existing empty housing. This hurts the homeless the most, at the expense of everyone.
Ultimately, it is the working class who funds the government because it is the class which does all work.
Not the American working class. The global working class which subsidizes the living standards of the American worker while also lining the pocketbooks of the American bourgeoisie.
Also it must be understood that the US government because of dollar reserve currency status, because of the levers it has can functionally print as much money as it wants and other counties have no choice but to pay for it. Thus there is no real correlation to how much tax money is raised off of workers in the US and how much the US government can spend. Especially on important matters like war.
And we know that capitalists want to slash government spending wherever possible.
They don’t though. Many of them want to cut streams of money to the poor to as low as possible an amount, but they don’t want to slash for example spending on Pentagon contacts for Raytheon. They don’t want to slash the FBI, the CIA, etc. They don’t want to slash government spending that amounts to contracts and awards that dumps money in their pockets to provide services that could be done by public entities for less if the goal was not turning a profit but providing a service.
while it is cheaper to house them in existing empty housing
I’ve already explained why this isn’t the case. Let me leave you with a Steinbeck quote from a hundred years ago that encapsulates part of the issue here.
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up?
And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.
The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
It’s not really cheaper for those who matter (the bourgeoisie).
The reason being it’s a labor discipline tool. If no one is at risk of poverty you get more uppity workers who unionize and/or demand more pay, more benefits, etc which ends up costing the ruling class more at the end of that spiral. That’s what studies like this don’t take into account, the actual utility of poverty, homelessness, etc to the ruling class in aiding their theft of worker value.
The poor traditionally are kept around in some amount as a reserve labor force as well. To be called in to strike break or to pull into the lowest rungs of the most exploited industries to replace those who are uppity and most likely to be uppity due to being most exploited. Their existence allows poor pay and conditions in the worst industries which allows higher profit margins. They also serve as a way of funneling government money into private pockets (if the poor were killed off then there goes the money the grocers, the food companies, the farmers, etc get via them redeeming food stamps and so on) with a veneer of social charity.
Cheaper for government isn’t the point that drives policy. It would also be cheaper for government to not pour hundreds of billions into weapons and wars but that serves a function of moving money into the pockets of arms-maker corporations and the ruling capitalist class as well.
I don’t buy this. You wrote, “It’s not really cheaper for those who matter (the bourgeoisie).” and then “Cheaper for government isn’t the point that drives policy.” Yes, it is! Because the government is the government of the bourgeoisie. It is the ruling assembly for their capitalist economy. Ultimately, it is the working class who funds the government because it is the class which does all work. So, you could pretend that costs do not matter for the capitalists. But the working class can only pay in taxes what they got in wages. This means higher costs for government lower the profits of capitalists. (And we know that capitalists want to slash government spending wherever possible.) And that is why it is a cost to everybody in society when politicians decide to punish the poor for what is not their fault, when, for example, they maintain a homeless population at great costs while it is cheaper to house them in existing empty housing. This hurts the homeless the most, at the expense of everyone.
Not the American working class. The global working class which subsidizes the living standards of the American worker while also lining the pocketbooks of the American bourgeoisie.
Also it must be understood that the US government because of dollar reserve currency status, because of the levers it has can functionally print as much money as it wants and other counties have no choice but to pay for it. Thus there is no real correlation to how much tax money is raised off of workers in the US and how much the US government can spend. Especially on important matters like war.
They don’t though. Many of them want to cut streams of money to the poor to as low as possible an amount, but they don’t want to slash for example spending on Pentagon contacts for Raytheon. They don’t want to slash the FBI, the CIA, etc. They don’t want to slash government spending that amounts to contracts and awards that dumps money in their pockets to provide services that could be done by public entities for less if the goal was not turning a profit but providing a service.
I’ve already explained why this isn’t the case. Let me leave you with a Steinbeck quote from a hundred years ago that encapsulates part of the issue here.