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

[Kanamori]

Dont you have index raises in those to follow inflation?

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

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

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kanamori]

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

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

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

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

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

But of course, that could never happen.

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

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

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

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

[doc_bean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be a plumber - they earn more than I do!

Err.. you don't work do you ?

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[doc_bean]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kanamori]

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

[doc_bean]

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

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

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

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