The Welfare State vs The Lazy-Ass Hippies (political? well, kinda)

rgraham666 said:

And it just occurs to me it might not be such a bad thing they're manipulative at this end of the spectrum. They'd do a lot more damage if they were working the high end of the system.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that there's a buncha them there too.

Having just taken a week off from retirement to go to the beach, I guess I'm not in much of a position to talk about the sanctity of work. And really, although many people are doing very useful things, there are a lot of jobs that are basically just excuses for feeling like we are doing something. If we took our non-working Swedish couple and turned them into CPA's (chartered accountants for you Brits) -- would we really have contributed much to our social well being?

In the US we have a lot of people not working who could -- many of them in jail, and we have a lot of people doing meaningless jobs. At the same time, our roads, birdges, and other parts of the infrastructure are crumbling from neglect. Somehow, we cannot figure this out. We probably have at least two billion souls on the planet that are unemployed or underemployed. Figuring out what to do with all those people is probably the greatest challenge we face.

Is the free market model able to cope with this? Probably not. Most of these folks have nothing of economic value to offer.

WRJames said:

Most of these folks have nothing of economic value to offer.

Click to expand...

Just...wow. Congrats, I'm speechless.

I'm so sorry that those not working are worthless to you....like me.

Sigh. I so dislike living in a religious society. One where your value is entirely based on how closely you cleave to The Faith.

And economics is our Faith.

rgraham666 said:

Sigh. I so dislike living in a religious society. One where your value is entirely based on how closely you cleave to The Faith.

And economics is our Faith.

Click to expand...

It ought to be sex.

Just saying.

sweetsubsarahh said:

It ought to be sex.

Just saying.

Click to expand...

I could live with that.

Want to join me in a little worship?

sweetsubsarahh said:

It ought to be sex.

Just saying.

Click to expand...

Amen, Sister Sarahh!

CeriseNoire said:

Ami, regarding your tirade in post #16, blaming women for the fall of civilization, it seems you forget one scenario. What about the (many) women who are single mothers, not because they shirked away from tradition, but because their husbands were the ones who choose to leave their wife, sleep with someone else, and decline to be a part of their children's lives?

Click to expand...

~~~

Went back and read post #16. Assuming your above question is a sincere one and not just for baiting purposes, I will attempt to address it.

Blaming women for the fall of civilization...eh...hmmm, I suppose you could interpret it in that manner, but that was not my intended meaning.

Inasmuch as it is the general opinion of this forum that I am a hard core misogynist, I really am no such thing, I love the ladies and femininity in general. I respect, admire, cherish and almost worship true femininity.

Key words are 'true femininity'.

That being said, I also must confess that I haven't a clue as to what women want. (cite the film).

I am fairly certain, as a male, that I finally understand my drives and urges and innate desires. I didn't as a young man, just followed my nose and eyes to what looked and tasted good. It was much later before I began to analyze my behavior and question the motives.

Deciding to create a family and accidentally creating a family, to which one should assume the responsibility of that family are two different but similar sides to the same question. That of responsibility for one's actions.

That sense of responsibility is, I think, somewhat innate, in every person and is, or can be, reinforced by early parental influence, and later societal expectations.

For me, it was the achievement of manhood to decide to assume responsibility for a family and honor that decision, basically for a lifetime. As time goes by, I begin to realize that, that may be a fiction writer's paradise and does not really exist in a general sense.

In other words, people grow apart, grow at different rates, change interests or desires and infidelity raises its troublesome head.

Until the advent of women's emancipation and the century long struggle for gender equality, the 'static' nature of the decisions to create a family have changed. Do you agree?

Now there are probably as many reasons as there are couples who find it necessary to abrogate that original decision to create a family, and some are valid, some are not; well, valid, perhaps a better word would be rational or justifiable as I do not see lust as an honorable reason or even boredom with the same partner.

Okay...sighs...didn't get anywhere close to making the point I have in mind. Perhaps if you see my thinking you might add a feminine outlook or another dimension to consider.

I would, in an offhand manner, refer you in general to classic literature and the stories of powerful women like Cleopatra and Helen of Troy, just off the top of my head and many, many more that reflect the confusion and complexities of human relationships in 'family' matters.

regards...


amicus....

rgraham666 said:

I could live with that.

Want to join me in a little worship?

Click to expand...

I, um, can't. I'm EDITING!!

(*grumble grumble, dominating editor, grumble grumble)

impressive said:

In the course of my advocacy work, I have seen figures passed around GAO reports that show that in most public assistance, there is a baseline (for lack of a better word) 5% fraud rate -- and no matter how much money is thrown at fraud reduction, that 5% is a persistent motherfucker. Those are the folks who will WORK to find a way to not work.

Unfortunately, the bureaucracies (often fueled by incensed politicians armed with one or two case examples of fraud culled from those 5% bottom feeders) have to "do something" and they take their frustrations out on the other 95% of the program participants, making their lives MORE difficult by cuts, excess paperwork, ridiculous hoop-jumping requirements, etc. All this does is trap the people that were most likely to claw their way out of the cycle.

Click to expand...

Depends what country and which state and then which city. Seriously. I have no political agenda, but I know more people take advantage of the system than those who should take advantage of it and do not.

Its sad when I walk down the street.

cloudy said:

Just...wow. Congrats, I'm speechless.

I'm so sorry that those not working are worthless to you....like me.

Click to expand...

You did not understand what I was trying to say -- the point I was trying to make was that a "free market" solution was probably not going to be viable. Did you miss the beginning of my post?

Having just taken a week off from retirement to go to the beach, I guess I'm not in much of a position to talk about the sanctity of work. And really, although many people are doing very useful things, there are a lot of jobs that are basically just excuses for feeling like we are doing something. If we took our non-working Swedish couple and turned them into CPA's (chartered accountants for you Brits) -- would we really have contributed much to our social well being?

Click to expand...

WRJames said:

You did not understand what I was trying to say -- the point I was trying to make was that a "free market" solution was probably not going to be viable. Did you miss the beginning of my post?

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. Please don't assume my reading comprehension skills are lacking. I can assure you, they are not.

Nor did I miss the end of your post.

Sarahh? And it's something quotable - lol hard. Are you fucked or do you just want to be?

EDIT TO ADD: I think that would be a question to Cloudy, also! lol

CharleyH said:

Sarahh? And it's something quotable - lol hard. Are you fucked or do you just want to be?

Click to expand...

Both.

Wouldn't you agree?

sweetsubsarahh said:

Both.

Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

LOL - Yes, aren't we all?
Excuse the diversion ....

As for welfare, I stand by my previous sentiments.

cloudy said:

No, I didn't. Please don't assume my reading comprehension skills are lacking. I can assure you, they are not.

Nor did I miss the end of your post.

Click to expand...

What I said was that these people had nothing of ECONOMIC value to offer -- and I'm really talking about, for example, those poor ladies you see in the refugee camps in Darfur -- no education to speak of. The need for unskilled labor is shrinking with increased mechanisation and automation. So you have a vast surplus of labor. Why does that statement offend you?

WRJames said:

...
Is the free market model able to cope with this? Probably not. Most of these folks have nothing of economic value to offer.

Click to expand...

Free market???? That has never been.

At best it is an "open market" ...

Actually not as open as is imagined -at that.

Let see now... Northwest Airlines canceled >500 flights because they did not (due to their own desperation) have enough pilots (they are hiring 300 now), the long and short of it is that the "Labor" leg of the capitalist construct (Land, Labor,Capital) has never been on shakier ground. Not in the face of "Financial Instruments".

And wait not for Marxism to come to the rescue either, because Marxism is only a critique of capitalism, it offers no viable economic model of its own. Even Soviet Russia when dealing with the world at large HAD to conform to capitalist models. As does Sweden, Denmark, Norway, China, Cuba, etc....

Bottom line: No new economic model has been presented in over 200 years. (WTF have economists been up to for the last 6 decades anyway? Game theory?) With automation, and "Globalization" not a single "job" in the USA or anywhere else is in fact immune from... evaporation.

By the grace of God goes you.

As for anyone having any "economic value" or not, please consider what you say, a life is not measured by such blasphemies.

And remember work is work. And hard work is hard work, the valuation is: The more it destroys the body the less one is remunerated.

Watch what economically happens in the USA as "illegal immigration hysteria" reaches a peak. Loss of hard workers will be a ...well just watch. Hard workers and exploted workers I might add. The way that phenom plays out also may cost you YOUR job... just so you know.

"God is Gold and grass is Green", WTF is the world coming to. Jeeez...

End of rant... back to my cave.

WRJames said:

What I said was that these people had nothing of ECONOMIC value to offer -- and I'm really talking about, for example, those poor ladies you see in the refugee camps in Darfur -- no education to speak of. The need for unskilled labor is shrinking with increased mechanisation and automation. So you have a vast surplus of labor. Why does that statement offend you?

Click to expand...

Is there not something inherently wrong with reducing human beings to debit and credit entries on a financial ledger?

WRJames said:

What I said was that these people had nothing of ECONOMIC value to offer --

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Just what is the echonomic value of even a simple task like making up a room? Or sewing? Or a thousand (not so) simple tasks? Compare to the CEO of Shell... That his decisions bring in big income cannot be argued. But some of his decisions have hard ecological impacts... what is the cost all the way down the line -to change the oil in your car? Or the effects of your exhaust? Is the CEO of Shell REALLY producing a net gain? Who knows! TOTAL cost, in all of its effects, has never been tracked!

"and I'm really talking about, for example, those poor ladies you see in the refugee camps in Darfur -- no education to speak of."

Click to expand...

So fucking what?
Maybe they do great art.
Hell, that they just survive is more than any of us in the West could ever hope to boast of!

How much would that be "economically" worth? In fact, considering what they have had to endure, I imagine that they will make art that we ( in the west not under that sort of duress) will only understand in the next decade!

"The need for unskilled labor is shrinking with increased mechanisation and automation. So you have a vast surplus of labor. Why does that statement offend you?

Click to expand...

The implication that "echonomic worth" is some how comparable with "Human worth." is annoying. More than annoying.

BTW, it is not just unskilled labor that is being affected -engineering, law, accounting...all are subject to outsourcing. If only we could outsource Bush to Bombay... that would be such poetic justice.

The extreme case in the OP is an easy one that provides a lot of fun. Several have identified hard cases that aren't so much fun. For example, the pernicious effect of outside income caps has been described, by which welfare recipients lose benefits as they earn more by working, imposing the equivalent of a "50 percent marginal tax" or greater on each additional dollar earned.

And yet, who can deny that a line must be drawn? The OP is proof of it. I submit that the drawing that line is an futile circle-squaring exercise, and that the entire model and structure of the welfare state is intrinsically flawed and invariably produces perverse and unintended negative consequences greater than the intended beneficial ones, not just for the individuals involved, but for the entire society.

Does this mean I am a "let them eat cake" libertarian? No, I accept that for the forseeable future some form of income stabilization at the low end is necessary. Further, that the institutions of civil society are insuffient on their own to undertake this, or to provide for the truly disabled.

So what do I propose? Others have introduced their own hobbyhorses, allow me to introduce mine - Charles Murray's "A Plan to Replace the Welfare State" by giving every adult a catastrophic health insurance voucher and a $10,000 annual stipend, with the latter phasing out at around $50,000 a year - and nothing else. No welfare, social secruity, medicare, etc.

"People can't live on $10,000" some will screech, and most sadly refuse to stretch their imaginations to consider the indirect effects and second- and third-order consequences of a radically different model, some of which are described in the linked article. Well, the Swedish couple in the OP would have $20k, and probably could get by. But that's not the point. The real goal is to stop sending social problems "downtown" to be totally botched by social service bureaucracies, and put dealing with them back "in our hands" by supercharging the institutions of civil society and inculcating civic virtue by making it necessary again.

"Aristotle was right. Virtue is a habit. Virtue does not flourish in the next generation because we tell our children to be honest, compassionate and generous in the abstract. It flourishes because our children practice honesty, compassion and generosity in the same way that they practice a musical instrument or a sport. That happens best when children grow up in a society in which human needs are not consigned to bureaucracies downtown but are part of life around us, met by people around us."

Exciteher said:

As for anyone having any "economic value" or not, please consider what you say, a life is not measured by such blasphemies.

Click to expand...

Of course -- but in terms of survival within an economic system, such factors become important. If you need money to survive (and in a pure free market model what else is there?) -- what is the source of that money going to be?

Currently we have a millions, perhaps billions, living a traditional subsistence existence, directly off of the land (or sea) -- but that way of life is threatened by war, by climate change, by population explosions, and also by the fact that those cultures are no longer sheltered from a global monetary economy. So we have millions, maybe billions, living off of the scraps of the monetary economy. Against that background, the fate of one Swedish couple does not seem too significant.

Of course, even the affluent societies have trouble distributing that wealth. And we all can get self righteous about laziness. But in point of fact we have a few people doing truly useful work working too hard for too little reward, a lot of folks doing totally meaningless "work" getting very frazzled and stressed out, and others shut out from any chance to contribute their efforts. It is a system that is very badly broken, and not likely to get better very soon.

WRJames said:

Currently we have a millions, perhaps billions, living a traditional subsistence existence, directly off of the land (or sea) -- but that way of life is threatened by . . .

Click to expand...

As it always was, that life is threatened by the fact that it is poor, nasty, brutish, and short. That way of life is threatened by the fact that those living it aren't stupid, and when artificial constraints are removed they pursue with great energy the comforts, conveniences and and security of modern economic systems and industrial civilization, if not for themselves then for their children.

Roxanne Appleby said:

As it always was, that life is threatened by the fact that it is poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Click to expand...

Argh! Now I'm being haunted by my Political Philosophy tutor... Darn Natural State theory... go 'way I passed my exam on you...

Just-Legal said:

Argh! Now I'm being haunted by my Political Philosophy tutor... Darn Natural State theory... go 'way I passed my exam on you...

Click to expand...

Fear not: In your newly purchased home the conditions described by Master Hobbes will never prevail:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Referring back to the beginning of this thread, I think if a person wants to milk the system, they should just start the next Halliburton. Why settle for a few hundred dollars a month when you can make millions? In fact, I think Dick Cheney should be the poster boy for milking the system. I'm sure he and his buddies cheated the US government out of more money than all the welfare cheats combined. (Score one for the 'Free Market'.)