Originally posted by WajomaI'm opposed to measures to try to "force" type-D individuals to become type-E ones. People do just get screwed by circumstances. Re-train them? Sure. But employers often won't hire someone who's been unemployed for two years and is in their fifties, even if they've retrained to become, say, a pharmaceutical technician. They just won't. It's asinine, but there you go. So if society is going to shun such luckless individuals based on blinkered prejudices, then it has a responsibility to keep a roof over their heads and give them a little goddamn dignity without the constant accusations of being "lazy" and "unmotivated".
Send them to re-education gulags.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by trev33Almost everyone in America starts out poor. Minimum wage poor. Will Smith was asked about his son's wealth, and he replied that he and Jada were wealthy. Their son was dirt poor. Now that has changed as well.
what?
I've been poor, minimum wage poor, moved into middle income, did fairly well, became poor again, and moved up again.
The point is that with liberty, most people don't need to remain in some caste system of stagnation, such as is the case in India. People move out of poverty, and some fall back into it, even after acquiring a degree of wealth.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by JS357"So unless we want to turn a first world poverty situation into a third world situation, there needs to be some "non-voluntary" contributions i.e., taxes, to provide a some minimal degree of safety net."
I'll speak about the first-world situation as I see it.
Help consists of more than help with food and shelter. Education, training, employment and other counseling, tax incentives for businesses locating in economically impacted areas, etc., are ways that we get poor people off the welfare lines and keep them off.
For purely practical reasons, I doubt t ...[text shortened]... non-voluntary" contributions i.e., taxes, to provide a some minimal degree of safety net.
Safety net no problem. Allowing the safety net to become a hammock, problem. The problem with social programs is not helping those that truly need help, and are personally trying to help themselves. It is that line where helping becomes destructive of initiative, and starts subsidizing a behaviour, at which point you get more of the subsidized behaviour.
Nobody wants to see children of single mothers starve. However in the USA, our approach has led to a minor social problem turning major. Reforms have put the problem in recession, but there is a point in every well intentioned social program where it actually grows the problem it sought to correct.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by SoothfastSociety isn't doing the shunning, a couple of employers are, and who knows maybe they just didn't have a position available.
I'm opposed to measures to try to "force" type-D individuals to become type-E ones. People do just get screwed by circumstances. Re-train them? Sure. But employers often won't hire someone who's been unemployed for two years and is in their fifties, even if they've retrained to become, say, a pharmaceutical technician. They just won't. It's asinine, ...[text shortened]... goddamn dignity without the constant accusations of being "lazy" and "unmotivated".
Get together with another couple of 50's people, pool your resources and employ yourselves. No one person owes you a job, nor do they as a collective.
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaNot just a couple of employers. Dozens. Even hundreds. If you don't see the problem then you need to raise the blast shield on that welders mask in your avatar a smidge.
Society isn't doing the shunning, a couple of employers are, and who knows maybe they just didn't have a position available.
Get together with another couple of 50's people, pool your resources and employ yourselves. No one person owes you a job, nor do they as a collective.
Also, not everyone has the skills to become self-employed. You make it sound so easy. This Panglossian Weltanschauung of yours is like the kind I sometimes take a ride through when I get a buzz on, but reality is not in actual fact a boundless bounty of rainbows and butterflies.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by SoothfastSo the people without self-employment skills shunned employing the 50's guy that got the wrong training?
Not just a couple of employers. Dozens. Even hundreds. If you don't see the problem then you need to raise the blast shield on that welders mask in your avatar a smidge.
Also, not everyone has the skills to become self-employed. You make it sound so easy. This Panglossian Weltanschauung of yours is like the kind I sometimes take a ride through when ...[text shortened]... et a buzz on, but reality is not in actual fact a boundless bounty of rainbows and butterflies.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by WajomaIs that supposed to make any sense?
So the people without self-employment skills shunned employing the 50's guy that got the wrong training?
It takes money to start a business, and if you're unemployed you ain't likely got it. And then what if the business flops? Now you're even more in hock. Someone with a family cannot run that kind of risk, especially in Wajomastan where the only safety net is a bed of nails.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by SoothfastYou said the 50's guy with the wrong training was shunned by society, society is made up partly (amongst other types of people, many, many other types of individuals) by people without self-employment skills (your words) So these people that can't even employ themselves have shunned employing the 50's guy.
Is that supposed to make any sense?
It takes money to start a business, and if you're unemployed you ain't likely got it. And then what if the business flops? Now you're even more in hock. Someone with a family cannot run that kind of risk, especially in Wajomastan where the only safety net is a bed of nails.
I know it doesn't make sense, that was my point.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by WajomaAh, so you're just being ridiculous. I see.
You said the 50's guy with the wrong training was shunned by society, society is made up partly (amongst other types of people, many, many other types of individuals) by people without self-employment skills (your words) So these people that can't even employ themselves have shunned employing the 50's guy.
I know it doesn't make sense, that was my point.
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaYou like having dead-end "old married couple" type arguments about things like whether it's "Route 68" or "Highway 68". On and on you'll prate for 100 kilometers while eating sunflower seeds and twiddling the knob on the radio trying to tease a Barry Manilow song out of the static. Cute up to a point.
You said society shunned this hypothetical guy.
It did not, only some people may have shunned him, ok maybe hundreds of employers, hundreds of employers is still not 'society'.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by SoothfastObviously, it's Route 68.
You like having dead-end "old married couple" type arguments about things like whether it's "Route 68" or "Highway 68". On and on you'll prate for 100 kilometers while eating sunflower seeds and twiddling the knob on the radio trying to tease a Barry Manilow song out of the static. Cute up to a point.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by Soothfast
a somewhat serious response
I for one thought that was a great read. Well written.
_____
Originally posted by Wajoma
As previously posted [some] people come to be in a bad situation by [...] bad decisions by themselves, in which case they have no right to make other people responsible for their own bad choices.
I don’t disagree that, to a degree, the government’s sponsorship of a social safety net does benefit poor people who end up in bad situations through bad decisions, as well as some people who probably could work their way out of their situations.
However, assuming that it is infeasible to distinguish between E and D (unless you would like to propose a means of doing so?), I am trying to ask: does the accidental sponsorship of people who abuse the government safety net delegitimize the beneficial sponsorship of people who use it appropriately, including as a means of socioeconomic advancement?
hundreds of employers is still not 'society'.
If someone actually had interviewed at hundreds of job openings, should he deserve unemployment benefits in the meantime?
What about if he had only interviewed at a few dozen? Maybe a handful? Where do you draw the line?
_____
Originally posted by normbenign
Safety net no problem. Allowing the safety net to become a hammock, problem.
I’m glad to say that I agree with you in theory. In reality, though, how would you distinguish the point beyond which the safety net becomes a “hammock”? Surely if that were possible it would have already happened by now?
22 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaAs I have already said witty I see people in bad situations as being divided into three groups.
Originally posted by Soothfast
[b]a somewhat serious response
I for one thought that was a great read. Well written.
_____
Originally posted by Wajoma
As previously posted [some] people come to be in a bad situation by [...] bad decisions by themselves, in which case they have no right to make other people responsible net becomes a “hammock”? Surely if that were possible it would have already happened by now?
Those that have made bad decisions themselves. This group need to take responsibility for the decisions they have made (maybe they got all trained up for a career that there is no demand for), they might appeal to charity but that is all they can do i.e. ask, not demand.
Those that have had bad decisions forced on them, there are only two groups of people that like to use force, criminals and gummint, so the solution for this group is to stop the initiators of force.
Those that have suffered some kind of natural disaster or are themselves debilitated in some way that makes them helpless (Your group E? ) Possibly this last group might be divided in two. Because the people that are truly helpless are an incredibly small number, there are people that have overcome monumental disabilites to become more productive, independent and wealthy than some millions of healthy people who think they are victims and that the world and everyone in it owes them something. So this tiny number of truly helpless people will be covered by voluntary charity.
There is to be no state safety net.
Natural disasters should also be assisted by voluntary charity and voluntary insurance for those that prefer it, the more the state takes the role of dishing out other peoples money in these situations just means that people are less inclined to give voluntarily, the welfare state and state disaster assistance breeds an uncaring society. No1 likes to make something of this supposed hardwired sense of community that every human has, the more such decisions are taken from people, the less they will be able to make them, that's simple logic, they can no longer be said to be caring or benevolent.