The reason it is "the new welfare" is that states don't pay a share, it's a purely Federal program paid for out of payroll taxes. Certain states make it very difficult to get safety net benefits, and those who do can only get them for a limited period of time. SSDI is the last stop.

Administrative law judges make judgements based on individual and regional considerations. Someone who may not meet the standard in NYC for disability may qualify in Tennessee, due to the makeup of the employment environment.

The fact that the state is so aggressive about denials is interesting, as it is probably increasing costs to the state due to increased litigation.

> The fact that the state is so aggressive about denials is interesting, as it is probably increasing costs to the state due to increased litigation.

This could be a case of one department making their metrics look better at the expense of other departments.

Yes, it goes into detail about this in the npr article linked by GP.

There is even a consulting company whose job it is to recommend people who are on welfare that could be on disability, and then help them fill out the forms and get Dr. consent. This company gets paid 2k+ for each person they switch over..

i was under the impression welfare was umbrella term for disability, unemployment insurance, food stamps, medicaid, and other stuff like that.

I think rconti means unemployment insurance/assistance in this case. (if anybody else is a bit confused like i was)

Disability, Unemployment, Housing, and Medicaid are usually not included in a discussion about "welfare". Usually conservative types will lump everything except for unemployment together for their own purposes when talking about costs.

End of the day, the reality is that states that are aggressive about these costs for idealogical reasons are most aggressive about medicaid (cost is split with state), "temporary assistance" (cash payments to individuals and familyies, shared with state).

Usually states make money on disability, WIC, and food stamps. (The Feds fund administrative costs.) Opposing these things is weird, particularly since the alternatives to these programs (jail, ER visits) cost something like 5-10x more!

I'm of the opinion that some (not all) of this is driven by forces similar to why dollar stores are doing so well, especially as laid out in the NPR article.

From https://www.newsweek.com/dollar-stores-general-tree-america-...

> “Essentially what the dollar stores are betting on in a large way is that we are going to have a permanent underclass in America,” real estate analyst Garrick Brown told Bloomberg in 2017.

> Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos agreed, telling The Wall Street Journal, “The economy is continuing to create more of our core customers.” In other words, the more lower-income Americans struggle, the better dollar stores do.

Jobs Polarization is a fairly well researched and discussed topic in economics, but I'm yet to hear anything about it in the mainstream. Income inequality is a hot topic but I think this deserves more attention since it's part of that feedback loop and IMO what people feel directly.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/publications/p...

People talk about robots stealing our jobs, but I think we've already kickstarted this process with things that produce similar effects like outsourcing. It's hard to say there's a causual relationship between the two, but disability benefit claims start rising around the same time as the recession in the early 90's.

There's an article from the National Bureau of Economic Research that suggests when firms are pressured they look to invest in automation or outsourcing. Then, when the economy recovers those jobs remain automated or outsourced, thus resulting in the 'Jobless Recoveries' we've been seeing in recent cycles.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w18334.pdf

If you're one of those people, then due to jobs polarization you're likely either looking at a lower paid job or training to find a higher paid one. Re-training has capital costs (not just money, but time and social capital to a point) that not everyone can afford.

Add in the hollowing out of many small towns and I think at least one cause of the rise in disability benefits starts to come into focus.

I don't think this is true for everyone by any means, but I do think it's a trend worth investigating. Right now, politically we're trying to tackle outsourcing, which IMO is kinda moot as automation is rising and produces similar effects.

People talk about automation as if it's something that's coming, but I think we're already seeing what that future looks like.

Those linked articles hardly make the case for blanket assertions about 'disability being the new welfare'.

Every man made system has fraud and abuse and yet reasonable people do not use these instances to attempt to discredit the entire system, no sensible person points to evidence of bank and corporate fraud to discredit the concept of banking and corporations? Even the church has fraud.

This article goes into great depth with documented evidence of serious problems, what is the connection to fraud in other regions covered in 2 articles covered way back in 2013 and how is it useful to this discussion?