On average, the bit you quoted has been shown to be true over and over again. There's no disputing it at this point that this is, on average, the case. Obviously there are outliers, but that's a given.
Printable View
What is society if it's not people?Quote:
Look at the terminology you're using. Society doesn't provide welfare; people do, people who produce and develop skills that you don't want to.
No, because we have welfare. Take that away, and one is faced with very few options, of which the most appealing by far is working. That's as good as forced to me. If I put a gun to your head and ask for your wallet, you'll hand it to me. Of course, you could say no, or you could try to take the gun off me, or make a run for it in zig zags and hope I can't shoot. Were you forced to give me your wallet? Of course, your other options were so unrealistic that giving me your wallet is by far the most sensible thing to do. Look up the word zugzwang and understand how it relates to chess. If you're forced to make a bad move, then you make the one that gives the best outcome of rescuing the situation. Most of the time, when playing chess, if you're in zugwang, resignation is the appropriate response. That isn't a viable option when it comes to life.Quote:
Nobody's forcing somebody to work.
Yes.Quote:
You're in favor of forcing workers to subsidize those who don't want to work.
I don't agree at all for points I've already made. It makes things better for everyone because it keeps the unstable people from becoming more unstable. Social stability has a value way beyond that of the welfare bill. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say. I guess you're not thinking about what a world without welfare would be like. Either that, or you're naively assuming that all people with no money will be willing or able to get a job.Quote:
It's the existence of welfare that makes things worse for everybody in aggregate.
In this world, there are getters, and those who get got. He's a getter.
I've explained why I think the taxpayer is better off paying for welfare than not. I'm not forcing the people to give me money, the government are forcing people to give me money. And that enforcement is, imo, justified. But then again I think tax is acceptable because otheriwse literally everything becomes privatised, from education to roads to health to bin collections, law enforcement, border control, military! Fucking military becoming privatised! This is the world without tax.
You tell us that tax is immoral, then suggest me claiming welfare because fuck the system is immoral. I think that's consistency.
Because the alternatives, on a social scale, would be more immoral. What would actually happen if they cut me off? I'd get a shitty job, save my wages, then when I can afford to, set myself up growing weed. That would be preferable to working that shitty job until I die. But I'm doing something now that the law deems even more immoral than "reaping what others sow", which incidentally is an excellent metaphor for ubercapitalism, as well as people like me who live on a pittance.
I would prefer to be growing weed than claiming benefits. Sadly, I don't get to decide what society deems moral and immoral. Me claiming welfare is moral because it's legal.
Ok so we're back to the delusion that no welfare = better for everyone.
I think we're hitting a brick wall here.
Do I think it's immoral that other people are paying for me to survive? Yes, sure. Do I think that I'm the one who is acting immorally? Not at all. I am in zugwang, and am making the least bad move.
It's like people who were dependant on welfare would just magically disappear if welfare ceased to exist.
Is that what the entire field of economics thinks?
Better for everyone would be no fucking wars, not no welfare. Have you any idea how much money the taxpayer would save if our nations didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy?
On another note, dude who asset stripped BHS of hundreds of millions of pounds, driving it into bankruptcy at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs, is buying himself a £100m+ yacht.
His name is Sir something or other. He's a prominant man. He'll probably have the Prime Minister as guest on his nice shiny new yacht.
Worthy of note... all that money got channeled via his wife though Moanco, meaning he didn't even pay tax.
What a beautiful system.
Of course, I'm acting immorally by saying fuck that and sponging a pittance off the taxpayer to stop me from dying.
Reread my posts on the subject.
Better for me would be if I was married to Alexandra Daddario, but that's not relevant either.Quote:
Better for everyone would be no fucking wars, not no welfare.
They don't have an aggressive foreign policy. In fact, it's the rejection of pacifism adopted during the close of WW2 that largely contributed to world peace.Quote:
Have you any idea how much money the taxpayer would save if our nations didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy?
This is such a blatant strawman that I can only assume you're trolling me now.Quote:
So you're declaring moral relativism? Where the principle of a thing doesn't matter, and instead what matters is the effects? Where it's wrong to steal from people you like but not wrong to steal from people you don't?
There might be something to "moral relativism" though. I mean I talk about being in zugwang, about making the least bad move. I have more of a moral problem with the way our government spends tax. You can sit there and tell me we don't have an aggressive foreign policy, but those are the hollow words of the deluded. The UK is providing weapons to Saudi Arabia, which in turn are being used, with our knowledge, to indiscriminantly attack Yemeni civilians. What is happening out there is war crimes, and that is what I would be paying for if I were paying tax.
And you're talking to me about the morality of welfare like it's fucking theft.
Oh I don't disagree that there is a lot wrong with our foreign policy. What I disagree with is the mischaracterization it gets when it's related to an empire and it's said that pacifism would work. Pacifism is arguably the most destructive idea in human history. Killing of innocents is wrong, but aggressiveness in foreign policy has been a boon. It matters what the aggressiveness is about.
And yes smoking weed is survival.
I'm just about to go to bed, I'm really not getting into this. I mean it's like saying that not shitting yourself is the best way to get shitty pants. I just can't comprehend how pacifism is the most destructive idea in human history, while we fight wars purely to support the arms industry.
You must be trolling.
Good night.
Pacifism is not the belief in peace. Pacifism is the belief that fighting is unconditionally wrong. This ideology was a key element in the construction of WW2. Hitler's Germany took advantage of the pacifist policies adopted by Britain and France after WW1 that left western Europe poorly protected.
You have the option to look after yourself. That's it.
Why on earth anyone would assume that this most basic concept of survival should be passed on to someone else is beyond me.
It's pretty simple. You're alive. You can curl up in a corner and die or you can look after yourself.
The shitty job concept is bullshit. I mean there's a huge amount of jobs out there. Millions of things you can do to look after yourself and ensure you don't die. If you don't want a shitty job then learn what you need to get a good one. Or work for yourself and start a business.
I imagine without welfare people would find a way to survive anyway. You just don't have any motivation when the option to have someone else work instead exists. But make no mistake, that's what welfare is, passing on that most basic concept of looking after yourself to someone else.
There's a difference between people who are perfectly capable but refuse (i.e. Ong) and people that require the help. You only have to look at what there was before to realise that people didn't survive. You only have to look at the effect when certain parts of welfare gets cut to realise people don't survive. I'm sure you can argue all the things Wuf would about how it's sub-optimal etc and I'm sure* that's all true but in the instant it's irrelevant.
*clear overestimate
Man I'm all for welfare in general. Certainly when it comes to people who need it like the sick and disabled. But that wasn't really what I was getting at.
In terms of functional usage in the Western world, the main purpose of welfare is not to help the people who legitimately need the help. Instead, it's to placate those of the underclass who refuse to take responsibility for themselves so that they do not disturb the upper classes nearly as much.
One of the biggest problems to the long-term sustainability of this particular system is that the welfare-dependent underclass tends to reproduce at a significantly higher rate than the upper classes. Some form of eugenics would be required to keep the status quo. Otherwise, the population difference will eventually be so great that the current system of welfare will no longer work, and then the upper classes will be more outnumbered than ever.
And that's when things are going to get interesting. We could have a revolution, or we could see the upper class outsmart them in one way or another. I imagine a lot of great dystopian fiction could be written about the various ways this scenario could play out.
Sure, and a great number of them would rob, assault and kill other people to take their belongings. For the most part, these aren't people with a work ethic or a strong understanding of rationality that we're dealing with here. If they had those things, then they wouldn't be on welfare over the long run.
You're wrong, because I also have the option, the perfectly legal option, of having other people look after me in terms of finance. What you're saying is simply semantics. It's an ideal world, but it's not the real one. You're talking about how it should be, not how it is.
Besides, I am looking after myself in a different sense. I don't even care if it sounds like a cop out, I'm not cut out for shitty work. I can't go and work for ten hours a day in a factory. Physically I can, of course, but I'm not the kind of person who can bite my lip when my boss is a cunt. I'll get fired within a couple of months, and even if I don't, I'll be depressed within another couple of months and walk. How is that "looking after myself"? You say you're cool with people claiming benefits if they need it... why don't I need it? Because I'm physically ok? What about mentally? What about people who have such a moral problem with the way the world works that for them to work is for them to sell their soul to the devil? That might sound nonsense to you, but if someone actually feels that way, what good is work?
Because we live in a civilised society, one in which not everyone is capable or willing to go and grind out their lives supporting the system. Even when I was working, I recognised that welfare was essential, not just for people who can't work, but also for those who really don't want to. Because to force those people into work is not going to benefit anyone in the long run.Quote:
Why on earth anyone would assume that this most basic concept of survival should be passed on to someone else is beyond me.
This is the brutal world of nature, where hungry lions die if they don't eat enough zebras. This isn't the civilised world of modern western society, where people are not let to curl up in a corner and die. So it's not as simple as you think or wish it is.Quote:
It's pretty simple. You're alive. You can curl up in a corner and die or you can look after yourself.
I've been unemployed for six years or so now, and during this time I've had to at least pretend to look for work. I can assure you that, for an unskilled man like me, there is very little out there except care work and labouring, and those few jobs that are appealing will have so many applicants that someone who has a six year gap on their CV doesn't stand a chance.Quote:
The shitty job concept is bullshit. I mean there's a huge amount of jobs out there. Millions of things you can do to look after yourself and ensure you don't die. If you don't want a shitty job then learn what you need to get a good one. Or work for yourself and start a business.
I would like to work for myself, but the law says I can't do what I want to do, what I'm good at and what I enjoy, what has high value and demand. And yes, there are plenty of things I can do to ensure I don't die. Claiming welfare is one of them. Just because you have a moral issue with it, doesn't mean others should. I have a pretty good idea of the type of people who typically claim benefits in this country. You should too, unless you're sheltered from all that in Cornwall. You would not employ the average welfare claimant, and neither would I.
Untlimately, this is right. But does your tax come down if I get a job? No. So it's not you looking after me, even though you're a taxpayer. My personal income is so insignificant that it's ridiculous to even be angry about it, especially considering that there are prominant people who will get wealthy at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs.Quote:
But make no mistake, that's what welfare is, passing on that most basic concept of looking after yourself to someone else.
It's insane that the working class get angry with the lazy class when they should be angry with the ruling class. I won't work because I don't want to line the pockets of shareholders. I don't want to work because I don't want my tax to go towards foreign aggression. I don't want to work because the law tells me I can't do the one productive one thing I can do and enjoy doing. These are three key reasons for me not wanting to work. Of course, after six years doing nothing, I also don't want to work because I like doing nothing. But that is not what motivates me the most. I do wish I had more money so I can buy new clothes, go to more festivals, eat better, socialise more. But I'm willing to make those sacrifices to stand by my principles.
I don't doubt if I really tried hard enough, I could find a satisfactory job. But to say I am obligated to do so, it doesn't wash with me. I don't see why I should have the onus on me while genuinely lazy unproductive people continue to get away with it because they are truly unemployable. I should give up my life because I'm capable? No.
If I had kids I'd feel very differently, I would give my life to them, and would want to ensure they are capable of looking after themselves when they're adults, so I respect where you're coming from. But I'm a single man with no commitments, so what reason for me to work? To survive? I can survive perfectly well on benefits.
Spoon is right. Welfare only exists to keep people who reject the system from rising against it. If you want to take welfare away and force me into work, good luck to you. Me, personally, I'd put a plan together and put it into action. But, believe me, I'm way above the average intelligence level of the typical unemployed unskilled person. Those dumb fucks, they're the problem, because the only way they will be able to look after themself would still be at someone else's expense. And they make up the vast majority of unemployed people.
Welfare is absolutely necessary if you like the relative calm world we live in. And while welfare is a part of the system, then it is not immoral for me to claim it on the basis that I reject the system.
I'm so much smarter than everyone else, and that's why I live on welfare instead of starting a business or getting together the money to move somewhere else where I could start a business doing what I love.
Just a thought. I'd personally love to see you do it.
I never said I was smarter than everyone else, just relative to those who are unemployed. It was far from a brag.
The point being, that the vast majority of welfare recipients are incapable of doing anything productive. I'm not one of them. I'm capable, just unwilling.
That was my attempt at encouragement.
That away he could save half his welfare payment ea H month?
If you took a shitty min wage job say in macdonalds or whatever, how much more would you earn than now? Taking into account lost benefits and tax etc?
I figured I should at least look at what countries allow it before saying that I don't think this is an appropriate thing for me to do. Very few is the answer. The obvious choice is the States, and it should be obvious that I have no interest in migrating there. Other viable options would be Spain, Portugal, Holland, Uruguay, and a few others, but in every case it's a legal shitstorm requiring licences and regulations, which of course massively add to the costs. There are a great many risks involved, of which the greatest is spending jail time in a foreign country, or being robbed at gunpoint.
I would be extremely nervous growing weed in a foreign country to the point that I wouldn't enjoy it. There isn't a single country in the world that has unconditionally legalised cannabis, not to my knowledge anyway. If I'm going to take risks, it has to be here, at home.
You're right though, I do need a realistic plan. I'm just not in any hurry about it, it's not like I'm unhappy where I'm at right now. I don't want to claim benefits forever, it's a matter of time before I have the privacy to go about my business. Right now, I'm living with friends, there's a kid living next door, there's a cop whose garden borders ours, so no chance where I am. I'll probably move on this year or next to somewhere I can get away with it. I hope so. Until then, I'm happy where I am.
Probably not much. For most people in his shoes, taking a job like this is a greater short term opportunity cost than just staying on welfare.
The typical rules regarding welfare are insane. In the US, a lot of people actually lose money by entering the workforce. This is where the term "poverty trap" comes from. Low paying entry level work is necessary for developing skills that pay more, yet most on welfare have no incentive to even start the process since they're better off in the short term by not doing so.
Well yeah, hence the question.
Many people with families are definitely better off on benefits, when compared to taking a shitty job.
For me with no kids though, I'd definitely be better off financially at work.
So you could save 6k a year. In 3 yrs that's 18k, amd that's enough to start a small business. You could literally do whatever you wanted, and not be working for shareholders which you seem so against.
I could save all of my extra income? I doubt that very much. I'd have to get to and from work, I'd be eating on the go a lot more, I'd be spending more on socialising, smoking, drinking. I'd could probably save £2k-3k in a year taking a grand a month, if I tried really hard.
I dunno why you're all trying to get Ong to do something he doesn't want to do. If he's happy with what he's doing then fair play to the lad. If it fucks you off that he lives the way he does vote for people who would stop him doing that.
Saving up money in a low paid job is fairly easy given you don't take on stupid expenses like everyone seems to. The last place I worked there were people earning ~15k who had cars, houses (rent), latest gadgets, holidays & would go out fairly regularly. Cut out those expenses and you're ballin'.
Why would someone who doesn't want responsibility or to have to work want to start a business? This whole not working for a boss thing is far to overstated in most peoples minds.
Can't say I expected to catch up on a conversation and see that Savy was the voice of reason.
WP, Savy
FWIW, it's impressive to hear such cogent arguments on this subject.
Maybe I'm inferring tone that isn't there, but it seems like you are able to see the logic in the response people have to wealth inequality, yet you still are dismissive of it as an issue.
I think it was ImSavy in your worldview thread who said something like "treat people as individual systems, if input A gets an unwanted outcome, reevaluate your input." If people react to wealth inequality in a way that you find unreasonable, yet no reasoning will get people as a whole to stop reacting this way, then wealth inequality is in fact a problem.
That's accurate. I see it as an issue that must be dealt with on an emotional level. But I also think it can't be dealt with only an emotional level.
On a side note to clarify where I'm coming from on the issue of wealth inequality itself, I think, while there is a problem, the issue isn't framed correctly. Historically, wealth inequality isn't a problem as long as wealth growth and individual agency is believed. China is a good example of this. The people of the country have a greater outlook on life than those in the West even though the inequality in their society is wider. The primary explanation for why this is the case is that they see their wealth and agency increasing relative to their previous and current conditions.
Wealth inequality is so hilarious to me anyway. What if we just took away everyone who was wealthy? Equal as fuck, but all equally shitty.
Yeah. Inequality can sometimes be considered an effect of bad policy, but that's about it, and it's hard to tell when.
An illustration of how to understand how this can be: triple everybody's incomes and poverty will be eradicated yet inequality will increase. Inequality itself is not indicative of a fixable problem.
Wuf, you call Ong out for "mental gymnastics" when he gives a pretty well reasoned nuanced answer to your question. Did you not want nuance?
It's also interesting that spoon cosigns on the point you referred to as "mental gymnastics" and, assuming you read it, you chose to ignore it.
Your objection seems to me to be purely ideological. You cite the field of economics, yet many economists are fully on board with some sort of drastically simplified welfare system, mostly in the form of a guaranteed minimum income.
It may bug you that your brother always forgets to get your mom a present for Mother's Day, but it is not insane to think that despite the irritation, everyone's holiday, including yours, is for the better when you let him add his signature to the card that accompanies your gift. Now you can argue the opposite, and I'd welcome that-- and your argument may be far more concise than my rebuttals, if you insist on a correlation between truth and brevity, I'll laugh, call you a clown, and mockingly point to your posting history.
Though their accusations are unreasonable, the correct move is to do whatever is reasonable to offer proof of him being born a natural citizen. Releasing the corresponding documents made fools of those who continued with the rhetoric. Sure, some birthers still exist, but by and large it's lost its steam.
Applied to the topic at hand-- we shouldn't redistribute all wealth perfectly equally, but we should take steps to ensure a stable society, which could, and likely does, include subsidizing and (put bluntly) pacifying those of us who find themselves with less.
Ah, yeah, I totally agree. I don't think the only solution is welfare, or more welfare-- The American dream got distorted, and instead of a 1/4 acre and a white picket fence, people were being fed the message that celebrity and an exuberant lifestyle is the real American dream. Maybe they both are facets of the same thing, but one has been disproportionately highlighted over the past several decades and to an increasing degree. And so, in aggregate, people no longer feel like the mobility that is at the heart of the dream is attainable. Give China a handful of decades, and if they don't figure things out better than we did, we'll see the same disillusionment in the Chinese Dream.
The "mental gymnastics" comment is because he depends on norms to inform principle. Specifically, I was trying to flesh out why he relied on government legitimacy to inform what he calls moral. I view this as mental gymnastics to get around the principle. There is at least one rationale I see for why it's moral to claim tax subsidy, but it wasn't the rationale he was using.
What was the nuance you found reasonable?
What specifically was this?Quote:
It's also interesting that spoon cosigns on the point you referred to as "mental gymnastics" and, assuming you read it, you chose to ignore it.
I was specific a few times, but not every time. I think I wasn't emphatic on the type of welfare since the context was about the type of welfare.Quote:
Your objection seems to me to be purely ideological. You cite the field of economics, yet many economists are fully on board with some sort of drastically simplified welfare system, mostly in the form of a guaranteed minimum income.
Anyways, I was referring to the certain type of welfare that Ong was talking about, specifically the kind that detracts from productive behavior to fund anti-productive behavior. You are correct that lots of economists think that some forms of welfare can be positive, but they all revolve around increasing productivity. The idea of basic income tends to only hold water among economists in renditions that would keep people from permanent alienation from the workforce and sometimes actually promote participation in the workforce. This is something that is often lost in political discourse.
Those things not existing aren't negatives when they don't exist.
I was somewhat joking but I don't buy into (pun?) all these material goods and advancements making people happier as a whole.
This I was questioning purely out of interest. I was wondering what the effects would be.
I'll concede all of these. Later posts make me think I misread spoon's posts and I just don't feel like parsing back through the thread. The discussion is moving along nicely, and in interesting directions, no need to get lost in the weeds on points I don't even have that much interest in.
I think a big issue is that a lot of smart people think that the line about blacksmiths losing their shit over the introduction and popularization of the automobile may no longer be applicable. It is imaginable that in the near future full employment is simply unnecessary-- it's not crazy to think we may already be living in the early stages of that future. Maybe not, but it's an interesting hypothetical to play in.Quote:
I was specific a few times, but not every time. I think I wasn't emphatic on the type of welfare since the context was about the type of welfare.
Anyways, I was referring to the certain type of welfare that Ong was talking about, specifically the kind that detracts from productive behavior to fund anti-productive behavior. You are correct that lots of economists think that some forms of welfare can be positive, but they all revolve around increasing productivity. The idea of basic income tends to only hold water among economists in renditions that would keep people from permanent alienation from the workforce and sometimes actually promote participation in the workforce. This is something that is often lost in political discourse.
Maybe. Scarce resources and gluttony may still kill that dream.
I would argue it's not necessary now. But it's still more productive.
Also, if we want things like virtual reality and quantum generators, we'll get there faster with full employment than without. Even if that's not a concern, if we just want people to generally be better off, that's a product of full employment more than otherwise.