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.

[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.


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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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 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

[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.