Role of Welfare

[KeyStone]

If example if you are not very smart isn't that your problem, not societies?

Well, if you want to take the Darwinian approach, I suppose. So then, are the disabled also the problem of the disabled and not societies?

Should society, in your opinion, take responsibility for anything, or just let the chips fall where they may?

If it is a charity, should charitable giving not be left to individuals to voluntary contribute to the extent their conscience dictates?

Well, that would basically force the compassionate to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden.

To the extent that it is a payoff to keep crime low, how do we know that it is the most effective way to spend the funds? For example it may make more sense to decrease welfare rates and spend the funds on police costs or maybe the reverse is true.

Yes, a police state where we lock people up for stealing food sounds like a country to be proud of. Excellent suggestion.

But sure, I see your point. Perhaps we can condition the desperately poor to accept their lot in life. Teach them how to be a proper Epsilon.

If it is a payoff, it may make sense to pay higher amounts to those more likely to commit crime (ie young males) rather than women or the elderly.

It isn't a payoff. We are not bribing people not to commit crimes. We are creating a more equitable society, such that people are less desperate.

There is a difference.

How are the two related. We should fight waste when it occurs. We also need to examine every program including welfare to determine if it is living up to its intended objective.

Helping the poor isn't waste.

I feel sorry for them as well, nor would I want to trade places with them, but emotion shouldn't cloud rational decisions about what programs are effective and exempt them from being scrutinized.

If you felt sorry for them, then you wouldn't be arguing to take away their $550 dollars per month so that we can take home an extra $20/month.

You're new at pretending to be a compassionate conservative, aren't you?

Now, there are various objections to social assistance, and your particular objection seems to be that you don't feel that people should have to contribute to something that they don't believe in.

Well, this is what government does. They take a little from everyone, and spend money.

If we only spent money on things that we all believed in, then the government would be taking no money at all, and it would be up to individual donations for everything.

I don't really think that we need to spend too much on national defense for instance. Why don't we leave that for charities.

Let's get the people that think it's important to pay for it.

I don't really think that we need to bail out the banks or the auto industry. Let's just pass the hat around to fix that problem.

I'm young and healthy, so I'll opt out of contributing taxes for health care now. Take the money from the old and sick people.

I've already got an education, and I'm not having kids - I won't chip in for education.

I don't have a car. I don't want to chip in for highways etc.

[Renegade]

Well, if you want to take the Darwinian approach, I suppose. So then, are the disabled also the problem of the disabled and not societies?

IMO, yes the disabled is the problem of the disabled. Where each other person has a vested interest in disablity programs is primarily because each of us can at any time become disabled, so we would support disability programs to the extent that we see ourselves as potential users of such a program.

Should society, in your opinion, take responsibility for anything, or just let the chips fall where they may?

Primarily society should let chips fall where they may.

Well, that would basically force the compassionate to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden.

It doesn't "force" anything since participation is voluntary. It is their conscience which force the compassionate not anything else.

Yes, a police state where we lock people up for stealing food sounds like a country to be proud of. Excellent suggestion.

But sure, I see your point. Perhaps we can condition the desperately poor to accept their lot in life. Teach them how to be a proper Epsilon.

Actually if you read my response I state that to look at from the objective or reducing crime, there may be alternatives. It may also be a better alternative to increase welfare rates and reduce policing costs. I don't think we know unless we specficly state what the objective is, and measure programs against that objective.

It isn't a payoff. We are not bribing people not to commit crimes. We are creating a more equitable society, such that people are less desperate.

There is a difference.

I don't really see any difference. If people commit crimes because they are desperate and you pay them off so they are less desperate, how is that anything less than an implicit bribe or payoff?

Helping the poor isn't waste.

That really depends upon the objectives of the program. If the objective is to increase the wealth of the poor, then certainly giving money to the poor is not a waste. If the objective is to reduce crime but a payment to the poor doesn't do anything to reduce crime, then definitely it is a waste.

If you felt sorry for them, then you wouldn't be arguing to take away their $550 dollars per month so that we can take home an extra $20/month.

You're new at pretending to be a compassionate conservative, aren't you?

Not at all. What I am suggesting that you, I and eveyone else keep personal feelings out of public policy. Who I do or do not feel sorry for should be irrelevant to public policy where all taxpayers are diverted.

Now, there are various objections to social assistance, and your particular objection seems to be that you don't feel that people should have to contribute to something that they don't believe in.

Well, this is what government does. They take a little from everyone, and spend money.

If we only spent money on things that we all believed in, then the government would be taking no money at all, and it would be up to individual donations for everything.

I don't really think that we need to spend too much on national defense for instance. Why don't we leave that for charities.

Let's get the people that think it's important to pay for it.

I don't really think that we need to bail out the banks or the auto industry. Let's just pass the hat around to fix that problem.

I'm young and healthy, so I'll opt out of contributing taxes for health care now. Take the money from the old and sick people.

I've already got an education, and I'm not having kids - I won't chip in for education.

I don't have a car. I don't want to chip in for highways etc.

I don't agree that government's role is to redistribute income and force a set of services upon people which they don't agree with by force. IMV the government should only provide services which ONLY government can provide, and the funding for those services shoudl be user-pay. So yes, you don't want healthcare because you're young and healthy, opt out.

[ironstone]

Ideally,welfare should be considered temporary relief during hard times.Unfortunately,there will be many that fall through the cracks through no fault of their own.However,I do have a problem with those that are on welfare for life and have no intention of ever getting a job.I don't know what it's like currently,but at one time it was apparently very easy to defraud the system.Back in the 80's I remember one guy that never worked at all,he just collected welfare from different provinces under different names.This guy owned property in B.C. and could afford to have his sister flown out from there to Ontario!Hopefully the system has been tightened up since then.I also remember a series of articles in the Ottawa Sun about welfare fraud,particularly one fraud artist who said Ottawa was his favourite city because he could go to every welfare office on the same day....and recieve money,lol.

My heart goes out to any honest person ending up on welfare because of circumstances beyond their control.

[Oleg Bach]

Ideally,welfare should be considered temporary relief during hard times.Unfortunately,there will be many that fall through the cracks through no fault of their own.However,I do have a problem with those that are on welfare for life and have no intention of ever getting a job.I don't know what it's like currently,but at one time it was apparently very easy to defraud the system.Back in the 80's I remember one guy that never worked at all,he just collected welfare from different provinces under different names.This guy owned property in B.C. and could afford to have his sister flown out from there to Ontario!Hopefully the system has been tightened up since then.I also remember a series of articles in the Ottawa Sun about welfare fraud,particularly one fraud artist who said Ottawa was his favourite city because he could go to every welfare office on the same day....and recieve money,lol.

My heart goes out to any honest person ending up on welfare because of circumstances beyond their control.

Those who steal from the state should be held accountable. Those who are inadvertantly damaged by the state and are rendered non-entities by that state that caused the social economic crippling are wards of the state and by just law the state is responsible for their own errors in judgement and policy or poor management not overseen with diligent effort. Wefare scammers are rare - and they are as parasitic as a corporate inside trader - both are the same - one just has a better presentation and is more skilled in artifice. There are those that are punished by the over influence that the corporate world has over government - they are called the non-compliant...some of those people are very independent and bright an understand the system to well and can not fully participate because of conscience...they are rare but these hold outs do exist.

[benny]

I think that to find out what should be the purpose of a welfare program, we have to take seriously the outrage many feel (me included) about the top-down bailout plans that are now implemented to get over to current economic meltdown. In this optic, to me, welfare has to be conceived has a bottom-up universal and permanent bailout program to prevent extreme economic fluctuations.

[ReeferMadness]

The 'conventional wisdom' view on this topic is that welfare recipients are dependents of the state and drains on society. Some of them (like the disabled) are tolerated but the 'able-bodied' are generally treated in ways ranging from condescension to open hostility. Attitudes towards the way that welfare rules are applied vary but virtually everyone agrees that that we'd all be better off if welfare recipients had jobs.

I remember hitting bottom (financially) in a recession years ago. I came very close to being out on the street in Edmonton in January. As a true Albertan, at the time, I'd have cheerfully frozen on Jasper Avenue before I'd ever darkened the doorway of a welfare office. To survive, I took a job phone soliciting, helping some slimy company rip off little old ladies.

As is often the case, the conventional wisdom is all screwed up. It's not listed on the form, but a requirement of welfare is that you trade in your self-respect and self-esteem for a pittance. We take far more away from welfare recipients than we give them.

We all are co-dependents on society for our lifestyles. If you don't believe me, relocate to a deserted planet and see if you can maintain your standard of living. Money is an abstraction and financial independence is not in any sense real independence. In fact, the wealthy are much more dependent on society than the desperately poor. It may be true that welfare recipients don't contribute a lot but it's also true that there are entire professions whose contribution is dubious, if not entirely negative. I'm talking about lawyers, salespeople, advertisers, political lobbyists, and investment bankers. And that's just off the top of my head.

The difference between the amount of work required to produce necessary goods/services for us to have a decent lifestyle and the amount of work actually performed is huge. And growing. We should all be working less and enjoying productivity gains that technology has brought. Instead we're working longer and wondering why.

Maybe the real reason that we're so down on welfare recipients is that we envy their freedom.

[benny]

The 'conventional wisdom' view on this topic is that welfare recipients are dependents of the state and drains on society. Some of them (like the disabled) are tolerated but the 'able-bodied' are generally treated in ways ranging from condescension to open hostility. Attitudes towards the way that welfare rules are applied vary but virtually everyone agrees that that we'd all be better off if welfare recipients had jobs.

I remember hitting bottom (financially) in a recession years ago. I came very close to being out on the street in Edmonton in January. As a true Albertan, at the time, I'd have cheerfully frozen on Jasper Avenue before I'd ever darkened the doorway of a welfare office. To survive, I took a job phone soliciting, helping some slimy company rip off little old ladies.

As is often the case, the conventional wisdom is all screwed up. It's not listed on the form, but a requirement of welfare is that you trade in your self-respect and self-esteem for a pittance. We take far more away from welfare recipients than we give them.

We all are co-dependents on society for our lifestyles. If you don't believe me, relocate to a deserted planet and see if you can maintain your standard of living. Money is an abstraction and financial independence is not in any sense real independence. In fact, the wealthy are much more dependent on society than the desperately poor. It may be true that welfare recipients don't contribute a lot but it's also true that there are entire professions whose contribution is dubious, if not entirely negative. I'm talking about lawyers, salespeople, advertisers, political lobbyists, and investment bankers. And that's just off the top of my head.

The difference between the amount of work required to produce necessary goods/services for us to have a decent lifestyle and the amount of work actually performed is huge. And growing. We should all be working less and enjoying productivity gains that technology has brought. Instead we're working longer and wondering why.

Maybe the real reason that we're so down on welfare recipients is that we envy their freedom.

I cannot agree more with you. To me, not only is work an outdated modern concept, but it was a stillborn concept right at the beginning of modernity. Right from its inception, work was entirely dominated by capital. Surplus work is thus the only concept that is sound. Work that is entirely captured by capital is surplus work. Surplus work is overwork but it is also much worst than that, it is work turned against workers. Work turned against workers is simply a kind of expropriation. In other words, work turned against workers accelerates the automation of production techniques. For a few capitalists to appropriate all incomes generated by automated production, what is sadly needed is to trap all other people in a position where they have to kill each other to enter a constantly shrinking labor market.

Methodism has grown from a small Protestant sect to a worldwide chase against the unemployed. Capitalists believe that none-workers are wasting their life (missing their "calling") by not accumulating wealth protestant-style. Since Hesiod's WORKS AND DAYS, the Western world has tried to solve political conflits by putting the masses to work. Humanity now sees the result of this solution: for having fear to share the natural resources directly through politics, we have spoiled and polluted nature. The polytheist Hesiod was always using the plural form of work(s); John Calvin has imposed the singular form. Regrouping the various human activities necessary to maintain our metabolism allows Protestantism/capitalism to exploit human energy systematically.

[Oleg Bach]

Back in the 60s the average white red neck Ontarioian would had a greeting for his peers --- it was very common ..."Are yah workin?" It was like a badge of honourable slaveship - are you a loser slave like me who works at the duck killing farm...It was a stigma not to be a sell out..The system controlled the stupid by piting one against the other - not not be submissive was not acceptable. Welfare was reserved for very few - in fact all I remember were poor people and they all worked and lived in abject poverty - but they were proud and they were "workin"..

Now welfare is handed out because there really is no work for them - they are useless and are displaced from everything from over zealous greedy immigration policies to technological sillyness...In the old days you could walk through the factory district - or go over to Mr. Brockton the old Indian who had a steam shovel and a bull dozer - and you could be 14 and drive the dump truck about with out licence...or your dad would take you to work - work was easy to get - there were no confusing and pretentious resume`s to dole out - to be stuck in a pile with a hundred others that is read by computer.....when.....you wanted work is was not some tedious and frustrating process that lead no where..if you wanted to work - you could step out the door and be employed in one day...times have changed.

[ReeferMadness]

I cannot agree more with you.

Thanks! Nobody ever agrees with me on this forum.

To me, not only is work an outdated modern concept, but it was a stillborn concept right at the beginning of modernity. Right from its inception, work was entirely dominated by capital. Surplus work is thus the only concept that is sound. Work that is entirely captured by capital is surplus work. Surplus work is overwork but it is also much worst than that, it is work turned against workers. Work turned against workers is simply a kind of expropriation. In other words, work turned against workers accelerates the automation of production techniques. For a few capitalists to appropriate all incomes generated by automated production, what is sadly needed is to trap all other people in a position where they have to kill each other to enter a constantly shrinking labor market.

Methodism has grown from a small Protestant sect to a worldwide chase against the unemployed. Capitalists believe that none-workers are wasting their life (missing their "calling") by not accumulating wealth protestant-style. Since Hesiod's WORKS AND DAYS, the Western world has tried to solve political conflits by putting the masses to work. Humanity now sees the result of this solution: for having fear to share the natural resources directly through politics, we have spoiled and polluted nature. The polytheist Hesiod was always using the plural form of work(s); John Calvin has imposed the singular form. Regrouping the various human activities necessary to maintain our metabolism allows Protestantism/capitalism to exploit human energy systematically.

What's really tragic is the economic notion of efficiency. Take a an efficient, automated plant that employs, say, 10 workers at $200 per day. Throw away all the sophisticated machinery and move the plant to China. Now you employ 100 workers at 6$ per day. You can ship the raw materials there and the finished goods back (burning greenhouse gases both ways) and still produce the goods cheaper. We're putting third world workers in a position where they have no choice but to impede the development of labour saving technology because they are desperate for the income. Economists call this efficiency which is why I respect only real scientists.

[benny]

Yes Oleg times have changed. Anthropologists have shown that our ancestors had no concept of work; performing religious rituals was the livelihood of our ancestors. We can still appreciate this by looking at the sacred cows in India.

Edited March 11, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

Yes Oleg times have changed. Anthropologists have shown that our ancestors had no concept of work; performing religious rituals was the livelihood of our ancestors. We can still appreciate this by looking at the sacred cows in India.

It was normal for the male of the extended family to simply protect and guarentee the thriving of the woman and children - He was much like a male lion that is the only one strong enough to break the neck of the alpha female hyenna - that kills the lioness and the cubs with ease --- as for humans - men are not allowed to protect - because the state wants it's citizens as defenseless as possible - so men are no demonized and called "angry" if they attempt to reject or eject unsavoury characters that come to harm and take...I look at this way and it is natural and not sexist -

the man protects and the woman is left in peace to water the garden and rear the young...Now with industrialization and the technological up and coming society - we are ruled by corporates that hate the family and tribal system that served us for a million years.....I am industrious - and can take a property - apply my creative energy and the place looks like a multi-millionare lives there who hired the best designers in the country ----- I refuse to waste my body and mind to serve a parasite that is incapable of creating his own heaven and wants to take mine... I have been called bum by societies sell outs all my life ------ now as we near the end...I look around and those that worked diligently all their lives are in worse shape than I -------------so my judgement was right - I did what was natural...worked when neccesary and was free to think and dream the rest of the time.

[benny]

What's really tragic is the economic notion of efficiency. Take a an efficient, automated plant that employs, say, 10 workers at $200 per day. Throw away all the sophisticated machinery and move the plant to China. Now you employ 100 workers at 6$ per day. You can ship the raw materials there and the finished goods back (burning greenhouse gases both ways) and still produce the goods cheaper. We're putting third world workers in a position where they have no choice but to impede the development of labour saving technology because they are desperate for the income. Economists call this efficiency which is why I respect only real scientists.

The problem I see here is that raw materials can be moved around the world more easily than people. The welfare programs we have in Canada are intimately linked to the fact that Canada is full of natural resources and to the fact that getting the Canadian citizenship is hard. To solve this problem I think we have to look at economists that are also philosophers. In fact, the father of liberalism, John Locke, gave us the solution: the so-called lockean proviso. He has simply mentioned at what conditions someone can appropriate a natural resource.

[ReeferMadness]

The problem I see here is that raw materials can be moved around the world more easily than people. The welfare programs we have in Canada are intimately linked to the fact that Canada is full of natural resources and to the fact that getting the Canadian citizenship is hard. To solve this problem I think we have to look at economists that are also philosophers. In fact, the father of liberalism, John Locke, gave us the solution: the so-called lockean proviso. He has simply mentioned at what conditions someone can appropriate a natural resource.

The labour isn't necessarily required if appropriate technology is employed. In this instance, the Chinese are having to bid down the cost of their labour to stay employed.

[benny]

The labour isn't necessarily required if appropriate technology is employed. In this instance, the Chinese are having to bid down the cost of their labour to stay employed.

I think the whole economy is nothing more than an illusion that is used by those persons occupying the highest social positions to prevent the masses from overthrowing them. To me, neither labour nor automation is economically necessary. The main goal of communist China is political; right now, it wants to capture Taiwan. To achieve that China has to buy the silence of the USA. So, China has accumulated huge amount of US dollars to be able to blackmail the USA over Taiwan independence. Chinese workers are only a political instrument here.

[M.Dancer]

I think the whole economy is nothing more than an illusion that is used by those persons occupying the highest social positions to prevent the masses from overthrowing them. To me, neither labour nor automation is economically necessary. The main goal of communist China is political; right now, it wants to capture Taiwan. To achieve that China has to buy the silence of the USA. So, China has accumulated huge amount of US dollars to be able to blackmail the USA over Taiwan independence. Chinese workers are only a political instrument here.

Wow..such brillance! so refreshing!!!

[benny]

Wow..such brillance! so refreshing!!!

Thanks! By not being outrage by my views on work, I think one is proving he is not a frightened opportunist and cynic. To me, those who still value work in their public discourses are mainly exploiters (rentiers capitalists) or would-be exploiters.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks! By not being outrage by my views on work, I think one is proving he is not a frightened opportunist and cynic. To me, those who still value work in their public discourses are mainly exploiters (rentiers capitalists) or would-be exploiters.

I agree....this is groundbreaking work. The only logical conclusion would be for me and my family to return to lives of slavery, the purest form of counter exploitation.

[benny]

I agree....this is groundbreaking work. The only logical conclusion would be for me and my family to return to lives of slavery, the purest form of counter exploitation.

More cynic than the Bush–Cheney teem, you die.

[bush_cheney2004]

More cynic than the Bush–Cheney teem, you die.

Just trying to work with you here (following Dancer's lead).

This could blow the Labor Theory of Value sky high.

Worker's Slaves unite!

[benny]

Just trying to work with you here (following Dancer's lead).

This could blow the Labor Theory of Value sky high.

Worker's Slaves unite!

How would you call someone who pretends to ignore the fact that the Labor Theory of Value has been replaced, several decades ago, by the Law of Demand and Offer? To me, he may be called a cynic.

Edited March 12, 2009 by benny

[bush_cheney2004]

How would you call someone who pretends to ignore the fact that the Labor Theory of Value has been replaced, several decades ago, by the Law of Demand and Offer? To me, he may be called a cynic.

Sorry, I'm an old school kinda guy. Engels and Marx were good enough for us slaves!

[benny]

Sorry, I'm an old school kinda guy. Engels and Marx were good enough for us slaves!

Slaves are full of irony, but only in their precious little private domain.

[bush_cheney2004]

Slaves are full of irony, but only in their precious little private domain.

Well, hell, what's left to meet your approval.....Tibetan monks?

[benny]

Well, hell, what's left to meet your approval.....Tibetan monks?

A free man is a rentier (owner), not a worker.

[bush_cheney2004]

A free man is a rentier (owner), not a worker.

You mean like Bernie Madoff?