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.
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.