Jobs

[Wingnut]

I'm feeling uppity. Maybe I'll skip paying taxes and support a charity, an invalid, a soldier, a school, and a construction site and see if my government will accept it as fair trade.

I am more than sure they would frown on this, most likely heavily.

[Piotr]

It would be interesting to see what would fill the void were the government to stop "extorting" the populous for such programs and left social services to the private sector. I would like to believe Piotr is right that people, when left to their own devices, would help others out.

Government run welfare programs are relatively new thing in the history of civilisation. We had various forms of voluntary charity before that, and it was without a shadow of a doubt a better system of supporting the needy, even in the old times before Green Revolution. People would help each other mostly using family ties and organised religions, these are also forms of charity. This is why family and church are primary enemies of all kinds of socialists who try to takeover the traditional role of family and church.

It is very important to note that with current technology true poverty defined as 'unable to buy food' does not really exists in any country but the likes of some parts of Korea where socialism is fully implemented, or countries where there is no rule of law whatsoever, such as big parts of Africa. We do not need government welfare programs.

[Wingnut]

It would be interesting to see what would fill the void were the government to stop "extorting" the populous for such programs and left social services to the private sector. I would like to believe Piotr is right that people, when left to their own devices, would help others out.

Government run welfare programs are relatively new thing in the history of civilisation. We had various forms of voluntary charity before that, and it was without a shadow of a doubt a better system of supporting the needy, even in the old times before Green Revolution. People would help each other mostly using family ties and organised religions, these are also forms of charity. This is why family and church are primary enemies of all kinds of socialists who try to takeover the traditional role of family and church.

It is very important to note that with current technology true poverty defined as 'unable to buy food' does not really exists in any country but the likes of some parts of Korea where socialism is fully implemented, or countries where there is no rule of law whatsoever, such as big parts of Africa. We do not need government welfare programs.

But if government shut off their support SSSOOOO many people would have to find a job and the government would lose the control they have of people and of other people's money. We can't have that.

[Piotr]

But if government shut off their support SSSOOOO many people would have to find a job and the government would lose the control they have of people and of other people's money. We can't have that.

While I appreciate your sarcasm, I would also like to point out that a lot of people would still choose to insure themselves voluntarily*. At the moment it is very difficult for the private insurance sector to compete with the 'free' government welfare programs. When government monopoly is removed, private insurance companies will start competing for that market and will most likely hire  a lot of the people who are already doing the job.

* for example, car insurance in NH is not mandatory yet majority of local drivers are still insured.

[Dudecore]

We've got some economic outcomes to think about:
A) Earn money.
B) Be given money.
C) Steal.

Some amount of people won't work, can work and won't, and some can't work. If you subscribe to the unfounded belief that these people are "lazy", then you're pushing them toward the outcomes described in 3.

I agree with Piotr, we don't need the government stealing money from us at gunpoint to pay for this - but it must be paid for. Humans that are in our communities need to be provided with the necessities. That is something an informed, compassionate, free people will be able to handle - and much more efficiently.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

We should set up work programs like FDR did so that if you are receiving government aid, you must work if you are able. I think that we should revoke certain rights for a period of time if a person has shown they are unwilling to work and are still receiving certain forms of government aid over a long period of time. If you couldn't vote, own a gun, have a hunting and/or fishing permit and maybe even drive you would have a HUGE incentive to work. Also, politicians wouldn't have to be scared of the "47%" actually closer 10-20% because they wouldn't have a say. Lastly, I understand many people use the aid for all the right reasons (they work but are unable to support themselves/their family) and this system would account for that and only target those who are abusing the system by staying on it over long times without attempting to work.

The biggest problem with unemployment (I and know people don't want to hear this) is the minimum wage. Many times it is easier and pays more (when you account for taxes, welfare, WIC, soup kitchens and the million other programs that will help you pay any bill imaginable) than to work for minimum wage, that need to be fixed by raising minimum wage or limiting the amount of support one can receive. In many cases though, limiting the amount of aid would leave some in the cold and hungry so the only solution I see here is raising the minimum wage.

I also think there should be an across the board 1-.1% cut of all government spending no matter what and a 1-.1% hike in all taxes, no matter what. I believe that such a plan would help to balance the budget without throwing too much out of wack and hopefully such minute changes would be able to pass through the House and Senate without problems.

[Piotr]

Minimum wage is illegal under iMtG law. It also does precisely the opposite of what you described, it increases the unemployment by destroying the low paid jobs. If a job is there paying X dollar, you increase minimum wage to X+1, the person on X is fired. As simple as this.

[Piotr]

If you subscribe to the unfounded belief that these people are "lazy", then you're pushing them toward the outcomes described in 3.

It is not a question of belief, it is a fact, people are lazy. And greedy. You are quite mad if you believe otherwise, I'm sorry. I also totally disagree with your suggestion that I'm pushing anyone towards stealing by not giving them freebies, this is absurd logic. I may be not preventing them from stealing, but that's a completely different thing.

Having said that, I still have no problem whatsoever supporting charities in a voluntary way, and I do. Not because I have to, but because I want to help others.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Minimum wage is illegal under iMtG law. It also does precisely the opposite of what you described, it increases the unemployment by destroying the low paid jobs. If a job is there paying X dollar, you increase minimum wage to X+1, the person on X is fired. As simple as this.

The real world doesn't use iMTG law and in America the cost of living is well above what minimum wage provides to families. Also many of the minimum wage jobs in America are restaurant workers and other "un-outsourceable" jobs, so long as the business wants to make money they would have to pay the workers an extra 50 cents more or so an hour.

[Dudecore]

There are several deterministic factors for why some will not work, or plenty more for why they cannot work. The 20% of people or so who will not do so. People can be lazy and greedy, of course - not everyone is that way for "no reason". It's difficult for me to refer to welfare as "freebies", as though it were some great gift were giving people.

Welfare in this country is broken, absolutely, but the people accepting it are not all lazy, greedy, leeches. iMtG Law solves the problem of poverty by simply ignoring it. We all are profoundly lucky to be who we are, some of us more then others, and we all could have been dealt a much different hand in life. I notice believers of free will are 100x more likely to blame welfare recipients (lazy, intentionally dodging work) then they are to explore what causes poverty or how many different factors go into shaping ones life.

[Wingnut]

Minimum wage is illegal under iMtG law. It also does precisely the opposite of what you described, it increases the unemployment by destroying the low paid jobs. If a job is there paying X dollar, you increase minimum wage to X+1, the person on X is fired. As simple as this.

The real world doesn't use iMTG law and in America the cost of living is well above what minimum wage provides to families. Also many of the minimum wage jobs in America are restaurant workers and other "un-outsourceable" jobs, so long as the business wants to make money they would have to pay the workers an extra 50 cents more or so an hour.

See, here is my opinion on this. I feel that minimum wage jobs are not meant for people supporting a family, they are meant for younger people in school, people not in school that need a second job for extra income and the such. Once your done with school, you should have in theory developed a skill set that will allow you to get a job paying better than minimum wage. How the "f" does everyone think people make more than minimum wage. Increasing minimum wage is simply going to increase the cost of living, if employers are forced to pay people more, than the money has to come from somewhere, therefore they increase prices to sustain the same level of profits, making the product more expensive, making people complain they deserve more money. Instead of financing welfare they need to better fund schools, to give people the tools needed to support a family. I feel that this will also reduce the costs of running jails, lower crime reducing the amount of police forces needed. But that's not what the government is about, reducing itself...........just food for thought to everyone and my opinion.

[Boringanarchy2]

Now to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Welfare programs are broken by design. They assume people are not greedy, which is not true. If people were not greedy and just take from the welfare programs what they need, as in theory, all would be fine. The problem is, people are greedy and when they see opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they will do so. The other problem is, welfare programs are designed to help people who are needy. It is not possible to verify whether their needs are true or whether they come from greed and laziness. That is why all welfare programs and all forms of socialism and communism fail in the long run. They never go fine.

On top of that we have a little bit of a moral problem here. To pay for welfare programs you have to extort money from someone first. The goal is to help the needy people, which is noble and glorious, but the means to reach this goal is extortion of money at gunpoint. This is a nono under iMtG law, and any compatible ethics.

Now I don't always agree with Piotr (although always respect this is his forum so he deserves respect), but I feel you sir are spot on in your post's. although unemployment benefits are in theory good, people abuse it. When you have a safety net you are not afraid to fall, in this case you are not afraid of loosing your job. Therefore the people that don't work hard have no incentive TOO work hard. This inflates unemployment, taking money out of the pockets of people who may have paid a person with that money. Now I'm not bashing anyone "in a bind" closing the knot with welfare, but let be realistic, a lot of people don't want to do poo and let everyone else take care of them. Like the McDonald's workers on strike because they want $14 an hour, do what the rest of us did, obtain a skill set worth a good wage and then get paid. Sorry, I'm done.

I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

Let's cut to the chase shall we. There is a number that I like to trot out whenever people like to start talking about the evils of welfare. 91 percent. What's that you say? That would be the percentage of households who receive government support who are elderly, disabled, or working. 84 percent of households living below the poverty line have a working member. So this idea that all the poor are lazy or just soaking up benefits is ludicrous, a fairy tale the rich like to tell themselves in order to not feel bad as they drive by hobos.

As for the charity argument, that's a load of hogwash. Just look at liberal England with the potatoe famine or the artificial famines of India to know that the cognitive dissonance of the rich keep them for knowing the cycle of poverty. This goes hand on hand with the point above, the rich like to think they got where they are because they're worked harder than the poor people. Yet the people who didn't have the advantages they had wont get as much out of the same hard work. As a result, the poor are kept poor, the rich stay rich and without social safety nets the poor will never have any class mobility. The minimum wage should go up and we need to get out of our bubble worlds and stop thinking "oh the poor love being poor." Yes, sweating over whether your next paycheck will keep your family clothes and fed is a decision every person cherishes.

On a side note, I hate this notion of welfare as "stealing." Yes, you're successful through hardwork, but somewhere along the line you or your family received benefits or privelege and behind every success story you better believe there is a lot of luck. Welfare isn't stealing, it's helping those who lost the genetic and birth lottery and didn't have the good fortune to cash in on a right place right time idea

[Wingnut]

I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

I don't know that I would say I'm a liberal necessarily, I just feel that the U.S. government could spend its money more wisely (I know, that's a BIG duh!). I don't feel people should simply be left to there own accord to sink or swim, but if more and more people don't know how to swim, eventually they're going to be grabbing onto people who do know how to swim and everyone is going to drown. Hope that makes sense.

[Boringanarchy2]

I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

I don't know that I would say I'm a liberal necessarily, I just feel that the U.S. government could spend its money more wisely (I know, that's a BIG duh!). I don't feel people should simply be left to there own accord to sink or swim, but if more and more people don't know how to swim, eventually they're going to be grabbing onto people who do know how to swim and everyone is going to drown. Hope that makes sense.

And what gives them this chance? The ability to receive education and not have the looming spector of poverty hovering over them and keeping them from seizing chances. Lower classes don't have the freedom to take chances and risk failing and bettering yourself takes time and money.

[Wingnut]

So what if in theory we slowly cut back supporting countries that we send billions of dollars to and cut back on military budgets (not drastically, but lets be real here, we can cut a few million here and there and that make that bug of an impact), start funneling that into the education system. Over say, 8-9-10 years, we have a better educated group of young adults that will HOPEFULLY lead to better opportunities for a percentage of these people. HOPEFULLY reducing the amount needed for welfare, which we funnel the extra into education, circle circle, MAYBE we cut the need for it in half. I'm not saying stop welfare, I'm saying come up with a plan to reduce the need for it. "Teach people to swim"