Social Justice... Does it really mean the lazy never have to work again?

[Don Corleone]

I purposely picked an inflammatory title (though, in my defense Soly, it's very clear and explanatory), because I'm personally struggling with the whole concept of 'Social Justice' right now. It's actually a hotbutton issue in my church. Many take it at face value to mean that without a doubt, Jesus would have been a socialist.

But is that true? Social Justice has a context beyond Christianity, so I'm going to un-muddy the waters a bit and ask that we leave the religious context of the phrase out. Let's just look at it as it's own stand alone principle....

On it's surface, it seems obvious. Yes, we should make certain nobody is homeless (that doesn't want to be). Yes, we should make certain that people aren't starving to death. I think it's a small minority that would argue we're not responsible for each member of society's basic needs. This is what makes the "Social Justice" argument so compelling.

Yet, when it comes to execution of policy in conjunction with that principle, many feel that "Social Justice" means that everyone is entitled to own their own abode, regardless of whether they earned it or not. They take it to mean that all of their utitilities, including digital cable and broadband internet access are automatically provided. They take it to mean that everyone should have their own vehicle. Most importantly (to me), it they take it to mean that nobody should be compelled to actually labor to earn these things.

This is where I have a big problem with the whole concept of Social Justice. Do we really believe that Gahndi or Martin Luther King Jr. REALLY believed and fought for the right of everyone to smoke grass, play X-box all day and get a government check for it?

Again, I'm purposely being pointed. Attack my view as heartless if you wish. But if you really want more adherents to the principle of social justice, we need to define it in such a way that a majority can support it. It shouldn't be a blank check for every crazy moral relativist desire the Left can come up with. I would happily part with an additional 10% of my paycheck, if I could be convniced every last dime went to feeding hungry children, or training single mothers out on their own. But I am not going to take food and clothes away from my own daughter to give it to some 22 year old punk who's too lazy to get a job. Sorry.

[English assassin]

the meaning of social justice seems to have changed in the UK. In the fifties, the left were for "equality" and the right for "justice" (amongst a lot of other things in each case).

Now I notice, just as spending has become "investment" equality seems to have become "social justice". Yet if you look t what is being touted as social justice it is fairly clearly an equality agenda.

IMHO social justice means equal opportunities. That does mean quite a lot of public (or it may be charitable) spending, since to have equal opportunities you do need to make sure everyone can get a good education, has good health, that no one is denied a job because of their race or disability and so on. I vote for that, yes please.

ocial justice does not nmean equal outcomes. it is no part of justice that you are sheilded from the consequences of your own freely chosen actions. In fact that strikes me as the opposite of justice. I really can't understand why the left thinks taking money (which I work for and which no one has to pay me) from me and giving it to someone else is a good thing (unless the someone else is, say, a teacher doing a good job at the right wage in which case I am all in favour of it, see above.)

So, sorry Don, but I am violently agreeing with you.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Don Corleone
Yet, when it comes to execution of policy in conjunction with that principle, many feel that "Social Justice" means that everyone is entitled to own their own abode, regardless of whether they earned it or not. They take it to mean that all of their utitilities, including digital cable and broadband internet access are automatically provided. They take it to mean that everyone should have their own vehicle

It is my personal opinion that the government should provide only for their basic needs, food, and housing (electricity/water/heat/ac) and nothing more. People need to be assisted back into productive citizens. Not codelled into lazzy lardarses. We also need to raise minimum wage, and get rid of the massive influx of illegal immigrants. So those looking for a job can get one, and at a liveable salary, 5$'s an hour is not enough to feed a family on.


Originally posted by Don Corleone
This is where I have a big problem with the whole concept of Social Justice. Do we really believe that Gahndi or Martin Luther King Jr. REALLY believed and fought for the right of everyone to smoke grass, play X-box all day and get a government check for it?

The simple answer is, without the struggle of oppression and poverty Gahndi and Martin Luther King Jr. would not have rissen to the greatness they did. Without the desire and the struggle you simply cannot have greatness. They would have grown up codelled and not done much, there wouldnt have been a need to do much. Providing everything to everyone is self destructive to a country.


Again, I'm purposely being pointed. Attack my view as heartless if you wish. But if you really want more adherents to the principle of social justice, we need to define it in such a way that a majority can support it. It shouldn't be a blank check for every crazy moral relativist desire the Left can come up with. I would happily part with an additional 10% of my paycheck, if I could be convniced every last dime went to feeding hungry children, or training single mothers out on their own. But I am not going to take food and clothes away from my own daughter to give it to some 22 year old punk who's too lazy to get a job. Sorry.

Bravo, yes completely agree.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My faith teaches me that charity is one of the great virtues, that giving is a duty of faith, and that it is of benefit to my soul and my fellow beings that I give when I can.

I cannot reconcile this teaching with charity forced upon me by a government at the point of a gun -- however well -intentioned.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Many people say that housing, healthcare, broadband, etc., are human rights. I say that nothing is your right if it has to be taken from other people and given to you.

I support private charity, and giving to the poor. I do not support continuingly supporting those who don't work when they can. Nor do I support any government 'charity'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Don Corleone]

IMHO social justice means equal opportunities. That does mean quite a lot of public (or it may be charitable) spending, since to have equal opportunities you do need to make sure everyone can get a good education, has good health, that no one is denied a job because of their race or disability and so on. I vote for that, yes please.
Hear, hear. (Or is it, here here. Or, hear here? ~:) ) Couldn't agree more.


So, sorry Don, but I am violently agreeing with you. That actually strongly implies to me that I must be in a good train of though. :bow:


Big Tex... agree 100%. You ever wonder if actually raising the minimum wage would even be necessary if we actually enforced our immigration policy?

Seamus... I agree with you. But, at the end of the day, what is the greater good: your ability to freely give, or that those in need receive aid? I know plenty of Christian people (I would argue they are no such thing) that do not believe in any charity beyond passing money to the collection plate. Apparently, they missed where Jesus mentioned tithing and alms separately. I'm not even certain that they require (or inquire) whether their church is actually meeting the needs of the poor with it. In an ideal world, yes, we'd all give enough to make certain that a woman with 3 kids who just left her abusive husband has a place to stay and food to eat within 12 hours. But the reality? Eh.... :juggle2:

[BDC]

People will always play the system. It's inevitable.

You either feed those who really need it and end up sucking up a few lazy idiots, else you let the genuinely poor and vulnerable die.

[Don Corleone]

I actually agree with you on this point BDC. At the end of the day, any human system is going to come complete with human error. On which side do we want to err?

That's not my point. I'm talking about actually designing the system so lazy bums are ENTITLED to these benefits, not sneaking around and picking them up by exploiting loopholes.

In the mid-90's, welfare reform was a huge issue. I was at a public forum where an economics professor and two sociology professors claimed that making able bodied adult men work for welfare benefits was sadism. The woman on the panel started crying, saying we were right back to the days of slavery, because black men on welfare would be forced to work for the plantation owner (she was white, for the record). It was at this point that I got up to leave. It's this mentality... that we must design a system that rewards people for their own pre-chosen laziness and worthlessness that I am railing against.

There's always holes in any policy meant to contain spending... that doesn't mean that you abandon the concept of constraining spending.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

the meaning of social justice seems to have changed in the UK. In the fifties, the left were for "equality" and the right for "justice" (amongst a lot of other things in each case).

Now I notice, just as spending has become "investment" equality seems to have become "social justice". Yet if you look t what is being touted as social justice it is fairly clearly an equality agenda.

IMHO social justice means equal opportunities. That does mean quite a lot of public (or it may be charitable) spending, since to have equal opportunities you do need to make sure everyone can get a good education, has good health, that no one is denied a job because of their race or disability and so on. I vote for that, yes please.

ocial justice does not nmean equal outcomes. it is no part of justice that you are sheilded from the consequences of your own freely chosen actions. In fact that strikes me as the opposite of justice. I really can't understand why the left thinks taking money (which I work for and which no one has to pay me) from me and giving it to someone else is a good thing (unless the someone else is, say, a teacher doing a good job at the right wage in which case I am all in favour of it, see above.)

So, sorry Don, but I am violently agreeing with you.

I mostly agree with you on this issue-acheiving social equality should be paramount, and, if this were acheived, we would not need any kind of the second sort of justice that you mention. However, until this is acheived it must be conceded that some people are disadvantaged through no fault of their own, and an arguement can be made for some limited government handouts on this basis.

On the whole though, you're bang on.

[Duke Malcolm]

I have never understood the concept of "social justice"...

Occassionally it seems clear, obvious, but then I take a walk through the city centre and see a Scottish Socialist Party stall with "Fighting for Social Justice" emblazoned on a bed-sheet above a foldout garden table -- and they are about giving money to those who do not work and a myriad other bizarre and unworkable policies. And bandying about words such as "fascist", "imperialist", and a variety of others upon anyone who disagrees with the, as is the tendency of such socialists...

But how can simply giving money out be Social Justice? Surely social justice should be the equal treatment of all, not preferential treatment to the poor and penalising the rich? Shouldn't it focus on increasing the mechanisms for social mobility to both encourage people into worthwhile jobs with higher pay rather than reducing the pay gap by giving out money?

[Don Corleone]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with British domestic politics, but let me offer an analogy from American politics (sorry for the provinicialism).

FDR with the Tenessee Valley Authority... this is what I have in mind when I think of positive Social Justice. Here, FDR recognized that because so many family breadwinners were out of work, the social fabric of the country was eroding. People were starving, losing generational wealth (such as family homesteads), the works. With the depressed state of the economy, he recognized that he had to infuse cash from the government into the hands of families: for food, for mortgage payements, etc. But he also realized 1) it should be a temporary solution 2) it should be a "hand-up, not a hand-out". So he created the TVA, and basically, if you were the family breadwinner and got laid off, you went to work for the government. You built hiking trails in national parks. You built dams. You built roads. You built all sorts of public works. The government became the USA's biggest employer, and much of our infrastructure hearkens back to those days.

However, what FDR proposed as a temporary solution became enshrined in law. Then the 60's came. LBJ declared war on poverty and launched the Great Society. Cash payments from the government went from being payments to entitlements. By virtue of the fact you were consuming oxygen, you had a right to expect cash from the government, and you got it. This is, in my mind, social justice at its worst.

What's wrong with requiring people receiving public funds to work for the public? If I go on unemployment insurance, or if I'm receiving WIC (food assistance labelled as Women, Infants and Children) or living in Section 8 housing (the government pays the majority of my rent/mortgage), why shouldn't the government have the right to put me to work?

[BDC]

why shouldn't the government have the right to put me to work?

Do you want lazy bums building your roads though? The work would be shoddy and you'd be better just advertising for the jobs anyway as otherwise more people would be out of work. I think it's difficult drawing comparisons from a time when the economy was genuinely destroyed and there was no work, even for those who were desperately looking for it, and now, when almost anyone could make in in America with lots of effort and some luck.

There's also an issue with management here - historically in Britain the parish would put you to work on something and then pay you for it. I think this sort of system is (or was until fairly recently) used in the Channel Islands. This doesn't work particularly well on a larger scale because of the huge amount of paperwork involved nationally in making sure everyone who can work can, and you aren't starving people who genuinely cannot work.

Ideally in Britain I think more money just needs to be put into educating and motivating bits of the country (i.e. if you live in a souless sink estate, it doesn't surprise me much if you have no ambition and don't try), and closing up silly loopholes.

[Ironside]

I'm not 100% clear with the rules to get unemployment payments in Sweden, but I do know that you have to work at least occationally (through work provided by the goverment, if you cannot get a work by yourself) to get payed.

[English assassin]

What's wrong with requiring people receiving public funds to work for the public?

Well (he says nervously looking over his shoulder in case an economist is listening) there might (or might not) be a few things wrong with it.

Basically you are saying the government will guarantee a job to anyone who wants it. That seems to be what the TVA did. We tried to manage our economy at full employment between 1945 and 1979, and in a sense the government did guarantee jobs (by nationalising failing companies), and it was a disaster. Now, I don't know enough economics to know if it HAS to be a disaster, or if it was just badly done (the nationalisation route removed much incentive for companies not to fail which would not have to be the case if the government simply employed the unemployed directly, so I guess you wouldn't repeat that mistake, but the effect on wage inflation of full employment seems fairly unavoidable).

Also you do need a lot of surplus jobs that aren't being done at all. Sounds like the TVA did have a lot of those jobs but today it might be more difficult.

Finally it might be better for them to be in training rather than working. and some might not be able to work due to disability or caring responsibilities, though I would guess you didn't mean to include those.

All in all I'm not sure about workfare. I think its better to pitch benefits at a level where the moral hazard of chosing a life on benefits is low (which to be fair, it is in the UK, really no one is living the life of Riley on handouts whatever the Daily Mail may think) coupled with good training and education opportunities and more childcare places.

[Ja'chyra]

As someone who has had to do it, I think having to work for your social money isn't a bad idea.

I was unemployed for almost a year due to the fact that the company I worked for went bust and I was made redundant. During this time I signed on for my weekly pittance, the money was barely enough to live on and definately didn't cover things like phones, broadband or X-boxes. The problem was that the longer you are unemployed the lazier you get, and I say this as someone who was actively looking for work and had always been employed apart from this one time.

So, what we have are people, some of them straight from school signing on for social security. Now some people only sign on as a last resort, like myself, and have paid their taxes all of there life and are due a helping hand, but others only want the easy money and to hang about with their mates. I disagree that we should be spending a fortune trying to coax them into wanting to work and doing things for themselves, after all you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, training though is always good so long as it is something that will actually be of some use. I definately do not agree with sending them on holiday and things like that. Now, if these people are quite happy to lie in bed till 1 then go receive money from the rest of us why should they not be forced to expend a little effort to get it? Hell, I spent weeks cutting down bracken on hillsides and planting trees, but what about building tracks, cleaning canals even doing some gardening for pensioners all of these are worthwhile endeavours and so long as their task is in relation to the amount of money they receive I do not see how they can complain.

I am not saying that we should offer anyone a job who wants one, after all I think we should get our moneys worth out of them even if the only reason is that they look for a job that pays more for the same amount of effort.

In the end, as Don says, why should the rest of us be forced to support those who have no intention of contributing? Now I'm sure JAG will be along at some point to talk about the re-distribution of wealth, but, quite frankly, to hell with that. I, along with millions of others, manage to get out of my bed in the morning and go earn the money to pay for my bills so why can't everyone? While it's true that there are areas with low levels of employment, people have been moving home just to find work for, well, ever, I moved 400 miles. What's needed is not more coddling but a sharp lesson in reality.

Heh, and you thought you were harsh Don.

[Radier]

My faith teaches me that charity is one of the great virtues, that giving is a duty of faith, and that it is of benefit to my soul and my fellow beings that I give when I can.

I cannot reconcile this teaching with charity forced upon me by a government at the point of a gun -- however well -intentioned.

This is exactly how my viewpoint is. Forced solidarity is NOT the same as private solidarity.

[Fragony]

This is exactly how my viewpoint is. Forced solidarity is NOT the same as private solidarity.

Sounds like you live in the wrong country then, if there is one nanny-state gone completily bonkers it's Blondistan :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Well clearly it has become an emotion driven, vote buying scheme. The problem with concepts like social justice is that it turns into social equality which degrades even further so socialism. Arguably this is the trend in modern, advanced societies and it does have its positive aspects but generates many negative ones as well.

For example: Try taking the money away.

In less there is a large public outcry because the problem has grown into an abomination there will be no change. As more of the public benefits from “hand outs” fewer of them will want to relinquish them. These programs have a life of their own and are hard to control. It should be left to private organizations with public oversight and limited assistance in the poorest regions (i.e. the West Virginia example) or during times of extreme hardship (the Great Depression). The concept of “charity at gunpoint” is one that doesn’t sit well with me.

[Don Corleone]

I agree. One of the biggest myths propagated about American politics is that FDR was a socialist. He wasn't. He proposed Social Security (in it's current form) and other proto-entitlement programs as an immediate and temporary solution to a disaster of epic proportions. I think he's rolling in his grave that 24 year old men, perfectly healthy, sit at home taking hits off a bong playing video games and cashing government checks. It wasn't what he intended at all.

I'm all about equal access and equal opportunity. I would argue (and I'm really going to lose my conservative club membership for this one) that in today's society, a university level education is a requirement to be a functioning member of society, and we as a society owe it to individuals to make certain that anybody that wants one, gets one. We actually have a lot of government backed student loan programs to achieve this goal, and when I say university level, I do mean technical colleges. Not everyone needs to be attending Princeton to get a PhD in Economics. I also believe in a strong meritocracy for public payement of university education.

All that being said, that's not really what I started this thread over. Call them chavs, call them welfare rats, call them whatever you like. There's an entire class of people that are born, live and die on the government check that never work a day in their lives. Are we really doing them any favors? Are we really un-Christian for suggesting they should go get a job?

[yesdachi]

I'm all about equal access and equal opportunity. I would argue (and I'm really going to lose my conservative club membership for this one) that in today's society, a university level education is a requirement to be a functioning member of society, and we as a society owe it to individuals to make certain that anybody that wants one, gets one. We actually have a lot of government backed student loan programs to achieve this goal, and when I say university level, I do mean technical colleges. Not everyone needs to be attending Princeton to get a PhD in Economics. I also believe in a strong meritocracy for public payement of university education.
I understand what you are saying but I would argue that our school system (k-12) should raise the bar so that a high school diploma was the equivalent to at least a modern associate’s degree in “general” subjects, a diploma should be adequate for a decent (entry level) white collar job and additional skills should be gained thru tech schools, apprenticeships and internships. It is crazy to me to require nearly our entire population to have to go into debt just to get an average job. Back in the day a high school education was more than good for most jobs but as jobs have become more difficult (or require more knowledge to do) our school system has only gotten worse. An average education should be sufficient for an average job. An average job shouldn’t require a secondary or tertiary level education that sets a person back 10 years of loan payments (or grants paid with tax dollars) especially when we pay so darn much to have a K-12 school system. :bow:

If the goal is a decent job in a white collar job or a more advanced blue collar job then there are always jobs that require less skill to do and should be done by those on there way to a decent job. No one should be living their entire life on a paycheck signed by the government (unless there is a real good reason, like a handicap).

[Don Corleone]

Education, be it kindergarten or at the PhD level is never free. There is a cost. The question is at what point society continues to recognize a benefit from seeing a majority of its citizens educated to that level, regardless of ability to pay.

In the founding days of country, our economy was primarily agrarian, and a rudimentary "3R" education was sufficient. As we moved into industrial age, the 3Rs became a base requirement, with secondary now moving into the category of 'desireable by society', and as a result, public secondary schools were founded to provide a secondary education.

In the early to middle part of the twentieth century, we again shifted the focus of our economy from an industrial one to a more technological one. Again, the educational requirements for the average citizen shifted. It was in society's best interest to see a large portion of it's population educated at the university level (either in true liberal arts universities, or in technical colleges). Yet, this time, the onus was left on the individual to pay for their education. The government acted more as a facilitator, establishing guaranteed loan programs to see to it that a college education was achieable, at the expense of starting life in debt. Still, with the increased earning potential of the individual, it still made educations affordable.

I would argue that we have moved to a place where a college degree is a minimum. The whole illegal immigration trend is an orchetsrated attempt by both parties to ensure low salary pressures on unskilled labor. There's actually been movement to press salaries down at the college educated level as well. Accounting, banking, software design, engineering, medical research... many fields that were traditionally a 'slam dunk' for somebody who had the intelligence and drive to get through four years of college are now being farmed out to 3rd world educated populations, such as China and India, or they are brought here in sufficient numbers to deflate prices. The only way forward for the 'average American' is to continue to drive their own producitivty and knowledge level up... financial security in today's day and age requires a post graduate degree. If we're going to require such an advanced degree of people we have two options: 1) establish programs to help people achieve these goals 2) devolve into a stratified society, where it becomes cheaper for the sufficiently educated to just keep a majority of the population on sustenance living and farm all the labor they could have been doing over to India and China. Personally, I lean towards one.

In a representative democracy, equal access to sufficient education must be a basic right, otherwise you devolve quickly into a Platocracy.

[doc_bean]

I'm all about equal access and equal opportunity. I would argue (and I'm really going to lose my conservative club membership for this one) that in today's society, a university level education is a requirement to be a functioning member of society,


I have to disagree with you here, the best payed jobs here are manual labour. Plumbers, painters, etc make fotunes most engineers and middle managers can only dream off.



and we as a society owe it to individuals to make certain that anybody that wants one, gets one.

that I agree with, if they are capable and willing, they should be able to get the education they want.



All that being said, that's not really what I started this thread over. Call them chavs, call them welfare rats, call them whatever you like. There's an entire class of people that are born, live and die on the government check that never work a day in their lives. Are we really doing them any favors? Are we really un-Christian for suggesting they should go get a job?

You're really asking to questions here.
1. Wouldn't it be better if they had to get a job ?
2. What's the christian thing to do ?

I'd say they both have very different answers. For society's sake, it would of course be best if all people did their absolute best to improve said society. Be productive !
The christian thing is something different though. It isn't (imho) as important who you give your money to as it is that you give. Christianity focusses on what YOU do, not what other people do, their sins are their business and we should leave the judging up to God. So i'd say the christian thing to do would be to give them money, and let God present the bill in His due time (but don't start feeling superior either...)

[Don Corleone]

You're really asking to questions here.
1. Wouldn't it be better if they had to get a job ?
2. What's the christian thing to do ?

I'd say they both have very different answers. For society's sake, it would of course be best if all people did their absolute best to improve said society. Be productive !
The christian thing is something different though. It isn't (imho) as important who you give your money to as it is that you give. Christianity focusses on what YOU do, not what other people do, their sins are their business and we should leave the judging up to God. So i'd say the christian thing to do would be to give them money, and let God present the bill in His due time (but don't start feeling superior either...)

I have to disagree with you here. It's our responsibility as Christians to help those in need. Not those that are too lazy to take care of themselves. Can you find any example in the gospel or the New Testament where Jesus acted or spoke in such a way to support the idea that people have an inherent right to a cushy lifestyle without performing any labor for it at all?

The poor in His day were truly in need... any man that could was out in the fields, either their own or hired out to somebody else. You didn't have people that simply didn't work because they didn't feel like it. The 'poor' were cripples, blind, lepers, etc. They had no other options.

I don't see anything in any of Jesus's teachings that state or imply that it is my duty to provide the lazy, the unemployed by choice, with all the luxeries of life. Your argument that it's not up to us what other people do with the charity we offer them opens a pandoras box of social and moral ills that Christ never hinted at, let alone commanded. By your reasoing, as Christians, we SHOULD provide whiskey to hopeless alcoholics, crack to addicts, etc. It's not our place to inhibit their decision, just to provide them with whatever they think they might want. I totally disagree with that. In fact, I think that while it has become ingrained in public policy, it is an evil that Christ would speak against. I personally believe He would be the first one to tell a 19 year old chav 'Get a job'.

[doc_bean]

I would argue that we have moved to a place where a college degree is a minimum.

If I had seen your reply earlier I would have added it to my previous post. Two things:

1. Highschool has become a waste of time

Really, how many of us were bored all throughout HS ? I surely was, and Belgian HS is supposedly one of the hardest. HS now serves to the slowest students without allowing the better students to advance at THEIR own pace (at least here). Add to that that a lot of HS subjects are pure filler, 70% of the things you learn you forget. Not everyone needs to know about chemical compounds and Rutherford's theory of the atom, not everyone needs to know the kidney works, and nearly no one needs to know what they teach in these new 'social' classes. We're raising a nation of quiz players here !
If given the chance I'm sure a significant percentage of students could have taken and finished a university-like education 2-5 years earlier then they can now.

2. I'm not a big fan of outsourcing

Factories that their production to Asia might consider moving their tech support to Asia, might consider settling their management in Asia, might consider hiring local engineers, etc.
If we (the west) wan't to stay competitive we need a balanced economy, specializing might lead to higher productivity (in the short run) but it's a threat in the long run. Besides, a lot of good innovative ideas have come from the 'production floor' rather than from engineers in their office. Putting both too far apart is not a good plan, and it won't last.

[Don Corleone]

Doc, you seem to be laboring under the incorrect notion that there is something you or I can do to stop the flow of jobs to Asia. I totally agree with you that mid-level management is next, eventually senior management, and the rich guys who thought it was such a great idea are going to find their jobs outsourced next. But it's a fact, and one neither you nor I can do much about. All we can do is find new ways to make the product we have to sell in the marketplace of labor more competitive then alternatives.

[doc_bean]

I have to disagree with you here. It's our responsibility as Christians to help those in need. Not those that are too lazy to take care of themselves. Can you find any example in the gospel or the New Testament where Jesus acted or spoke in such a way to support the idea that people have an inherent right to a cushy lifestyle without performing any labor for it at all?

Those were simpler times of course. Wasn't there a story about giving a thief more than he wanted to take ?
Now, Jesus was of course all about helping those in need, so while there are still people out there in actual need, I think he'd prefer to help them out. But would He just turn down someone who asked but didn't need ? If it happened to Him, He would have just convinced that person he didn't need it, but what would His advice for the average person be ?



The poor in His day were truly in need... any man that could was out in the fields, either their own or hired out to somebody else. You didn't have people that simply didn't work because they didn't feel like it. The 'poor' were cripples, blind, lepers, etc. They had no other options.

Jesus was pretty friendly to all sinners, I don't think He would judge the lazy too harshly.



I don't see anything in any of Jesus's teachings that state or imply that it is my duty to provide the lazy, the unemployed by choice, with all the luxeries of life. Your argument that it's not up to us what other people do with the charity we offer them opens a pandoras box of social and moral ills that Christ never hinted at, let alone commanded.

If He had given a beggar money and that beggar would have just used it to get drunk, would He not give him money the next day ? Infinite forgiveness and all that.



By your reasoing, as Christians, we SHOULD provide whiskey to hopeless alcoholics, crack to addicts, etc. It's not our place to inhibit their decision, just to provide them with whatever they think they might want.

We should give them specific things that (could only) lead to sin. We should try to help them, and if they mess up, we should help them again, ad infinitum.



I totally disagree with that. In fact, I think that while it has become ingrained in public policy, it is an evil that Christ would speak against. I personally believe He would be the first one to tell a 19 year old chav 'Get a job'.

Probably right, but if that chav was hungry he would have given him food. That's the hard part, determining what is really needed.

[doc_bean]

Doc, you seem to be laboring under the incorrect notion that there is something you or I can do to stop the flow of jobs to Asia. I totally agree with you that mid-level management is next, eventually senior management, and the rich guys who thought it was such a great idea are going to find their jobs outsourced next. But it's a fact, and one neither you nor I can do much about. All we can do is find new ways to make the product we have to sell in the marketplace of labor more competitive then alternatives.

We need to make production competitive here again, through all possible government incentives. This knowledge-economy is a bubble, and it will burst. Better to catch it first.

EDIT: and we need protectionism back !

I see little point in having more 'liberal arts' majors, what will they contribute to society ? Better to teach them how to repair cars !

[Haudegen]

I´d like to add a thought that hasn´t been mentioned here:

The productivity in our time has risen so much that not everybodies´ labor force is needed to provide the food, the cars, services and all the other things. Above was stated that in the days of Jesus there were no lazy people, at least none we know about. But back then almost everyone was needed in the economy, and be it only to grow the plants a man consumed for himself.

Therefore I think the axiom that everyone who wants a job will get a job is no longer. Especially those people with low qualification will become redundant more and more. And to force everyone to get a higher qualification doesn´t seem to be an appropriate answer to me. How many lawyers, doctors, managers, entertainers does the society need? Will there be an increased need for those services in the future? I don´t think so. However the competion in these services will increase which may lead to better quality.

[Kanamori]

There is another breed of people whom you support, but it is not through a Democratic government. You support them with your own labor, and everything is owned in their name, they hire others to any and all of the work. They also buy single watches that cost more than most smokers would ever spend on weed in their lifetime.~;)

[Xiahou]

The simple answer is, without the struggle of oppression and poverty Gahndi and Martin Luther King Jr. would not have rissen to the greatness they did. Without the desire and the struggle you simply cannot have greatness. They would have grown up codelled and not done much, there wouldnt have been a need to do much. Providing everything to everyone is self destructive to a country.Something of a tangent but.... raising minimum wage is a terrible idea. The desire to hire workers at below legal payrates is a large part of what's driving illegal immigration. Yes, it's true someone can't live independantly making $5/hr- but who has to? When I was in highschool it wasnt tough to find jobs that paid better than minimum wage. In college, most of my jobs paid $7-$9/hour. So, should we make minimum wage $10/hr so everyone can live off of it? Why do highschool kids who bag your groceries need a 'living wage' when they're working at home? The vast majority of minimum wage workers arent the family bread-winners.

[Divinus Arma]

I have to agree primarily with Crazed Rabbit on this issue. We have an obligation to provide for those who are physically unable to provide for themselves due to mental or physical handicap. Having boatloads of children does not qualify. Being addicted to drugs does not qualify. Being an unemployable felon does not qualify.

As for housing, I wold say that reasonable accomadations should be made for those who are incapable of being productive by no fault of their own. Nothing fancy, but something safe and comfortable. Furthermore, they should be given the opportunity to lift themselves to greater potentail should be so able via education, rehabilitation, etc.

As for the rest of the downtrodden, they qualify as leeches. Are your children a burden? Who's fault is that, urban single mother? Are you addicted to narcotics or recovering from drug addiction? Who's fault is that? Are you a felon with a criminal history?

The ONLY accomodations these people should get are a bed in an open shelter facility with shared restrooms and no TV and little creature comforts. They had their opportunity and blew it. They would normally be able to take the "undesirable jobs", but now the illegal immigrants get those, so go figure. No jobs for the leech undercalss.


People should have equal access to education, and for the most part they do, via open enrollments at many private non-profit universities and community colleges.

[Kanamori]

Still, I cannot see why it is always the impoverished leeches of welfare that people always crusade against. Don't you realize the you have to work, especially in a large corporate setting, for an individual or a few who, in the end, don't have to do anything? Sometimes, the problem for some here seems to be that they are supporting the lazy. There are lazy people that don't live in poverty, in fact they live very contrarily to poverty, and these people that don't do anything also make their fortunes off normal peoples' work. Why do you have such a problem supporting one and not the other? Both want to avoid getting jobs and working for people, one just looks a lot more respectable and his ancestors did very well for him.

[Navaros]

What I find interesting about this thread is that most people seem to want to come down really hard on "lazy welfare bums" who cost some money out of the system (but probably not very much at all in the grand scheme of things), yet politicians waste billions upon billions of taxpayers' money for no reason and "that's fine and dandy". Politicans waste way more of taxpayers' money than "lazy welfare bums", but no one screams for the politicians' heads on a platter. There is no outrage about that. Yet "lazy welfare bums" get many people all up in arms. This in my view is a ridiculous double standard because politicians are ripping you off to an incomprehensibly larger degree than "lazy welfare bums" are.

How much do people on welfare get paid anyhow? I bet it's not a lot. I bet they don't go around thinking: "Wow I'm living the life of Riley due to my huge welfare check! Life sure is great for me! In a year or two, I'm gonna be rich! So glad that this welfare check has helped me buy a home and live the good life!" Rather, people in a welfare situation probably have to struggle with day to day expenses and can't afford to treat themselves with the good things in life. Hence contrary to what seems to be popular belief on this board, those "lazy welfare bums" are already suffering as opposed to "living it up". I bet in most cases if people are on welfare there is a reason for it, and unlikely to be simply because they are lazy.

As for the statement of Jesus being a socialist: no way. Socialists believe in murdering babies, and "homosexuality", and no doubt many other things that Jesus is absolutely abhorred by.

[SomeNick]

I believe a natural Social Justice would prevail if people would treat others more fairly without attempting to impose a personally exclusive, and often legaly manipulated, self serving beneficial reality on others, and thereby intentionaly excluding the justice or fairness of the other by denying recognition of his existence in the matter.

The funny thing about it is, they think they are getting away with it and the other is none the wiser. Or worse, the perpetrator is armed with the legal fact the other party can't do anything about it. The truth is, they know, and for whatever reason they are forcibly bound to it and it breeds contempt... And thus social inequality which generates negativity, spirals into crime etc etc and on and on...

When people discover how to work at a social justice that benefits all fairly and appropriately (e.g. their efforts and actions, not station or predisposition), and most importantly proportionately... I think Social 'Injustice' will fade away.

When heaps of people are happy, it's hard to deny that as a very real policy and not one invented on the fly and whims and lets not forget the benefits of the few... by organisations and governments, that really just becomes a piece of legislative paper to flaunt in the faces of those bound legaly to be manipulated and extorted with no recourse or avenue to real justice. Only laws that are fabricated by the few that serve the few.

The more hazy factors of Social Justice are those that stem from bits of paper pushed through government as legislation to become law and those who then decide a way that was either predifined to exploit it or devise a way to do it after.

Legislation would work better if it wasn't determined by some very selfish people amongst the ranks of other fetid, power hungry minds, those expert at defining your future on bits of paper (often considering themselves before you of course, prior to writing or 'debating' anything...), in some building, but instead was served as a suggestion to the public and they put their thoughts on it and only then the legislation is determined as law.

It would actually work better too being a lot more comprehensive as it would be contributed to by many fields of endeavour and give the governments real power because it would be based on the people's wants and real and natural intention of the country's future direction. Complete agreement. Not enforced, and often criminaly 'legal' agreement. Democracy is a joke. Yeah sure you have personal freedoms that don't exist in other countries maybe, but a little psychotic dictator, or group of even, has their finger on the pulse of those freedoms. And your freedom is assured only as long as it can be exploited to free the freedom abusers more. If you think that's a harsh assessment, I am utterly convinced if a population turned around and said THEY would define the outcome of policies and not small groups of selfish individuals, they would reel in apathy. All their little acquisitions due to station, and having the unique position of imposing reality for many others from that station, would become very worthless indeed. They would really be a figure head for a country then. With no more power than that of refering others to and keeping official public records of policies as they should be.

When was the last time your government provided independantly verified facts (by groups appointed by the population) for public perusal before deciding what to legislate and therefore implicate your social freedoms and possibly lives on some new law or country's actions recently over the years?

I used to tick the box on a ballot paper at election times that was motivated by observing the actions of those seeking appointment. But now I think I'll just leave it blank in the future. That way at least my hands are blood free. And if ill will should befall me, enforced and unavoidable, despite my best 'legaly' and honestly pursued efforts... I will know who to eternaly blame.

So, in closing, I personaly feel it would be of greater benefit to all if all adopted a little more fairness in the dealings with others. No matter what. As, what happens with the many always must be adopted by the few, or it disempowers them.



Anyway interesting discussion. Just some personal thoughts about it all, hope you enjoy the read. And also, (forgot to add it above) it’s ok to be rich as long as you haven’t ruined any lives along the way, and don’t intend to ruin lives whilst being rich.

Wasn't going to reply but couldn't resist and got free time today yay! Also didn't involve a government to give it to me by giving the go ahead for dodgy corporate practices or other reason and me in turn pat some piece of scum on the back and / or line his pockets; I earned it all by myself... : S
But unfortunately they get to steal a few dollars from me tomorrow : (

Freedom and equality hey?

[English assassin]

As for the statement of Jesus being a socialist: no way. Socialists believe in murdering babies, and "homosexuality", and no doubt many other things that Jesus is absolutely abhorred by

There may well be a positive correlation between an individual being a socialist and supporting abortion or equal rights for homosexuals (just as there would be a correlation between being a libertarian and those two positions) but it is not correct to say that these are things that socialists, qua socialists, believe in.

It is, though, pointless to call Jesus a socialist. Jesus the man in history was not a socialist as socialism as an economic system was inconceivable in the light of the primitive economies at the time. If you don't have a modern concept of ownership rights you can hardly be in favour of redistributing or collectively owning those rights.

Also, Jesus's worldview was essentially apocalypic and at a macro level disinterested in the material world. Its hardly likely that he would advocate a paerticular approach to wealth in this life when he clearly wanted his followers to focus only on the next life.

Jesus as god (I'm going with this for the sake of the argument, fellow atheists) may well have a view on present day economics but, as god, I would imagine it is likely to be rather more sophisticated than anything any human economist has yet put forward.

Otherwise, Nav, point well made, though its not either be critical of welfare or be critical of politicans. But I'd join in with a "wasteful politicians and civil servants should be sacked" thread happily.

[Idaho]

What I find interesting about this thread is that most people seem to want to come down really hard on "lazy welfare bums" who cost some money out of the system (but probably not very much at all in the grand scheme of things), yet politicians waste billions upon billions of taxpayers' money for no reason and "that's fine and dandy". Politicans waste way more of taxpayers' money than "lazy welfare bums", but no one screams for the politicians' heads on a platter. There is no outrage about that. Yet "lazy welfare bums" get many people all up in arms. This in my view is a ridiculous double standard because politicians are ripping you off to an incomprehensibly larger degree than "lazy welfare bums" are.

How much do people on welfare get paid anyhow? I bet it's not a lot. I bet they don't go around thinking: "Wow I'm living the life of Riley due to my huge welfare check! Life sure is great for me! In a year or two, I'm gonna be rich! So glad that this welfare check has helped me buy a home and live the good life!" Rather, people in a welfare situation probably have to struggle with day to day expenses and can't afford to treat themselves with the good things in life. Hence contrary to what seems to be popular belief on this board, those "lazy welfare bums" are already suffering as opposed to "living it up". I bet in most cases if people are on welfare there is a reason for it, and unlikely to be simply because they are lazy.


:dizzy2: I agree with Navaros! :help:


As for the statement of Jesus being a socialist: no way. Socialists believe in murdering babies, and "homosexuality", and no doubt many other things that Jesus is absolutely abhorred by.

Phew.. thank the lord you stuck that on the end you loon! :sweatdrop:

Excellent debate all. Top notch. Some very interesting points and cross-bench movement on this one.


We have an obligation to provide for those who are physically unable to provide for themselves due to mental or physical handicap. Having boatloads of children does not qualify. Being addicted to drugs does not qualify. Being an unemployable felon does not qualify

I understand the angle you are coming from, however you are looking at this problem the way a campaigning politician handles it. They claim that by not liking or supporting something it will go away and cease to be a problem.

However if you don't support the family with loads of kids, or the crack addict or the ex-con that won't remove them from society. When dealing with society you have to face these problems and deal with them pragmatically. This means spending money on selfish, self destructive and anti-social people simply because otherwise they get more destructive and anti-social.

On the face of it this seems abhorrant and unjust. Why are we spending millions on people who are 'bad' and less on people who are 'good'? Well there isn't really a quick and easy answer. The nearest you come to it is that you are effectively bribing the bad people to be less bad so that the good people can get on with their lives.

[Kralizec]

...Having boatloads of children does not qualify...

And what happens to the kids then?

[rory_20_uk]

A long term plan would be for people to not have them. Since one's money is not going up with the sprogs you are having, perhaps the parents might decide to not have any more? You speak as though them having kids is an act over which they have no control.

Other options: abort or adopt.

Sure, on wealfare alone isn't great. But why not suppliment your job with welfare? What is the state going to do? Put you in jail? Then true you get less liberties, but everything is provided.

To the undesirables you are referring to Idaho giving them small amounts of money does not pay for the drug habit, and ensures that the next generation of kids is like their waster parents.

Pragmatic would be either legalise drugs or free drugs to druggies and if parents are having masses of kids give warnings followed up by forced adoption and sterilisation.

Bribing the bad should be one half of the equation. The other is punishing those that fall further

Break the cycle? Sure. That means that some need to be broken.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

So basically you are arguing for forced sterlisations/abortions/adoptions and workhouses/prisons/police intimidation to frighten and threaten people with.

Whoa there Ghengis!

[rory_20_uk]

if private individuals are footing the bill I feel that they deserve great personal liberties. Have 1 or 100 children. Have 1 or 50 wives. As the individual pays, the individual decides.

If people are being paid by the state, the state should have a say in the lives of the individuals.

Children who go to a loving household are going to be better off that staying with the single mum bumming off benefits.

If people can not handle their own contraception, then the state should step in.

Workhouses? What, like work to get benefits? What is wrong with that? These people failed to get work themselves. As they wish to be supported they should "pay" for this service.

Police intimidation was never mentioned. But no one's ever accused you of rationality... :laugh4:

Police in theory should not be frightening. They are if you are a benefit cheat, are a squatter or are otherwise breaking the law. That is not the fault of the police, but the individual breaking the law.

Poice in theory should not be threatening. They are if you are breaking the law and they are warning you that next time you will be arrested.

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

I understand the angle you are coming from, however you are looking at this problem the way a campaigning politician handles it. They claim that by not liking or supporting something it will go away and cease to be a problem.



I provided an answer. Minimum support: beds in an open homeless shelter type arrangment. One large room with cots. Shared restrooms and showers. As for the cause of the problem, that rests largely in education, our broken public education system. Once we have some competition via vouchers, then the system may just get better. Perfect example: The U.S. Postal Service. I have tons of respect for the federal postal system but they only became efficient after the introduction of successful private delivery firms. An entity improves with competition, fact. That is why the GOP is taking a foundational dookie; cause they don't have any solid competition.


And what happens to the kids then?

Depnds on the parent. Either (a) wards of the state until adoption, (b) send 'em back with their illegal immigrant parents, or (c) let the parents prove they deserve to kepp 'em (provided they are American citizens).

'sall good.

[Strike For The South]

Wow this isnt that hard yall :smile:

1. Mandatory drug tests for any govermnent help recipent

2. If you are physically/unable to help yourself you get help

3. Im willing to help the mother with 4 kids working a double shift more than the one who does nothing

Boys it boils down to this if you are honestly trying to be a productive member of socitey you get some help but you need to take the inative not the goverment.

[Franconicus]

Hi Don,

sorry for stepping in so late. Very interesting question. I'd like to add my point of view.

Sorry to say that, but I think you mix a few things:

On it's surface, it seems obvious. Yes, we should make certain nobody is homeless (that doesn't want to be). Yes, we should make certain that people aren't starving to death. I think it's a small minority that would argue we're not responsible for each member of society's basic needs. This is what makes the "Social Justice" argument so compelling.
Giving a home and food has nothing, absolutly nothing to do with social justice. It has something to do with the right to live, with human dignity and with social security.

Social justice means a couple of thinks. There has to be a just distribution of the wealth of the nation. Like every question about justice it is hard to find a common agreement on what is just. It is also about the added value of course. How should it be devided between the companies owners and the people who are doing the work?

Let me quote a German poet:
"Wer baute das siebentorige Theben? // In den Büchern stehen die Namen von Königen. // Haben die Könige die Felsbrocken herbeigeschleppt? // [...] // Der junge Alexander eroberte Indien. // Er allein? // Cäsar schlug die Gallier. // Hatte er nicht wenigstens einen Koch bei sich?"
"Who built the seven gates of Theben? // In the books there are written the names of kings.//Did the kings cart the boulders?//[...]// Young Alexaner conquered India.// He alone?//Cesar defeated the Gauls.// Didn't he have at least a cook with him?"

What about property? What about equal opportunities? As long as a child of the Bush or Kennedy clan has better opportunities than a child of a poor family then you do not have social justice.

By the way, I still remember my first lesson in economy. The teacher made it clear that the purpose of a capitalistic econmy is to creat as many goods as possible. Justice of the distribution is not an issue.

Should everybody be treated equal and get the same? That is more a question of communism than of sj. You can say - and some communists did it - that people are gifted to a different degree. Noone would doubt that. Some are strong others are smart, others are hard working. Those communists say that these are gifts by God. Being talented and strong means for a communist that you have a higher responsibility for the society, that the strong ones have to support the weak ones. For a free marketeer it means that the strong one can take money from the weak.

This is where I have a big problem with the whole concept of Social Justice. Do we really believe that Gahndi or Martin Luther King Jr. REALLY believed and fought for the right of everyone to smoke grass, play X-box all day and get a government check for it?
That is the central problem of communism. What to do if the people are not motivated to work (capitalism does not have this problem, for sure?)
You see that the answer is often that the society uses pressure to make the people work, for example working camps, gullags etc.. Therefore the answer is no, that is not the purpose of communism and has surely nothing to do with SJ.

[Idaho]

if private individuals are footing the bill I feel that they deserve great personal liberties. Have 1 or 100 children. Have 1 or 50 wives. As the individual pays, the individual decides.

If people are being paid by the state, the state should have a say in the lives of the individuals.

Children who go to a loving household are going to be better off that staying with the single mum bumming off benefits.

If people can not handle their own contraception, then the state should step in.

Workhouses? What, like work to get benefits? What is wrong with that? These people failed to get work themselves. As they wish to be supported they should "pay" for this service.

Police intimidation was never mentioned. But no one's ever accused you of rationality... :laugh4:

Police in theory should not be frightening. They are if you are a benefit cheat, are a squatter or are otherwise breaking the law. That is not the fault of the police, but the individual breaking the law.

Poice in theory should not be threatening. They are if you are breaking the law and they are warning you that next time you will be arrested.

~:smoking:

(Personal attack removed by Ser Clegane)
You speak from a position of never having had to face any hardship other than tugging your telegraph out of the letter box when it gets jammed.

The idea that it would be better for a child to be taken from it's natural parent and given to some strangers because the mother can't afford to work would be laughable if you weren't serious.

But then what can we expect from someone from a priverlidged background working in a profession which exposes and promotes a patrician uncle-knows-best attitude.

[rory_20_uk]

Bless... typical outrage there.

I imagine I've been a lot closer to the masses you love to talk about that you ever will. I imagine that crusading with words beats the hell out of dirtying your hands and doing something.

I notice no retort, just character assassination. :no:

You say the idea of adoption is terrible. Of course this being your view it requires no further evidence to support - it just is right. :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[Ser Clegane]

:stop:

Most of this discussion has so far been very interesting and civilized

I would appreciate if the discussion could be continued in such a way, instead of resorting to rude personal attacks.

Thanks

[Kagemusha]

One question.In the US when someone is living on a wellfare,cant the government appoint him to an job?In here if you are long term unemployed person without health restrictions you can be put to work on certain conditions.This is mainly used on people that arent seem to able to get a job themselves.The system works the way that the Government pays the employer some amount of money so the employer can hire the person who they wouldnt hire otherwise becouse it wouldnt be profitable. The person works with the unemployment fee.And that way he or she gains work experience and if the employer sees fit that the person is usefull and profitable he may get a real job with a real pay from that in the long run. I think it is a good way for keeping the people in touch with the working life and to prevent them for isolating themselves from society.

[Don Corleone]

No Kagemusha, the US government cannot compel able bodied young men and women to work for their benefits. It's been tried, it's called 'welfare reform' and courts routinely strike it down as cruel and inhumane.

[Kagemusha]

No Kagemusha, the US government cannot compel able bodied young men and women to work for their benefits. It's been tried, it's called 'welfare reform' and courts routinely strike it down as cruel and inhumane.

In that case i can clearly uderstand the frustration around the issue. How i see it,if the government provides for those people in my mind then the Government is their "employer" and no sane employer benefits for keeping its "employees" idle.

[Idaho]

Bless... typical outrage there.

I imagine I've been a lot closer to the masses you love to talk about that you ever will. I imagine that crusading with words beats the hell out of dirtying your hands and doing something.

I notice no retort, just character assassination. :no:

You say the idea of adoption is terrible. Of course this being your view it requires no further evidence to support - it just is right. :laugh4:

~:smoking:

I am one of the masses mate.

You see people as specimens. Things to be treated, problems to swiftly solve with your devastating doctor's intellect. A borderline sociopathic stance.

I can't debate with you because we don't share the same values. You don't value the humanity of people who are merely a problem, an inconvienience. You don't think people outside of your rugger and quaffing circle have the same value. How can we even begin a discussion on this basis?

[Tribesman]

You say the idea of adoption is terrible. Of course this being your view it requires no further evidence to support - it just is right.
Ah adoption , I thought that when you said the government taking care of contraception for low class scumsucking leeches you meant sterilisation .
But you just mean taking their kids away from the parents and shoving them in a home , thats so much better .

[Idaho]

I just hope Rory is specialising in surgery. I can only imagine his bedside manner ~:eek:

[Tribesman]

Bedside manner ?..."your child has respitory problems associated with bad living conditions , the remedy is for you to get rid of the child":laugh4: :laugh4: :idea2: :no:

[Ser Clegane]

Perhaps my last post hasn't been clear enough - it would be quite a pity if a discussion that started out very interestingly would have to be closed just because some patrons decide that they enjoy it more to make personal snide remarks instead of discussing the issues.

Please either
a) bring forward your on view on the original topic
or
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons

Personal attacks or attempts to mock other patrons do not add weight to your own opinion bur rather make you look like a schoolyard bully who yearns for the cheers of the mob.

Thanks

:bow:

[Don Corleone]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.

Sounds to me like Finland has the ideal answer. If you can't find a job, don't worry, they'll take care of you. But don't be surprised to find a pick or a shovel in your hands and being dragged of to join a road crew.

[Tribesman]

Please either
a) bring forward your on view on the original topic
or
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons

option b , who in their right mind would advocate sterilisation of welfare recipients ?
Likewise with enforced abortions(definately a dodgy topic)and enforced adoptions based entirely on your social standing .

As a nice alternative why not allow poor people to sell their children , you would be ensured that only those with enough money were able to buy them so it should be OK and the poor would have a good source of income . Though of course some of the liberals might consider human trafficing to be somewhat akin to slavery at least it lessens the burden on the tax payer , plus it gives an incentive for the lazy druggies to stay off drugs as a child from drug free parents would command premium prices .
This policy would also have the advantage that decent people didn't have to miss any worthwhile production time with silly wastes of time and resources like maternity leave or hospital appointments .

[Don Corleone]

Strawman argument, Tribesman. We're talking about whether or not the poor should have to work for their benefits, and you and Idaho have gotten yourselves worked into a tither over forced abortions and the selling of children. How about you come back to where the focus of the topic is? Are people entitled to receive something for nothing?

[Redleg]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.

I too would also be interested in the social arguement that supports such a postion.



Sounds to me like Finland has the ideal answer. If you can't find a job, don't worry, they'll take care of you. But don't be surprised to find a pick or a shovel in your hands and being dragged of to join a road crew.

The United States during the great depression also did many similiar types of programs.

It is my belief that people are a greater benefit to society if they feel that they have self-worth. Being a non-contributing member of society does not seem to lead an individual to having a greater self-worth then an individual who is productive.

When one strives only to get a handout from the government - I can not see how they place much value upon themselves. Getting a hand-up by the government to improve your life is a different story, teach an individual to fish and they can feed themselves.

[Kagemusha]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.

Sounds to me like Finland has the ideal answer. If you can't find a job, don't worry, they'll take care of you. But don't be surprised to find a pick or a shovel in your hands and being dragged of to join a road crew.

Don to be more accurate the same system as far as i know is pretty similar in Sweden and Norway also. I think its wierd that its wiewed as inhumane to put people in work.I think even people making something that is less profitable is better then nothing.So in my mind providing people education or temporary work when they are unimployed is more like taking care of them,by society.I must also must emphasise that the byrocracy tryes always to get them on their line of work.But when dealing with youngsters that doesnt have any working backround anything is better then to leave them doing nothing.

[Tribesman]

Strawman argument, Tribesman.
Nope , someone bought it up , so ...
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons
:2thumbsup:


How about you come back to where the focus of the topic is? Are people entitled to receive something for nothing?
How about a better focus on the topic .
How can the state not provide welfare for those of its citizens that need it ?
Charity ? Far too hit and miss , and no less safe from the abuse , outright theft , mismangement , misdirection and wastefulness than government charity is , and that is what welfare is , government charity .
The difference is that everyone who earns or spends contributes when it is government charity .
So you have a focus on some people who get benefits for doing nothing , yeah its terrible , such a scandal , outrageous , shocking .
How are they any different to the politician who claims expenses for nothing , the executive who does a dodgy deal under the table , the ordinary worker who fiddles his tax return , the businessmen who declares himself bankrupt again and again , the octogenarian who transfers all their assets to avoid death tax ?
All cost far more than welfare cheats , and they are all getting something for nothing .

[rory_20_uk]

How can the state not? Well, the Nanny State has only been there for about 60 years, so in fact quite easily!

So, the crux of your argument is "loads of others are doing it, so why not?"

I would argue that instead of giving more away, it would be better if the other abuses that you mentioned are dealt with.

Private charities are often safer than givernment aid. E.G. Oxfam spends c. 2% on beurocracy. Most people that work for them are doing it from ideals, and not to make a living, an index linked pension and ultimately a peerage out of it, as is the case with the Civil Service.

Small charities also can meet the local need that is seen, not have massive "fact finding missions" to see what the problem is.

And what about groups banding together and helping others when times are hard as in Friendly Societies? They still exist at the moment.

~:smoking:

[Ser Clegane]

All cost far more than welfare cheats

I don't think that welfare cheats are the topic of the discussion - the issue brought up by Don are not the people who exploit any welfare system beyond its original intent, but what should fall into the legal scope of a welfare system and how the threshold for support by society should be defined.

[Don Corleone]

Strawman argument, Tribesman.
Nope , someone bought it up , so ...
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons
:2thumbsup:


How about you come back to where the focus of the topic is? Are people entitled to receive something for nothing?
How about a better focus on the topic .
How can the state not provide welfare for those of its citizens that need it ?
Charity ? Far too hit and miss , and no less safe from the abuse , outright theft , mismangement , misdirection and wastefulness than government charity is , and that is what welfare is , government charity .
The difference is that everyone who earns or spends contributes when it is government charity .
So you have a focus on some people who get benefits for doing nothing , yeah its terrible , such a scandal , outrageous , shocking .
How are they any different to the politician who claims expenses for nothing , the executive who does a dodgy deal under the table , the ordinary worker who fiddles his tax return , the businessmen who declares himself bankrupt again and again , the octogenarian who transfers all their assets to avoid death tax ?
All cost far more than welfare cheats , and they are all getting something for nothing .

Well, like Ser Clegnane said, this isn't exactly where I was headed with this thread. There's a certain prevailant view of Social Justice that it means that everyone should be able to be taken care of by the government whether they want to work or not. I disagree with that view. I believe we do owe it to people to provide them with basic necessities, but we also owe it to them to make them productive for it...

Now, off to your new obfuscation....
-A politician claims expenses because you and I elected him and his cohorts and they passed laws saying they could. When we get tired of that, we vote in people that claim they'll change the system (such as John McCain).
-Executive doing dodgy deals under the table either cost their own companies money or somebody elses, not the taxpayer.
-The business man who declares himself bankrupt should lose all his assets (the Florida bankruptcy rules need to be modified)
-The man cheating on his tax returns is a felon and if caught, will be treated as such.
-The octogenarian transferring their assets is avoiding being taxed twice on the same money. Death taxes are blatantly unfair and in the US, unconstitutional. The fact that they remain only goes to show you that even courts are bed by the tax slop-bucket.

If your point is to silence the question by raising alternative unfair abuses, please don't. Rather, go start your own thread, and watch me join with you and rail about the US Agricultural policy (paying farmers not to grow crops) and corporate welfare system, but that's hardly relevant to this thread.

[Idaho]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.
What you are advocating is making a principled stand which has no practical application. Like the criminalising of narcotics. I understand the why behind such a policy. But the how fundamentally fails.

Work for welfare? Yeah it sounds all well and good in principle. However in practice it costs more money to run and administer than just giving them the money, and it makes the state a bigger employer - something I thought you would disagree with.

No-one in this world is required to work. There are plenty of rich people who have other people make their money for them. I don't see you making any principled demand that they toil.

[Redleg]

What you are advocating is making a principled stand which has no practical application. Like the criminalising of narcotics. I understand the why behind such a policy. But the how fundamentally fails.

Care to explain the success of the CCC in the United States during the Great Depression. If this is a policy that is fundamentally doomed to fail - why has it been successful when applied for short periods of time. It seems that several nations are also doing this - and as noted by a member who lives in one of those countries it seems to be meeting with some success.



Work for welfare? Yeah it sounds all well and good in principle. However in practice it costs more money to run and administer than just giving them the money, and it makes the state a bigger employer - something I thought you would disagree with.

Care to guess how much of the cost of the welfare is already due to adminstration costs, and how large many of the adminstration offices are for the programs. In the United States you would be surprised at the mulitple layers of bueauracy that has been established to run the welfare programs. And the number of programs that are doing the same thing under different titles.

Turning the administration systems alreadly established into the structure necessary to run such a program would have some short term cost increases, but since most of the administration systems are alreadly in place - I don't see how this statement is an arguement against changing the current system into a work system.



No-one in this world is required to work. There are plenty of rich people who have other people make their money for them. I don't see you making any principled demand that they toil.

You have not provided a principle arguement about the subject that Don asked in his question of.

But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one refering to the arguement about not requiring people on welfare to work.

[Red Peasant]

Morality and ethics, well here is the Christian viewpoint (and the Marxist):

"They had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
(Acts 2:44-45)

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
(Marx)

No distinction is made in the Acts as to whether these 'needy' people were scroungers, unlucky, single-mothers, or people of bad fashion sense or taste in music or haircuts etc. I am supposing that these people are not outright criminals and that they had to be Christian believers in this context, but the moral social principle remains even if the religious aspect is stripped out. Of course, many Christian Ayatollahs have tried to slickly explain away this aberration in early Christian thinking but it ain't so easy.

Some people here may wish to live in a Dickensian dystopia but I don't, and I would suggest that most people, at least in most of the advanced, socially developed countries of the world, don't either.

PS I have had to fall back desperately on welfare provision a couple of times in my life and it has helped immensely. They don't make it easy to claim and it is a humiliating process, even in these 'enlightened' times. They don't just come round and hand over a big wedge of money, there's barely enough to live on even for someone of my frugal standards.

[Red Peasant]

However, to answer the question of the thread, NO, it doesn't mean that the 'lazy' never have to work again, but the question of the thread header is just a thinly-veiled (and rhetorically 'lazy') attack on social provision of any kind.

[Tribesman]

I believe we do owe it to people to provide them with basic necessities, but we also owe it to them to make them productive for it...

So basically you mean full employment nationally , apart from those that are unable to work .
Thats a bit communist isn't it . It also means that you will have to provide additional subsidised child care or more money to the recipients .
As Red pointed out , workfare schemes are often only viable as short term programs .

To obfuscate further....-Executive doing dodgy deals under the table either cost their own companies money or somebody elses, not the taxpayer.
....under the table means off the books , off the books means dodging tax , so yes it is the taxpayer getting screwed .


what should fall into the legal scope of a welfare system and how the threshold for support by society should be defined.
Well Ser Clegane , I thought that most western countries only supply basic support , the few exceptions would be those that set the initial payments relative to previous wage before reducing them to the basic levels of neccesity.

[Major Robert Dump]

Not to suggest you are wrong, xaihou, but I'd like to see a legitimate breakdown of what type of people work for minimum wage. I see more adults bagging groceries and flipping burgers than I do kids.

Most places give one raise per year. Merit raises in companies that pay 50% of their workers minimum wage will be next to non-existent because a company that pays that many people mimnimum wage most likely has a "cap" on how many merit raises you can give per quarter, so it becomes less of a merit raise and more of a "these 2 people are my best, i dont want to lose them" raise, even though 8 or 9 others may deserve one. So working for a year at 5.35 means you will soon be making 5.75 or the like -- WOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! In 7 years you will be up to over 8 dollars WOOOOHOOOOO

Every argument from the pundits about how raising minimum wager would ruin the country seems to revolve around a few issues:
1-it would raise prices (duh.)
2-it would raise other wages because people making 30% above minimum wage would also want a raise
3-small business (sacred cow alert!) will have to lay off people or go out of business

Number 1 is a gimme. And you know what? I would gladly pay 10 cents more for a happy meal or a gallon of milk if the trde off was minimum wage was higher. I guess I'm just that type of guy

As for number 2 and 3, there is no proof. Pundits, schmundits, economists blah blah. Give me proof. Show me where, at the last raise of minimum wage, businesses went under and the unemployment rate went up, show me show me show me.........Instead of repeating the same old unproven crap that has been repeated for the past 10 years, lets see some actual evidence, rather than speculation.

The prices of EVERYTHING has gone up over the past 10 years with minimum wage the same. In 1997 I payed 92-cents for gas and 2.25 for a gallon of milk. Now I pay 2.97 for gas and 3.25 for milk. Yet the bottom tier of the workforce makes virtually the same despite a higher cost of living.

I know, I know, people need to get "an education" or "spend more wisely(know their place)" or relocate to a better job market. I got another one, I think Americans should unpucker their stingy little buttholes, because the people working for minimum wage aren't the cause of all our financial problems.

[Kagemusha]

Another question?In US have you guys frozen the minimum wage´s? Dont you have index raises in those to follow inflation?

[Major Robert Dump]

No, because people who work for minimum wage are not important, will never be important, and are, in fact, disposable. It is because they are drunks, drug addicts, ex convicts, former strippers with 7 kids, infidels and teenagers. They do not deserve any of my sacred "tax dollars" nor do they deserve wage protection because we all know that "minimum wage" is a nice way for an employer to say "I'd pay you less, if it were legal."

I think tonight I'm gonna get Taco Bell and spit on the kid in the drive through if he doens't call me sir. Screw that, I'll spit on him anyway

[Kagemusha]

Ok.So are the minimum wages decided by law or are they following the markets?Becouse if those are decided by Government and after that frozen that is just terrible. It means infact that your minimum wages are getting lower and lower becouse of the inflation.

[Strike For The South]

5.65 locked period end of sotry

[Ser Clegane]

the few exceptions would be those that set the initial payments relative to previous wage before reducing them to the basic levels of neccesity.

At least in Germany the first doesn't really have something to to with "welfare" - these a benefits from the mandatory unemployment insurance for which you have to pay contributions - completely different pay of shoes.


Well Ser Clegane , I thought that most western countries only supply basic support
That's obviously how it works - however,
a) "basic" support or "basic" levels of necessity can be defined in various ways
b) one could (and IMO should) ask if this basic support by society should happen on a "quid pro quo" basis (as Don suggested) - the often mentioned "welfare mom" with four kids does not really represent the majority of welfare recipients (at least not here in Germany)

[Idaho]

You have not provided a principle arguement about the subject that Don asked in his question of.

But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one refering to the arguement about not requiring people on welfare to work.
I don't think there is any principled objection to getting able-bodied and minded people to work. I think the numbers of people who can work but don't are divided between those who can't find work that pays enough to provide a basic standard of living (the majority); people who have confidence and training issues about finding work (with some coaching and education these are the easiest to get back in work); and those who just want a free ride - usually on top of illegal earnings (a small minority).

It seems to be this last group that people think of most, but are on the whole irrelevant.

[Idaho]

At least in Germany the first doesn't really have something to to with "welfare" - these a benefits from the mandatory unemployment insurance for which you have to pay contributions - completely different pay of shoes.

Yeah we have unemployment benefit that lasts for 6 months that is the same. Beyond that you can claim 'Jobseekers Allowance' (I think! A long time since I was last in a dole office).

The strangest thing about the UK benefits system is that if you own your own home the government will only pay the interest on your mortgage but not the mortgage itself - whereas if you rent it will happily pay the landlord's mortgage off :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

There is no "unemployment benefit" any more that I was made aware of. Merely jobseekers allowance. I was in there a few weeks ago as I am an extremely rare breed of unemployed: can't work as a Doctor, viewed as horrendously overqualified for everything else. The careers advisor said my chances of getting work before registering as a Doctor were practically nil.

All jobs in the UK have to have a minimum wage. Therefore all jobs supply an amount of money for a basic standard of living.

So people that refuse jobs that don't give enough are deluded as to the value of their services. And you state that these are the majority.

Unemployment benefit gives a minimum to survive on. At £4 a day you'd have to work 10 hours a week pre tax, or maybe closer to 15 hours a week Net to get the same.

Confidence / training. These include the those that did very poorly at school and are "shocked" that their attitude and abilities mean that no employer will touch them odd that... There are still menial jobs, so their level of training must be abysmal.

So, Idaho, you think that as long as someone unemployed has a house, the government should pay their morgage? :dizzy2: Or that these poor people should be thrown out of their house into a council house as soon as they are unemployed.

If I'd said that you'd be horrified - but you spin it that not doing that is still wrong!

The fact that China can and is flooding the world with products shows that we are not competative in many areas. If people were paid less we could be. Ergo the minimum wage is detrimental to our economy. We solve that by trade tarrifs and trade caps.

Surely the marxists out there would want free trade throughout the world. That would let industries sink or swim. Of course the number that would sink as tehy now stand is so large it can never happen.

MRD the potential earnings for strippers are comparatively high - assuming the person has a physique that people will pay to ogle.

It was a nice rant. Straw everywhere. And of course ending that you'd spit on someone who was in work really set the tone. :laugh4:

In the NHS, the most ungrateful are invariably the druggies, the drunks, the people stabbed who can't give a decent story, and a large proportion of those shot. Then there tends to be a great mix with the most intractible trouble caused by the highly trained (especially lawyers and relatives who are doctors).

I think much of what redleg says is the answer. make people feel valued by making them do something worthwhile. I differ in that I think there should be a stick with the carrot. People should be encouraged to stop being an underclass, not supported to increase it's size.

~:smoking:

[Soulforged]

Yet, when it comes to execution of policy in conjunction with that principle, many feel that "Social Justice" means that everyone is entitled to own their own abode, regardless of whether they earned it or not. They take it to mean that all of their utitilities, including digital cable and broadband internet access are automatically provided. They take it to mean that everyone should have their own vehicle. Most importantly (to me), it they take it to mean that nobody should be compelled to actually labor to earn these things.
The compensation for unemployment (don't know what's the actual expression in english) comes only to those inscripted as actively looking for employment. The effect generated by those who inscribe themselves even when they're not looking for jobs is pretty bad. But the point is not to pay the jobless, is to pay the active part of the population, it's not a bad thing (it increases the economic efficiency by subsidizing the search of employment), what's unproductive is the method used to distribute the income, but it's always fair that the charge of unemployment into an economy to be distributed between the population. I don't know who advocates free cable and broadband, but that's not exactly how it's. The people usually have a job or are struggling to get one, they're not responsable for any recesion that happens in the country, so to improve their quality of life, of those active and of those working, the state takes a paternalist actitude. I don't like so much this actitude, but when it comes to economy and distribution of money I try to give it an opportunity...cable will be an exageration, however internet in these times is a sound policy.
As for the idea of taking thy money to give it to the homeless, it's the same as the principles emanating from the social contract, sorry but you're under the power of the state, you now abide my laws, dictated in representation of the people who signed, and now your income is our income, at least in a certain part to be determined. That's always fair, as long as the one on the other end of the distributive chain is actively looking for a job at least, or studying, or both.

Many people say that housing, healthcare, broadband, etc., are human rights. I say that nothing is your right if it has to be taken from other people and given to you.Sorry Rabbit, but you give up a lot of things just by standing under the power of the state. And you give them so other people can live in peace. Add to peace, equality and freedom, and you've the right view.
I think that you'll agree that the money that your grandfather possesed should pass to your father, and from him to you...Am I right?

What's wrong with requiring people receiving public funds to work for the public?The public power will have to apply a proportional pressure over your pockets?

We have an obligation to provide for those who are physically unable to provide for themselves due to mental or physical handicap. Having boatloads of children does not qualify. Being addicted to drugs does not qualify. Being an unemployable felon does not qualifyI can see that your line of argumentation tends to be responsabilty, so I ask: what's the responsability of the children by the decisions of their parents? Beyond that I don't agree with you, is not about the ones that are physically incapable, that's too obvious, it's about those who are marginalized, excluded and those who from birth were economically incapable of sustaining a life and looking for good jobs.

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.As said previously social assistence is an inversion on future labour hand and to distribute the costs of unemployment and a way to mantain human dignity.
Result of inversion in an individual case, I see:"PS I have had to fall back desperately on welfare provision a couple of times in my life and it has helped immensely. They don't make it easy to claim and it is a humiliating process, even in these 'enlightened' times. They don't just come round and hand over a big wedge of money, there's barely enough to live on even for someone of my frugal standards."-Red Peasant

[Redleg]

Compenstation for unemployement (unemployment insurance) in the United States is not the same thing as the Welfare payments done under a different program.

[Soulforged]

Compenstation for unemployement (unemployment insurance) in the United States is not the same thing as the Welfare payments done under a different program.
What's the difference?

[lars573]

Welfare pays more. EI is a percentage (60%) of your former wage/salary. And only lasts for about 8 months.

[Avicenna]

If I had seen your reply earlier I would have added it to my previous post. Two things:

1. Highschool has become a waste of time

Really, how many of us were bored all throughout HS ? I surely was, and Belgian HS is supposedly one of the hardest. HS now serves to the slowest students without allowing the better students to advance at THEIR own pace (at least here). Add to that that a lot of HS subjects are pure filler, 70% of the things you learn you forget. Not everyone needs to know about chemical compounds and Rutherford's theory of the atom, not everyone needs to know the kidney works, and nearly no one needs to know what they teach in these new 'social' classes. We're raising a nation of quiz players here !
If given the chance I'm sure a significant percentage of students could have taken and finished a university-like education 2-5 years earlier then they can now.

2. I'm not a big fan of outsourcing

Factories that their production to Asia might consider moving their tech support to Asia, might consider settling their management in Asia, might consider hiring local engineers, etc.
If we (the west) wan't to stay competitive we need a balanced economy, specializing might lead to higher productivity (in the short run) but it's a threat in the long run. Besides, a lot of good innovative ideas have come from the 'production floor' rather than from engineers in their office. Putting both too far apart is not a good plan, and it won't last.

Everyone needs to learn about all subjects otherwise only the people who know what they really want to do are the ones who geniunely want to learn a lot and therefore expose themselves to more things, eventually selecting what they want to specialise in. The rest of the population would probably select a job they don't like, end up wasting their time learning it and not being able to reach their full potential. A country without high school would just lead to people with wrong jobs, bad social skills and in short end up to be a complete failure laughed at by the rest of the world.

Specialising is what made America the power it is today. If you learn about EVERYTHING (like in high school, ironically, what you just said to be a bad thing) you won't have time in your short little human lifetime to learn about enough, say, to even understand Einstein's theories, much less do research and find new things yourself before you die.

[doc_bean]

Everyone needs to learn about all subjects otherwise only the people who know what they really want to do are the ones who geniunely want to learn a lot and therefore expose themselves to more things, eventually selecting what they want to specialise in. The rest of the population would probably select a job they don't like, end up wasting their time learning it and not being able to reach their full potential. A country without high school would just lead to people with wrong jobs, bad social skills and in short end up to be a complete failure laughed at by the rest of the world.


I don't know how it is in the US, but in history classes we had to remember dates, and lots of them, a waste of time since the average person forgets all of them 5 mintues after a test. In English and Dutch we had to answer questions on the exams about texts we had read throughout the year, so time was wasted memorizing them. We had a mandatory 'art' class, completely pointless to know gothic from renaissance architecture if you don't care about it, if you ask me. The 'social studies' people had to learn rather advanced math, like complex numbers, derivatives and integrals (I just know I've got this word wrong...), which they will never use again.

A lot of time is wasted in high school, not just because of useless subjects, but also because of the terribly slow pace everything is taught at. Most people could learn the same in a much shorter amount of time, without a lot of extra (after school) work.

[Kanamori]

Dont you have index raises in those to follow inflation?

Why would you do something silly like that? They only need to get three fulltime jobs and childcare for their children in between in order to compensate for the inflation. If they don't get three jobs, then they're lazy piles of worthlessness that don't deserve to live with teeth in their mouths.


But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho?

Approaching the question from a different angle works better for me. Why are you content to just leave people rot in the streets if they are unwilling to work? It is offensive to the human condition. I don't care if someone won't work because they're lazy, which I think is much less often the case than that they are mentally ill -- you have to wonder what state of mind someone has to be in for them to accept living on the street with only some very dirty sweatpants, a sweatshirt and a blanket -- if I have something to give to somebody who is much worse off than me, however it may be, I'm willing to help them out because they are another human being and they should not live worse than livestock that are about to be shipped off to the slaughterhouse. I do not advocate giving them riches, but they should have a life where they are, some how or another, sheltered and have the basic amenities for living. In essence, they should not be first required to do the work because they will not necessarily seek it out. That is not to say that it could not be strongly encouraged while also giving shelter to those who cannot. And also, it isn't charity if you're forcing them to provide all of that for themselves.

As to this idea where, if somehow, and this wil never happen, people had equal opportunity then it is justified that someone who gets a worse job deserves a worse living conditions, I disagree. Simply put, we are not all of the same capability, and that does not mean that those people deserve worse living conditions. Although I'm not nearly intelligent enough to find a practical solution to a problem that's been around since the beginning of history, that does not mean that they somehow deserve the condition they are in.

[rory_20_uk]

That is your view, and you can give to charity. I don't see why others should be forced to give regardless of menefit or intention to people.

Senior doctors don't refer all drunks to rehab: there's no point.

how much do you give to charities? I hope all of your diposable income, as there are many who deserve things more than you appear to state you deserve your luxuries.

As was seen in Communism when it started in Russia farmers thought that as goods from the cities would arrive regardless of their effort, why try to farm well, as there was no benefit?

I think humanity should strive to achieve, to push the boundries of excellence. I find this attitude of helping all regardless cause is likely to cause society to stagnate.

~:smoking:

[Kanamori]

I hope all of your diposable income, as there are many who deserve things more than you appear to state you deserve your luxuries.

I give, but not nearly enough. It is funny you mention it though because my grandfather left Germany before WWII because of the economic state and he hated how little his rich family did for the poor. He came to America, bought a farm, and gave everything he could to help South Americans and the impoverished here to afford an education when they couldn't. If everyone were as charitable, the world would be a wonderful place.:balloon2:

And the argument that you don't want to give is moot. The system is a democracy of sorts, and because of that if a law passes, it has popular support.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think humanity should strive to achieve, to push the boundries of excellence. I find this attitude of helping all regardless cause is likely to cause society to stagnate.

There is of course, the purely pragmatic reason for the state (via your taxes) to support the unemployed and marginalised (which I'm surprised hasn't come up so far).

Create a disenfranchised underclass and they turn to crime. All those who have no stake in society rapidly take out their anger on those who do by 'redistributing wealth' themselves. Then you have to spend a great deal of money combatting the crime wave. Fine upstanding citizens have to take refuge behind walled suburbs with guns.

Make a big enough underclass and they take everything you have through revolution, 'cause you can no longer jail or kill all of them. That gets real expensive.

But of course, that could never happen. :book:

[rory_20_uk]

The current system isn't democracy. If a law is passed then the majority of people in power want it to.

I agree that masses with nothing to do is a bad thing. But the problem there is idle hands more than anything else.

Social class 4/5 used to be called the "salt of the earth". Why that changed to "the scum of the earth" is multifactorial of course.

IMO some are the goverment building hope that all avenues are available to everyone, and the consequent disillusionment that failure brings. Esentially the complete destruction of the class system was a bad idea.
Lack of blue collar jobs. Manufacturing provides a feeling of achievement not present in many low office jobs and their ilk.

Education goes on for too long for no results. Many should stop at 14, some at 16 with only 40% doing a levels and about 10% doing degrees. The others learn useful skills that there is a definite benefit of. If you're not academic at 12 the next 4 (or now 8) years are wasted. Be a plumber - they earn more than I do!
Schools and parents are scared to make children disciplined. Then the state wades in with ASBOs when it's far too late.

~:smoking:

[doc_bean]

IMO some are the goverment building hope that all avenues are available to everyone, and the consequent disillusionment that failure brings. Esentially the complete destruction of the class system was a bad idea.


A class system is a bad idea, people should be able to do what they are best at and/or work where they are most needed. A class system allows for upper class kids to be utterly uncapable for the jobs they are supposed to do (just look at all the criticism aimed at the royals). It also means the underclass people won't live up to their potential.

Plus, it adds tension to society, which leads to more violence and crime, and a whole lot of unpleasantness.




Lack of blue collar jobs. Manufacturing provides a feeling of achievement not present in many low office jobs and their ilk.

I've never done a more dull and unfullfilling job than administrative work (filing for an accountant, some spreadsheet work). But it's really a mentalitiy problem with 'the masses'. When I told my girlfriend's little brother of 10 that he should become a plumber because they make the most money, he answered 'no, let some Lithouanian do that'. Manual labour is still associated with an 'underclass', even if those people tend to be richer than the so-called middle class. It's elitism and (borderline) racism.

But manufacturing jobs these days do look like hell, doing the same exact thing each few minutes. There is a point to automation there. Part of the problem (imo) is that society has become too productive, and we need a way to give those people 'not really needed' something to do. It's no surprise that the service industry has become so big in the lst few generations.


Education goes on for too long for no results. Many should stop at 14, some at 16

14 is too young to work imho, people are still too immature at that age to know what they want out of life. It isn't always obvious to judge their potential that early either. Some people who are top of their class (chemical engineering) where told they shouldn't do the hardest 'path' in High School, a lot of people who do really well at uni where just average HS students.



with only 40% doing a levels and about 10% doing degrees.

That's just crazy, modern western economy is mostly built around high tech jobs. What level of education people will persue should depend on the economic structure and needs of their region, and on their own personal interest.


The others learn useful skills that there is a definite benefit of. If you're not academic at 12 the next 4 (or now 8) years are wasted.

Like I said before, that's just not true. I also know quite a few people who were 'genius' at age 12 and totally failed in higher education. Not everyone's personal evolution can be predicted.



Be a plumber - they earn more than I do!

Err.. you don't work do you ? :oops:


Schools and parents are scared to make children disciplined. Then the state wades in with ASBOs when it's far too late.

If schools discipline the children the parents complain. But that's another discussion.

[rory_20_uk]

The downside to a class system is that potential is not reached,. True, but the same can be said now. As a rule of thumb it is still hard to jump 2 social classes in a generation.

The Luddites were the first to realise that machines negated the need for many people in an economy.
The french aristocracy had the same problem in that although they were the "top", merchants still earned more than they did.

Decent A levels (not the shite we've got in the UK at the moment should allow people to perform high tech jobs. Then there are a limited few who need more which is offered by pure universities.

If you think 10% is too low, then sandwich degrees could be for the other 30% who will be accredited after 5 or so years on the job. Like a modern day apprenticeship.

I think that broad sorting can start at 14. At that age many could go and become apprentices at skilled manual vocations. By the time the are 16 they'd be amazing mechanics, not with a certificate stating they are rubbish at French. Of course they are going to be people who don't fit the mould. We currently seem to need to retrain masses of people in the basics even with the long education system. I feel this method would require far less.

No, I don't currently work - a very sore point that the Powers That Be are dragging their feet to correct (of course the paperwork should have been done over 2 months ago - but it just isn't...)

Concerning parent's complaining, one lecturer at a uni said that they have to give students a 2:1, else the parents complain! I hope that this only is the case at the worst universities.

~:smoking:

[Kanamori]

A class system is a bad idea, people should be able to do what they are best at and/or work where they are most needed. A class system allows for upper class kids to be utterly uncapable for the jobs they are supposed to do (just look at all the criticism aimed at the royals).

I'm sorry, I'm being nitpicky, but the upper class doesn't work. They ride horses around, buy llamas to trim their lawns, travel around, buy obscure things, and entertain guests. There's never been a more useless bunch, they're darn proud of it, and they rub in the rest of our faces (well in America the best chance you have of seeing them is to head to their summer home resorts in Maine, because they keep themselves secreted away so that Americans can think that they can all move up the ladder:balloon2: ). And don't get me started on how they've mass produced all the crappy things, put preservatives in them, and got people to think designer clothes are somehow cool.:furious3: Never has there been more uncomfortable cotton in the world, and still people buy the crap because of name brands.:wall:

[rory_20_uk]

Whilst there are many from the upper class that your diatribe describes extremely well Kanamori, others have come from this to be the greatest statesmen in both the UK and America.

Funny how you can be "nitpicky" and then come out with such a broad sweeping howler! :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[doc_bean]

The downside to a class system is that potential is not reached,. True, but the same can be said now. As a rule of thumb it is still hard to jump 2 social classes in a generation.

But there isn't much difference between the classes anymore, wealth is no longer such an important measure of class, like I said, many of the 'lower' class jobs get paid the most. Class is more about what you do in your free time, what magazines and papers you read, etc.



I think that broad sorting can start at 14. At that age many could go and become apprentices at skilled manual vocations. By the time the are 16 they'd be amazing mechanics, not with a certificate stating they are rubbish at French. Of course they are going to be people who don't fit the mould. We currently seem to need to retrain masses of people in the basics even with the long education system. I feel this method would require far less.

The problem is, pure mechanics aren't in such high demand anymore, since electronics play such an important role in today's machinery. Flexibility through all layers of society is need in the modern world, I'm not sure what the best way to provide it is though. Certainly, the 'level' of education needs to be higher.

People getting additional education, after hours, should be supported more imho. Same with people re-schooling to find different employment. And we need to get rid of the stigma of 'lower class'. Unfortunately, these are idle dreams.

[Kanamori]

Whilst there are many from the upper class that your diatribe describes extremely well Kanamori, others have come from this to be the greatest statesmen in both the UK and America.

Politics is just the eccentricty they chose to immerse themselves in. Watch their habits, and they're actions from ordinary politicians, and you will see that it is merely an extension of their class. The enjoy causing an uproar or controversy. Look at Charles. Then he walks around in horse manure w/ bright green rainboots.

[doc_bean]

I'm sorry, I'm being nitpicky, but the upper class doesn't work. They ride horses around, buy llamas to trim their lawns, travel around, buy obscure things, and entertain guests. There's never been a more useless bunch, they're darn proud of it, and they rub in the rest of our faces (well in America the best chance you have of seeing them is to head to their summer home resorts in Maine, because they keep themselves secreted away so that Americans can think that they can all move up the ladder:balloon2: ). And don't get me started on how they've mass produced all the crappy things, put preservatives in them, and got people to think designer clothes are somehow cool.:furious3: Never has there been more uncomfortable cotton in the world, and still people buy the crap because of name brands.:wall:

Well, like I said, a class system is a bad idea :balloon2:

And while designer clothes and McMeals are not a good thing, nobody is forcing the masses to buy them (yet).

To get back on topic a bit, that's part of what social justice is, the upper class gets a whole lot of benefits for being born to the right people, without deserving it. Social justice is making sure the lower classes get what they need to live a decent, human-wordy live, and making sure (as much as it is possible) they get their chance in life, and can live up to their potential.

[Soulforged]

Welfare pays more. EI is a percentage (60%) of your former wage/salary. And only lasts for about 8 months.
I see...Then this thread is only concentrated in welfare?

[Duke Malcolm]

Well, like I said, a class system is a bad idea :balloon2:

And while designer clothes and McMeals are not a good thing, nobody is forcing the masses to buy them (yet).

To get back on topic a bit, that's part of what social justice is, the upper class gets a whole lot of benefits for being born to the right people, without deserving it. Social justice is making sure the lower classes get what they need to live a decent, human-wordy live, and making sure (as much as it is possible) they get their chance in life, and can live up to their potential.

Hardly. The upper-class only get benefits becauset they have worked for those benefits. They invest in their children, send them to a better school, a public school, thence University. Admittedly, there is a problem with University fees, something that should be tackled by increasing the number of people available for bursaries and such, not showering the poor with money. If you give a lower-class person £10000 much of it would generally become disposable income : if you give a middle-class person £10000 much of it would generally be put aside for better things - university and school and such : If you give an upper-class person £10000 much of it would generally be invested in some way.

Edit:
Economically, a sensible person does not try to eliminate the classes through redistribution of the wealth -- each person would use the money in such a way that would rebuild the classes.
A sensible person does try and increase social mobility through the classes -- more University grants as long as admission requirements are equal for all; more public school grants; improving school funding instead of giving less well-off children money through the EMA...

[Kanamori]

Hardly. The upper-class only get benefits becauset they have worked for those benefits. They invest in their children, send them to a better school, a public school, thence University.

Their ancestors worked for the benefits. Going to university is just what they do; it is tradition, and it is social with their class. A family that still has to work is in the lower rungs of the upper class, and they are there because of their sensible tastes and the respectability of their family, which is again nothing more than their ancestors and their upbringing. Once you have a fortune, it isn't hard to be a money lender, or just to have your money loaned out by some other guy you hired to do the work for you. But if we are to continue this subsection, we ought to form another thread so as not to close and clutter this one.

[Soulforged]

I see...Then this thread is only concentrated in welfare?
Only correcting myself. Now I understand what that "EI" meant. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the money that's offered as a compensation and inversion to those who're unemployed and looking for a job.

[doc_bean]

Hardly. The upper-class only get benefits becauset they have worked for those benefits. They invest in their children, send them to a better school, a public school, thence University.

None of which is the children's doing, the ones who eventually will reap the benefits.


If you give a lower-class person £10000 much of it would generally become disposable income : if you give a middle-class person £10000 much of it would generally be put aside for better things - university and school and such : If you give an upper-class person £10000 much of it would generally be invested in some way.

That's because the lower class can actually use (even needs) the money, whilst for the middle class it's a nice extra and for the upper class, it doesn't really matter.

In my experience, the so called middle class is actually more wasteful than the so-called middle class, but then, I think it might be time to start a thread about social classes...

[yesdachi]

Another question?In US have you guys frozen the minimum wage´s? Dont you have index raises in those to follow inflation?
Did anyone see the episode of 30 days where he and his girlfriend were to get jobs that paid minimum wage and live on it for 30 day? Neither could even find jobs that paid that low. There are not that many minimum wage jobs out there especially if you work there for some time, raises are often given after 6 months and benefits and vacation are also offered around that time. If you work at a restaurant and do a decent job you can even expect to get a small promotion in 6 months. I know that some restaurants even offer management trainee programs. I have a friend that works at a temp place and they hardly ever have jobs available that only pay minimum wage, they usually pay several dollars more for even the lame entry level stuff. If they raise the minimum wage I am not sure it would even affect many companies as it doesn’t seem they pay many people it anyway. A company that only pays minimum wage is either real cheep or offer a really crappy job, either way I would seek other employment.

------

Hey Soulforged, the difference between unemployment and welfare is that warfare is paid by the state to people that are in “need” and unemployment is paid by the former after say a layoff or downsizing (if your fired you are not eligible for unemployment) employer and is only offered for a limited time based on the amount of time you worked for that employer. I was downsized once (many years ago) and was allowed up to 52 weeks of unemployment (I only used about a month of it). I have never been on welfare and cannot comment much further on that matter other that the fact that it has become more of a system that offers assistance rather than the way the system was back in the 70’s and 80’s where it really created dependency. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If they raise the minimum wage I am not sure it would even affect many companies as it doesn’t seem they pay many people it anyway

It would only affect small buissnesses. Those that could least afford it. It would but people out of work as many of these would have to close. Its hard enough for them to compete already.


Neither could even find jobs that paid that low. There are not that many minimum wage jobs out there especially if you work there for some time

You are not meant to be able to survive on a minium salary job. Its entry level. As you said I dont think anyone here works for the minimum wage. You start at 8 dollars an hour at Micky Ds here. Another thing 5.65 is a lot more in say Arkansas than it is here in New York.

[Soulforged]

Hey Soulforged, the difference between unemployment and welfare is that warfare is paid by the state to people that are in “need” and unemployment is paid by the former after say a layoff or downsizing (if your fired you are not eligible for unemployment) employer and is only offered for a limited time based on the amount of time you worked for that employer. I was downsized once (many years ago) and was allowed up to 52 weeks of unemployment (I only used about a month of it). I have never been on welfare and cannot comment much further on that matter other that the fact that it has become more of a system that offers assistance rather than the way the system was back in the 70’s and 80’s where it really created dependency. :bow:Thanks yesdachi :bow:, but as I didn't know the exact expression to tell it in english I made a mistake, I've corrected that mistake in my last post. I know of what you're talking about, but I'm talking about another thing, read my post above.