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

[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.