Walter Williams periodically has explained that the main beneficiaries of the so-called War on Poverty are all the bureaucrats who have very lucrative jobs in all the various redistribution programs, agencies, and departments. He calls these people “poverty pimps” and asks whether they actually have an incentive to solve problems since that would put their jobs at risk. Those are all interesting issues, but this post looks at the number of bureaucrats, by state, working in the “public welfare” industry (the Census Bureau has an interactive program that allows this type of calculation). Comparing that number of bureaucrats to each state’s population allows the creation of a “Poverty Pimp Index” showing the number of bureaucrats (at the state and local level) per 100,000 of population.
Surprisingly, New Hampshire is the worst state, requiring four times as many bureaucrats per capita to administer income-redistribution programs as Hawaii, which is the surprise winner as the most efficient state. I’m sure these numbers represent a gross over-simplification, and they may depend on how states classify employees, so this is nothing but a quick look at some interesting data. If anybody knows of more substantive research on the comparative efficiency of how states administer programs, please send it my way.
The Poverty Pimp Index (“public welfare” bureaucrats per 100,000 residents)
New Hampshire 360
Alaska 302
New York 290
Maine 280
Wisconsin 277
Pennsylvania 277
DC 277
Minnesota 266
New Jersey 255
Ohio 255
Kansas 121
Idaho 120
Georgia 118
Texas 113
South Carolina 104
Nevada 99
Mississippi 96
Indiana 95
Florida 92
Hawaii 86
[…] absorbed by a bloated, jumbled, and overlapping bureaucracy (and this doesn’t even count the various bureaucracies in each state that also administer all these welfare […]
[…] has been very bad news. We have a Byzantine system of handoutsthat require an army of bureaucrats to administer dozens of handouts that subsidize bad […]
[…] War on Poverty has been very bad news. We have a Byzantine system of handouts that require an army of bureaucrats to administer dozens of handouts that subsidize bad […]
[…] Williams refers to these paper pushers as poverty pimps, and there’s even a ranking showing which states have the greatest number of these folks who profit by creating […]
[…] A “poverty pimp,” by contrast, is someone who personally profits from administering the welfare […]
[…] It’s a complicated and costly mess that traps poor people in dependency while ripping off taxpayers and creating very comfortable lives for “poverty pimps.” […]
[…] It’s a complicated and costly mess that traps poor people in dependency while ripping off taxpayers and creating very comfortable lives for “poverty pimps.” […]
[…] foreign aid bureaucrats and contractors have been the only real beneficiaries, much as the “poverty pimps” are the only real beneficiaries of the failed War on […]
[…] they were created because that would eliminate their excuse for existing. After all, what would “poverty pimps” do if there weren’t poor people trapped in government dependency? Well, Brexit almost surely […]
[…] they were created because that would eliminate their excuse for existing. After all, what would “poverty pimps” do if there weren’t poor people trapped in government dependency? Well, Brexit almost surely […]
[…] were created because that would eliminate their excuse for existing. After all, what would “poverty pimps” do if there weren’t poor people trapped in government dependency? Well, Brexit almost […]
[…] absorbed by a bloated, jumbled, and overlapping bureaucracy (and this doesn’t even count the various bureaucracies in each state that also administer all these welfare […]
[…] high tax burden. But a surprisingly small share of the population utilizes food stamps, and the number of welfare bureaucrats is amazingly […]
[…] high tax burden. But a surprisingly small share of the population utilizes food stamps, and the number of welfare bureaucrats is amazingly […]
[…] bureaucrats get very comfortable salaries to administer these program, and these poverty pimps, as Walter Williams describes them, enjoy much higher levels of compensation than they could earn in the economy’s productive […]
[…] If you like this “educrat” ranking, here’s a “Poverty Pimp” ranking of “public welfare” bureaucrats compared to state population. Ohio and Alaska do poorly in both, for what it’s […]
[…] biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salaries administering various […]
[…] system is good for bureaucrats (Walter Williams calls them Poverty Pimps) and good for politicians, but it’s been bad news for poor people. Rate this: Share […]
Just came across this. A second look at the data shows a few interesting points.
The index indeed seems to be largely based on how each state classifies “public welfare” workers. If you look at total bureaucrats, the numbers across New Hampshire, the US average, Hawaii and New Jersey (the ones I checked) are remarkably similar. The range is from 6,279 bureaucrates per 100k (the US avg) to 6,711 (New Jersey).
What sticks out the most from the data I looked at, is how thrifty New Hampshire is on bureaucrat salaries and this holds across both total bureaucrats and welfare workers. Here’s the data for avg pay per welfare worker:
New Hampshire: 2,735
New Jersey: 3,894
Hawaii: 3,415
USA: 3,317
Spreadsheet used for calculations:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap92BiTCRHozdHdRTHVqTHIzWUkzTmZ0TDVZMlFLSnc
[…] have been pouring a lot of love on this otherwise oft-overlooked state (though some gripes remain). New Hampshire’s economic freedom has made it home base for the Free State Project, a […]
[…] biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salaries administering various […]
[…] The biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salariesadministering various programs. […]
[…] extra credit, Big Government adds three items for follow-up study: 1. The biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salaries administering various […]
[…] other words, the people administering the programs – Walter Williams calls them “poverty pimps” – are the ones who […]
[…] Or are you fighting the war in order to perpetuate the need to fight it — and in so doing, solidifying your own prospects as a poverty […]
[…] biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salaries administering various […]
[…] The biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salaries administering various […]
[…] reduce poverty. After all, as Walter Williams has explained, the so-called War on Poverty is a great gig for the tens of thousands of bureaucrats who get to oversee the programs. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] many government programs and initiatives exist primarily for the benefit of the bureaucracy, and he coined the phrase “poverty pimps” to describe the folks who get comfortable governmen… to operate programs that don’t help – and often hurt – disadvantaged […]
I think that Alaska is so high on the list because of the high native population and the fact that many people (mostly natives) live way outside of the major population centers and they get a lot in terms of heating fuel and what not from the G.