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

[Don Corleone]

Back on topic....

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

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

[Redleg]

Back on topic....

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kagemusha]

Back on topic....

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

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

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

[Idaho]

Back on topic....

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

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

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Peasant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Peasant]

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

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


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

[Ser Clegane]

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

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

Well Ser Clegane , I thought that most western countries only supply basic support

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

[Idaho]

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

[Idaho]

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

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

I don't think there is any principled objection to getting able-bodied and minded people to work. I think the numbers of people who can work but don't are divided between those who can't find work that pays enough to provide a basic standard of living (the majority); people who have confidence and training issues about finding work (with some coaching and education these are the easiest to get back in work); and those who just want a free ride - usually on top of illegal earnings (a small minority).

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