Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 103

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

  1. #61
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  2. #62
    Senior Member Senior Member Ser Clegane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Escaped from the pagodas
    Posts
    6,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    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.
    Last edited by Ser Clegane; 04-21-2006 at 21:47.

  3. #63
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,588

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    Strawman argument, Tribesman.
    Nope , someone bought it up , so ...
    b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons



    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.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  4. #64
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,542

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  5. #65
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho
    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.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  6. #66
    Senior Member Senior Member Red Peasant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Scouser at Oxford
    Posts
    2,179

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

    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.
    Dum spiro spero

    A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.
    - William James

  7. #67
    Senior Member Senior Member Red Peasant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Scouser at Oxford
    Posts
    2,179

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

    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.
    Last edited by Red Peasant; 04-21-2006 at 23:45.
    Dum spiro spero

    A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.
    - William James

  8. #68

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

    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.

  9. #69
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

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

    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.
    Last edited by Major Robert Dump; 04-22-2006 at 01:20.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  10. #70
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,596

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

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

  11. #71
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

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

    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
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  12. #72
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,596

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

    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.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  13. #73
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

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

    5.65 locked period end of sotry
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  14. #74
    Senior Member Senior Member Ser Clegane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Escaped from the pagodas
    Posts
    6,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    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)

  15. #75
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,542

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    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.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  16. #76
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,542

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
    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
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  17. #77
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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? 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.

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  18. #78
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

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

    Quote 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. 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazedRabbit
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Corleone
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by DivinusArma
    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 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
    Born On The Flames

  19. #79
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

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

    Compenstation for unemployement (unemployment insurance) in the United States is not the same thing as the Welfare payments done under a different program.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  20. #80
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    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?
    Born On The Flames

  21. #81
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

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

    Welfare pays more. EI is a percentage (60%) of your former wage/salary. And only lasts for about 8 months.
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  22. #82
    Member Member Avicenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Terra, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, somewhere in this universe.
    Posts
    2,746

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

    Quote Originally Posted by doc_bean
    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.
    Student by day, bacon-eating narwhal by night (specifically midnight)

  23. #83
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberius
    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.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  24. #84
    Member Member Kanamori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    1,924

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kagemusha
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone
    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.
    Last edited by Kanamori; 04-23-2006 at 15:25.

  25. #85
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  26. #86
    Member Member Kanamori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    1,924

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Kanamori; 04-23-2006 at 16:24.

  27. #87
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,604

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
    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.
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  28. #88
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  29. #89
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
    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 ?

    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.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  30. #90
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO