|
|
 Originally Posted by banana
Yeah, what's wrong with that?
It's passing the buck. It's not a very American thing to do. America takes responsibility for its own citizens.
Seems every week I hear another story about how some European country is giving more free shit to their citizens.
I don't understand why things like free education is a problem.
That's how they get votes.
This might hold some sway if political systems in Europe tended to revolve around a single party, or maybe even if the Labour Party (the socialist ones) were dominant here in the UK. Fact is, they can't dislodge the Tories as a centrist party, and even though they've lurched super-left, they probably still won't be able to... so it's not how they get votes at all, because if it is, it's not working here.
Are you saying it's wrong for a foreign person to immigrate to a country because it provides better social benefits?
No, but I would say it's immoral for a person to immigrate for the sole purpose of living on their benefits, certainly where the home nation has their own benefit systam at least. I would only immigrate to another country if I inteded to support myself. I might sit here and say the British taxpayer owes me a pittance of an income to ensure a basic survival, but I wouldn't extend that to a foreign taxpayer.
This is somewhat silly. The idea that we have to pay people to not commit crimes is not a world I want to live in. I'd rather they rob, get caught, and sent to jail.
It's the real world, and it's basic economics. Where a person is in jail, they are costing the taxpayer a great deal more than someone who is claiming benefits. And where someone who is basically unemployable is refused benefits, they are forced to beg or steal. Your means of dealing with the unemployable is simply to wait until they are forced to break the law, then jail them. Problem solved. Only, you'll find it difficult to pay for all those prisons you'll need to build, staff and maintain. Hint - it'll cost more than you'll save by not having to pay benefits.
I reject this argument as long as there exists something called unskilled labor. No one is so bad at a job like that where it becomes cheaper to pay them to stay home.
If you employed me to do some "unskilled labour", you would soon regret doing so. People are bad at their job where they don't enjoy doing it. Anyone can serve burgers at Maccies. Can anyone do it for more than a month without becoming depressed? I couldn't. I'd want to kill myself if that was my job for the rest of my life.
I'm not really a great example though. I'm not the average unemployed person. I'm somewhat more intelligent and somewhat less drug addled than most people who have been out of work for more than a year. If I tried hard enough, I could be an asset to an employer. However, the million or so long term unemployed here in the UK are, for the most part, not the kind of people who you would give a job too, and if you did, you would fire them or they would jack it in within months. That has a negative impact on your business, and as such, the greater economy. Can you put a figure on how much it has cost your business to employ someone useless, and then have to fire them and employ someone else? I couldn't, but I can put a figure on how much it costs to keep me unemployed... £500 a month.
Maybe you haven't hired enough morons to see the economic benefit of keeping some people out of the workforce. I've certainly worked with enough.
"ruthless" is a pretty strong word don't you think? I don't think it's ruthless to expect an able bodied adult to be able to put in a days work. Why should we respect an able bodied man who doesn't? Why does he deserve a handout? Wouldn't society be better served feeding that guy a big old slice of reality? I say he gets the shaft, and his share societies benefits can be redistributed among people who are truly disadvantaged or disabled.
Capitalism is utterly ruthless, I'm surprised you wouldn't agree. How many people's lives are in the hands of their employer? The real world of business is cut throat, and it's foolish to think everyone is cut out for it. It's not just about being able to do a job, it's about being able to take relentless shit off your boss without telling him to fuck off. That's your problem, that's why we have a million unemployable people here.
Why should we respect an able bodied man who doesn't? Why does he deserve a handout? Wouldn't society be better served feeding that guy a big old slice of reality? I say he gets the shaft, and his share societies benefits can be redistributed among people who are truly disadvantaged or disabled.
Noone's saying anyone has to be respected. I'm saying you're the one that needs a dose of the real world, and that is that if you refuse to support the morons, then they will be forced to fend for themselves. And the majority of them won't do that by magically getting a job.
Society would be better served if there weren't a million unemployable morons (probably at least triple that in the States). But the reality of it is there are. So how best to deal with them? One way or another, it's gonna cost the taxpayer. I'd say social security is the cheapest, safest, most humane method. If you disagree, fair enough. But sending them to Europe isn't an option, at least I don't think it is. Certainly, American people can't just walk into the UK and get benefits. Europeans can (currently), but Yanks can't. I can't see that being any different across Europe.
It won't be hard finding people who want to work if the guiding principle is 'work or starve'. Right now it's 'work, if you feel like it. If not, don't. Nothing bad will happen do you'.
No, you're right, because a lot of the people who were previously unemployed would now want a job, and want to keep it, however not everyone would get one, so I'd be living in a society with shanty towns and an increase in crime, which would mean higher costs for policing and jails. At what point do we think "wish we'd just give the morons £500 a fucking month"?
|
Reply With Quote
