Skip to content

Raw Data: Spending on the Big Six Welfare Programs Over Time

To finish off our survey of the Big Six welfare programs in the United States, here's a summary of spending growth for all of them since 1980:

Medicaid is the biggest program by far at about $600 billion in 2018, with the others contributing about $400 billion. Total spending on all six programs has gone up from $244 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 2018, adjusted for inflation. That's a 4x increase.

However, as a percentage of GDP, total welfare spending has gone up from 2.8% to 4.9%, which is less than a 2x increase.

Both of these numbers are correct. Which one you choose to emphasize is mostly a matter of what point you're trying to make.

28 thoughts on “Raw Data: Spending on the Big Six Welfare Programs Over Time

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      You could do that, but, in addition to the fact that GDP is a more relevant number (because it tells us something about affordability and the impact of these programs on the economy), population increase is, to a great extent, baked into the cake of the GDP number. And that's because a big part of the reason GDP is larger now is that our population (and therefore workforce) are larger now than in 1980. In fact about 50% larger.

      I think Kevin's methodology here is sound.

      1. rick_jones

        Quibble. The US population in 1980 was something like 226.5 million. In 2018 it was something like 327.2 (both web searches and initial hits). So that is more like 45% 🙂

        Either percentage increase in the population is, IMO, too large, as I hold the world population should be no more than 4 billion (being a fan of unsigned, 32-bit quantities) and that was back circa 1974 when the US population was more like 213.9. (again, first hits on web searches)

    2. ScentOfViolets

      You've also got to adjust for age demographics. We're a little bit older and a litter poorer today than we were yesterday.

  1. bbleh

    Well it's just OUTRAGEOUS that the richest country in the world should be spending ALMOST FIVE PERCENT OF GDP on people who OBVIOUSLY are too lazy to Pull Themselves Up By Their Own Bootstraps! What HAVE we come to? Think of the MESSAGE it sends!

    This is exactly the sort of thing that happens when you do away with good old fashioned workhouses for the poor (and their children).

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Watching yesterday's Denmark-Finland match, Paul Ryan instinctively went to SSA dot Gov to apply for survivors benefits.

  2. azumbrunn

    I can not think of a valid point to make that would require the naked collar figures (even corrected for inflation).

    The rise vs. GDP reflects the growing economic inequality that neoliberal capitalism has caused. If you compared the expenses to the need you'd probably find that expenses per needy person have dropped (there are now more of those in need as a percentage of the population).

    Plus of course the bulk of the increase comes from healthcare.

    1. rick_jones

      It would be intriguing to know how much we would spend on healthcare today if we were spending it only on those things (generally) available in 1980.

      1. tigersharktoo

        While spending might be down, we would have a lot more dead people who did not get what are now readily available therapies. Many forms of cancer are now survivable. Or imagine no HIV/AIDS treatments.

        1. bbleh

          Exactly! And what’s more important, America’s National Economy™️ or a few poor sick people who probably would have died soon anyway? Priorities!

          1. rick_jones

            And what would the carbon emissions of the United States be if we'd had all the per-capita reductions since but still the population we had in 1980? ... It isn't always about the economy.

        2. rick_jones

          Indeed, and I suspect neither of my parents would have survived into their 90s. Which, while great for the family finances (they were on the old US Civil Service retirement and healthcare and had paid-off the house prior to retirement) may not have actually been a net benefit to society as a whole.

      2. Jasper_in_Boston

        I'd imagine healthcare economists somewhere have tried to derive a number that tells us the cost of new or more advanced healthcare technology over time. I haven't seen a figure, though. I'd bet it's very complicated, though, because a lot of healthcare technology isn't "new things" (that weren't done 40 years ago) but just different and more advanced technology used to perform procedures that have been around for decades.

        1. golack

          There's a lot of money involved in being able to game the system and corner the market for older drugs and/or devices.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      Simple percent of GDP numbers are probably more relevant for most purposes, agreed. That said, very few people do the kind of painstaking number compiling that Kevin engages in, so it's interesting data for geeks like me. YMMV.

    3. JonF311

      In regards to Medicaid at least why would you think expenses per person have dropped when healthcare inflation has been a huge factor over the last forty years

  3. skeptonomist

    There's a lot of money in Obamacare subsidies, which apply up to 400% of "poverty" level. This money may not go to the technically "poor", but it should count as Social Welfare spending.

    Of course we spend about twice as much as other advanced countries on all forms of health care. All those other countries control costs with some form of government control, not the operation of "free markets"

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      Are you trying to tell me Sen. J.D. Vance (Q - OH) has a base of support who are welfare queens?

  4. ronp

    we should double or triple the current spending. my city has people living under bridges in tents and untreated mentally ill people on the sidewalks

      1. bbleh

        Saved LOTS of money! And with the then-new psychotropic wonder-drugs -- which of course mentally ill patients living suddenly on their own would remember to take regularly as prescribed -- well, win-win! It was a great victory for the Reagan vision of small government!

        1. Clyde Schechter

          "It was a great victory for the Reagan vision of small government!"

          De-institutionalization began in the 70's, before Reagan was president.

      1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        & I'm proud to be a glibertarian
        Where at least I know I'm free
        & I'd like to thank the mentally imbalanced souls
        Who gave that right to me

  5. royko

    Be interesting to see how much of the Medicaid increase is due to expanded benefits and how much is due to increasing health care costs. (I'm guessing it's a combination, but I don't know if one had a bigger effect.)

    1. golack

      Obamacare did try to contain costs, and also expanded Medicaid.
      Health care inflation still outpaces the headline number, but it's not nearly as bad as it once was....Of course, this is all pre-pandemic.

Comments are closed.