welfare state - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hannukah harry · 10-07-2004, 01:30 PM

i'm curious, and hoping someone can explain to me, the idea of the welfare state. i hear conservatives talk about it all the time, and about how it destroys the lower class or something (i know i've heard ustwo mention it). could some one please explain this to me?

jonjon42 · 10-07-2004, 01:33 PM

basicly they are saying that people are going to not work and depend on "handouts" from the goverment. I personally believe that a lot of people find welfare a bit shamefull (at least some of the people I know). It has the connotation that you are inferior to the people who work. Also, it really isn't enough to live well (it's enough to live ok, which it should be)

so the answer to your question, is that they think that the "lower class" people will become depend on welfare and they will never work.

guy44 · 10-07-2004, 03:02 PM

Americans tend to believe that individuals achieve material success as a direct result and only because of indefinable personal attributes. So if you are successful, it is because you worked hard and are a good person, and if you aren't, it is the result of some sort of character flaw. This belief extends all the way from the Puritans, who believed that individuals were saved or sent to hell based on God's whim, and that the only way to know if you were one of the saved was if he favored you by allowing you to do well economically.

Conservatives claim that only bad people are poor, because if they were decent people they would have worked their way out of poverty. Thus, according to them, the welfare state, which is a state that provides social safety nets for its citizens (social security, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, a minimum wage, etc.) is actually just giving money to people who are too lazy to work. They think that these people live fat off the government while not actually working or giving back to society.

These arguments are false for a variety of reasons. First of all, people are clearly not only succesful because they are good or hard workers (in fact, often the opposite - they lie, cheat, steal, are born rich, etc.). It is in fact incredibly difficult to get out of poverty as your opportunities for decent education and higher education (college) are rather limited.

Furthermore, these "welfare state" arguments tend to take on a racial undertone on occasion as poor people are disproportionally minority, and leads to stereotypes like the single black mother with lots of kids who lives fat off the government checks. In reality, nobody can live above the poverty line on just welfare checks, and in fact it is almost impossible to live above the poverty line while holding down 3 or 4 minimum wage jobs (the wages you need to realistically live above the poverty line while working is called the living wage).

Also, poor people work a lot harder on average than people who are better off because they have to in order to reach this living wage.

These "welfare state" arguments tend to be made for several reasons, from ignorance of the system, racism, the desire to believe one's self has "made it" not because of societal factors but because they themselves deserved it, and crass political manipulation by the rich who wish to pay less taxes in order to retain more money. Don't believe any of it.

aceventura3 · 10-07-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

...Conservatives claim that only bad people are poor, because if they were decent people they would have worked their way out of poverty. Thus, according to them, the welfare state, which is a state that provides social safety nets for its citizens (social security, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, a minimum wage, etc.) is actually just giving money to people who are too lazy to work. They think that these people live fat off the government while not actually working or giving back to society.

I am conservative, and that is not what I think. I think the 'welfare state' includes subsidies to, for example, dairy farmers, the steel industry, Chrysler (if you remember the government guaranteed loans) Whenever the government takes my money for the benefit of others it is a perpetuation of the 'welfare state'. I say let me keep my money and I will decide who and how I want to help people. Trust me, I would help more people if I could keep more of what I work for.

The governments role is to regulate commerce, not manage it.

KMA-628 · 10-07-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

This belief extends all the way from the Puritans, who believed that individuals were saved or sent to hell based on God's whim, and that the only way to know if you were one of the saved was if he favored you by allowing you to do well economically.

You might want to back this point up. I highly doubt this is an accurate statement. If it is, I apologize in advance. However, I have learned/been taught something that totally contradicts this statement

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Conservatives claim that only bad people are poor, because if they were decent people they would have worked their way out of poverty.

This is where I stopped reading and completely ignored the rest. 1) It is an extreme, gross over generalization. 2) I am conservative. Most of my friends and colleagues are conservative. Not one of has ever made this statement or believes what you accuse us of believing.

kutulu · 10-07-2004, 03:40 PM

Subsidies have their merits but they are overused in general. Certain industries, like dairy are necessary for us to have, otherwise we have to import it. The trade deficit goes up and Americans are out of work. When those industries are in trouble, it makes sense to give them temporary aid.

98MustGT · 10-07-2004, 04:33 PM

I have been more conservative than liberal, even when I was poor!

Had a brother in law who had disabilities, 3/4 deaf, dyslexic and diabetic. He had a job for about 10 years stocking shelves at a Navy base (contract job), he did not make alot of money but was able to live alone and take care of himself.

My mother in law put him on SSI, he had nothing to do all day, nothing to motivate himself and he turned to alcohol and crystal.

He was dead 2 years later due to an overdose.

I think personal welfare (not corporate welfare) is very destructive to the individual. I think those who get welfare should work for it.

guy44 · 10-07-2004, 07:03 PM

You guys are right, that was a very broad overgeneralization of conservatives. I mention "conservatives" as a stereotype because that is the term used in the question. I'm trying to generalize about the sort of Rush Limbaugh-esque conservatives, and even then, obviously not every dittohead believes the exact same things. Sorry about that, I should have mentioned that in my post.

I also agree that welfare in this country is more accurately depicted if you include agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. However, I don't think you hear too much from conservative politicians about decreasing either (once again, an overgeneralization, and there certainly are exceptions).

However, statements like "I think those who get welfare should work for it" seems to miss the point of welfare entirely. There AREN'T enough jobs, and certainly not enough jobs providing living wages, for everyone. Trust me: pretty much everyone wants to work and be paid enough so that they need no welfare. Things just don't work out that way in the U.S.

Remember when I said that conservatives tend to believe receiving welfare means that you are somehow an immoral or bad person? 98MustGT said that "I think personal welfare (not corporate welfare) is very destructive to the individual." This is what I am talking about. Despite the fact that people on welfare can eat and have a place to live thanks to government social safety nets, the argument cast against welfare is a moral one regarding the personal integrity of those receiving welfare.

As for the Puritan thing, I suggest reading the works of famed sociologist Max Weber, who coined the phrase "protestant work ethic" to describe the belief that decent people work hard, and if you are a good person working hard you will be succesful - and that if you aren't succesful, you can't be a good person nor working hard.

KMA-628 · 10-07-2004, 07:51 PM

I highlighted your comment about Puritanical comments regarding salvation, not regarding the work ethic.

bish · 10-08-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

These arguments are false for a variety of reasons. First of all, people are clearly not only succesful because they are good or hard workers (in fact, often the opposite - they lie, cheat, steal, are born rich, etc.). It is in fact incredibly difficult to get out of poverty as your opportunities for decent education and higher education (college) are rather limited.

And you say conservatives are too quick to judge welfare recipients!! Not that your simple-minded, ignorant comments need to be refuted, but I'm conservative and fairly successful and I never had to lie, cheat, steal, or be born into wealth. I also don't believe everyone using welfare is a bad person. I do think that people sometimes make poor decisions in life and expect the government to help them pay the consequences. I know plenty of people that are living in poverty and you can trace it back to the poor decisions they made early in life. I strongly believe that there should be some kind of safety net for people who can't find work or have disabilites in this country, but some people do abuse it.

aceventura3 · 10-08-2004, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

There AREN'T enough jobs, and certainly not enough jobs providing living wages, for everyone. Trust me: pretty much everyone wants to work and be paid enough so that they need no welfare. Things just don't work out that way in the U.S.

There is irony in liberal thinking on this issue. I own a business, I would be willing to hire people with no experience, or students during the summer, but not at the minimum wage in California plus all the other costs. People with no experience/knowledge add no value to my business. If the minimum wage and other costs were lower, it would open the door for millions of inexperienced/unskilled people. As skills improve and they begin to add value pay will go up to market value.

As a business owner, I get paid on the basis of how much value I add for my customers. Employees have to look at it the same way. If I want more I have to do more or do it better. Same for employees. If people want "living wages" they need to continually improve and focus on adding value for their employers, if they do that they can command higher wages. There is no magic, it is not complicated, business people are not evil, they don't want to exploit people, they just want their businesses to do well.

KMA-628 · 10-08-2004, 08:44 AM

ace - well stated, probably one of the better statements I have heard/read regarding the minimum wage debate.

Side Note: There is a corresponding increase in unemployment for every increase in the minimum wage. By raising it, you esentially put more people out of work. Something is better then nothing. Labor is a product and, thus, follows the rules of supply and demand. The lower the price for the "product" (in this case: Labor) the more "buyers" (i.e. employers) for this "product." As the prices for said "product" increase, there will be fewer and fewer "buyers" of the "product".

Minimum wage was never meant to be a "living wage". Minimum wage is for unskilled, untrained, entry-level workers. You would have to more then double the minimum wage for it to be liveable. That would be like selling milk for $20.00 a gallon, no one would buy it and everyone would seek substitutes (i.e. outsourcing).

guy44 · 10-08-2004, 09:45 AM

bish - I never said all succesful people did anything wrong to achieve their success. Not by a long shot. Just that it is sometimes true. Please note what I actually wrote: "in fact, OFTEN the opposite - they lie, cheat, steal, are born rich, etc."

Ace - there is little value in super-low paying jobs. People have to work three jobs or more in order to hope to make ends meet. Living wage is well above minimum wage. Removing mimimum wage, however, would mean that all the unemployed people in this country would be fighting over jobs paying so little as to leave them in poverty. It isn't an easy question, and just raising the minimum wage isn't the answer. But lowering it would be just as, if not more disastrous.

And I agree that employees who can provide more value to their employees get higher wages - that much is obvious. But it isn't that easy to do. You need education and training in order to make yourself a more valuable commodity. That simply isn't easy if you are poor. Even if you can get technical training of some kind, and no college education, it is very difficult to get your family through college, considering the extreme costs, etc. That is the problem - how do we get more people to make themselves more valuable to employers?

As for people abusing welfare, besides the fact that the numbers of those people tend to be dramatically overstated - so what? Yes, it is annoying that maybe some people might abuse the system, or draw two unemployment checks, or whatever. But it is a moral question: as the wealthies country in the history of the world, how can we stand by while so many people live in poverty? A fifth of children, 2/5 of minority children, live in poverty. That is unacceptable. And the welfare state allows the U.S. to provide the basic necessities of life for the poor. If there are a couple of free-riders, so what? If we cut corporate welfare, unnecessary agricultural subsidies, and some major useless weapons programs, we could easily pay for all this.

irateplatypus · 10-08-2004, 10:36 AM

i'm a conservative who thinks that welfare at least has a place in society... but i do not agree with it's current implementation.

when you give people money for doing nothing, you are only exacerbating the problem. it promotes a sense of entitlement and slovenliness. when people earn their money, it gives them dignity and a sense of pride when they get done with the day. we can help out those who are on hard times without patronizing them or destroying their self-confidence and work ethic.

people on welfare should be required to either put in an honest day's work on civic projects such as cleaning up litter, manning soup-kitchen lines etc. or make demonstrably provable steps that they are doing their best to regain employment (getting tax-assisted technical training or additional education).

single parents would, of course, get concessions (less work time needed or able to work from home). additionally, those who draw welfare because of a disability would be given a job according to their abilities.

aceventura3 · 10-08-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Ace - there is little value in super-low paying jobs. People have to work three jobs or more in order to hope to make ends meet. Living wage is well above minimum wage. Removing mimimum wage, however, would mean that all the unemployed people in this country would be fighting over jobs paying so little as to leave them in poverty. It isn't an easy question, and just raising the minimum wage isn't the answer. But lowering it would be just as, if not more disastrous.[\QUOTE]

And I agree that employees who can provide more value to their employees get higher wages - that much is obvious. But it isn't that easy to do. You need education and training in order to make yourself a more valuable commodity. That simply isn't easy if you are poor. Even if you can get technical training of some kind, and no college education, it is very difficult to get your family through college, considering the extreme costs, etc. That is the problem - how do we get more people to make themselves more valuable to employers?

Your view of the labor market is interesting. All I know is that when people offer something of value they get paid for it. If unemployed people have nothing to offer employers they won't get jobs, and they won't get paid.

Answering your last question - personal resonsibility. I was in "poverty" once, I did my best in school, got part-time jobs, saved my money, went to college, got loans, graduated, went to work, saved, bought a home, invested, bought a business, and continue to work hard. Again, there is no magical formula, people just have to do what others have done. It works.

walkerboh4269 · 10-09-2004, 09:44 AM

I was on welfare once a long time ago. I hated every minute of it. I soon as I was able to support myself and my family I went and canceled all of my benefits.

After I was working for about six months the janitorial company I was working for transfered me to a Welfare buliding in the Inland Empire. I would be in the building during the day and I would see the people that would come in to get there checks or provide paperwork to keep there benefits going. Now at this time I was driving a POS Ranger as that was all I could afford. The people that were coming in would regularly be driving brand new Explorers and Silverados and such. This would irrate me to no end as I was working my rear off to make ends meet and stay off welfare and these people would drive up in their brand new cars with no intention of getting a job or off welfare. When I would talk to some of the workers alot of the people had been getting money from the states for years.

Now I don't have a problem with helping people who need it as I did once. However I think that ever effort should be used to get people on there on feet so that we don't have to support them. There just seems to be way too much abuse in the system.

connyosis · 10-09-2004, 12:08 PM

I live in Sweden, and here we have a well working wellfare system. Do some people abuse it? Yes, of course some people will always take advantage of things when they can, however this wellfare system also helps a lot of people that really needs it.
Helping poor people to get back on their feet, senior citizens that just can't live on their minimum pension and so on. Yes, we pay higher taxes but to me it's definately worth it.

madsenj37 · 10-11-2004, 10:36 AM

Subsidies cause a surplus, sometimes of prodcuts, sometimes of labor. If you subsidize things, then you have a surplus of labor, meaning people will be out of work. So you then have to give them money so they can survive. To solve the problem of surplus labor via subsidies (money given out) you have to give out more money. Subsidies are bad: They cause the market which would otherwise correct itself to become messed with. They cause unemployment. They cause a suplus of products which unemployed people probably cant afford without welfare. I have no problem giving someone food, clothing, local transportation, education and shelter when in need, but giving them money should not be an option.

thefictionweliv · 10-11-2004, 11:07 AM

I think the current welfare system prevents people from being fully accountable for their actions. Jobs are out there, I am an inexperienced food service/retail worker. When I need a job I fling out applications everywhere, weather I have to walk take the bus. I have the desire work. If at this point I had a kid I would not seek out aid I would work a second job and I would work my ass off to provide to the best of my abilities for the child. Even if I was alone in doing so.

And social security? Again I want to plan my own retirement and make my own mistakes in life. In a free and capitalist society I should have every right to build myself up or tear myself down. If at 65 I don't have any money, I look back and it was my mistakes, I wouldn't want to burden the youth of next generation with my life, I would have dug my whole and then I will sit in it.

There are people in my city that pay 30 dollars a month for government subsidized houses and apartments and in my opinion it is a total load of shit. When I was kicked out at 17 I paid 150+bills a month and had to split the house with 4 other people. When my car went out of working order and I had to change jobs I busted my ass and got another job. People who are fully capable of working weather they have kids or not, but while I was busting my ass at shit jobs I was subsidizing some lazy fucks to sit on their ass and that is a load of shit.

/rantoff

oktjabr · 10-11-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by connyosis

I live in Sweden, and here we have a well working wellfare system. Do some people abuse it? Yes, of course some people will always take advantage of things when they can, however this wellfare system also helps a lot of people that really needs it.
Helping poor people to get back on their feet, senior citizens that just can't live on their minimum pension and so on. Yes, we pay higher taxes but to me it's definately worth it.

Agreed, living myself in Finland. The nordic countries have IMO succeeded fairly well on balancing socialism and free market capitalism. But we have to remember that the framework is different in USA. Though sometimes I'm puzzled how people in America still fully believe in the american dream while the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. Seems that many poor people have to work two jobs to manage. Does this mean that an average US worker is lazier and lazier every year or what? And have I heard totally false information if I say that the US unemployment rate is so low because many people are too ashamed to get registered as unemployed?

hannukah harry · 10-11-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oktjabr

Agreed, living myself in Finland. The nordic countries have IMO succeeded fairly well on balancing socialism and free market capitalism. But we have to remember that the framework is different in USA. Though sometimes I'm puzzled how people in America still fully believe in the american dream while the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. Seems that many poor people have to work two jobs to manage. Does this mean that an average US worker is lazier and lazier every year or what? And have I heard totally false information if I say that the US unemployment rate is so low because many people are too ashamed to get registered as unemployed?

it's not that they're ashamed, it's that unemployment benifits only last so long. once you've used up your time, you can no longer get those benefits and no longer count towards unemployment. you may not have a job, but you're ignored as far as the stats go.

Rodney · 10-11-2004, 11:58 AM

That earlier remark on Puritanism -- that belief in God was not enough, that your salvation or damnation was actually predestined by God -- is absolutely true. The way to show that you were one of God's elites (God would apparently never get around to telling you which group you were in until you died) was through life-long hard work and a minimum of loose living. These beliefs from the early American settlers in New England had a lot of effect on American culture in the long run.

People who are asking for a lowering of the federal minimum wage have already gotten their wish, in real terms. Through most of its life, minimum wage was set at about 50 percent of the average wage. Over the last 25 years or so, Congress and the President have not seen fit to maintain that ratio in the face of inflation, so federal minimum wage is now only 1/3 of the average wage. Some states have higher wages, like California. Most states allow below-minimum-wage salaries for restaurant waitstaff.

Ace brings up an interesting point in saying he'd hire unskilled labor and train them, for a lesser wage. That used to be called a training wage, and I believe some businesses -- mainly fast-food chains -- still do it with the teenagers they hire, or
they used to. The issue is, would employers really bump up peoples' wages as they got more valuable? I can't tell you how many landlords I talked to or read about who said they'd lower rents if property taxes were rolled back in California, back in the '70s. I think I knew one guy that did it. The rest just smirked and kept the money. Ace, you might be that one guy, but I don't feel that it's realistic to expect a whole lot of businesses to act this way, especially the ones run by bean-counters who'll find a way to pay the training wage as long as possible and then get rid of people when their wages get too high. They don't care about the "value added" in that person, just about next quarter's profits.

Ace, I used to work in federal jobs programs on the county level back in the '70s (CETA, if anybody remembers), and we had a program called On-the-Job Training in which employers could choose people from a group of qualified applicants and be subsidized for 50 percent of their salaries for six months if they agreed to train them. You were supposed to keep them on board after the six months was up, but if you were having problems with them during the six month period you could blow the whistle to the jobs program and get rid of them. The idea was to encourage businesses to take a chance on people who were down and out.

It was a good program. Too bad it vanished in the early '80s, like a lot of other federal social programs both good and bad.

oktjabr · 10-11-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

it's not that they're ashamed, it's that unemployment benifits only last so long. once you've used up your time, you can no longer get those benefits and no longer count towards unemployment. you may not have a job, but you're ignored as far as the stats go.

Oh, I see. How long can one get unemployment benefits in US?

Kalibah · 10-11-2004, 12:31 PM

I think welfare in and of itself is not a bad idea. Help those who have lost a job, or cannot work. But when you see generations upon generations of people on welfare- thats a problem.- handouts from the goverment. That isnt what it is suppose to be- and I support WORKFARE- working for welfare.

hannukah harry · 10-11-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oktjabr

Oh, I see. How long can one get unemployment benefits in US?

i'm not sure. i would guess 6 months, but i think congress approves extentions for a bit after 9/11 and the economy dump, but it failed to continue them recently. hopefully someone else knows.

KMA-628 · 10-11-2004, 12:47 PM

It changes from state to state and is usually based on a dollar amount rather then by time.

i.e. you have XX total dollars in unemployment benefits and receive a check of XX. Whenever the total dollar amount runs out, then your benefit ends. Could be six months, could be a year. People that get a bigger check run out more quickly and vice versa.

The extension ended 12/03 (I think)

madsenj37 · 10-11-2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

it's not that they're ashamed, it's that unemployment benifits only last so long.

Its both. Some people are ashamed to be on it.

aceventura3 · 10-11-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

The issue is, would employers really bump up peoples' wages as they got more valuable?

They would if they need to.

Some people make a fundamental mistake that others will take care of them.

Not true. Everyone has to do what is their best interest. If a person doesn't go in a negotiate with their boss after they have improved/got training/met goals/taken greater resposibility/etc. They don't understand the "rules of the game" and will get screwed

. Or, the person needs to keep the resume updated and shop it around. Ever notice how, when you tell your boss you got a new job how all of a sudden they are

talking about more money/promotion/vacation time.

They should teach this stuff in school.

smooth · 10-11-2004, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ever notice how, when you tell your boss you got a new job how all of a sudden they are

talking about more money/promotion/vacation time.

They should teach this stuff in school.

No, I haven't noticed that. Every person I know who is in a $8-12 dollar an hour job has been written off the schedule and generally abused, not treated with enticements when their employers found they had a new job or were even looking.

aceventura3 · 10-12-2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

No, I haven't noticed that. Every person I know who is in a $8-12 dollar an hour job has been written off the schedule and generally abused, not treated with enticements when their employers found they had a new job or were even looking.

Some people have earned the privilage of being written off.

In that $8 to $12 dollar range, why do you think an employer would let a good employee go, have an opening, hire an unknown person, train them and let the cycle happen again and again. Seems like an inefficient way to do business. If I were one of those employees, and was being treated poorly, I would be happy to leave and go to work for a company that treated me and other employees with dignity and respect and had a long-term outlook.

Good people don't have to put up with bullsh**. But, they first have to believe they are "good" and perform accordingly.

smooth · 10-12-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Some people have earned the privilage of being written off.

In that $8 to $12 dollar range, why do you think an employer would let a good employee go, have an opening, hire an unknown person, train them and let the cycle happen again and again. Seems like an inefficient way to do business. If I were one of those employees, and was being treated poorly, I would be happy to leave and go to work for a company that treated me and other employees with dignity and respect and had a long-term outlook.

Good people don't have to put up with bullsh**. But, they first have to believe they are "good" and perform accordingly.

I have no idea why employers think it's good business to retrain and recycle minimum to low wage employees.

But they do.

You might be happy to leave, but you wouldn't find a job so happy to hire you. Your comments lead me to think that you haven't needed to be on the market for a job in quite a while.

But of course, none of that is relevant. You claimed that all a person needs to do is threaten to leave or make it known they are worth more to paid a comsensurate wage to their training. I'm explaining to you that isn't true--the worker is going to be written off the schedule. You may feel like it's a good opportunity for the worker to look for another job, but that's switching your claim--workers will not get a wage increase because they get better training and make a demand on their employers.

I am almost certain you would be surprised to know that the people in those $8-12 dollar per hour jobs already have B.A.'s. It's not as though our workers are undertrained. There are serious structural defects in our job market, and blaming workers for feeling inadequate or for not seeking enough training is not going to to address them.

Rodney · 10-12-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

They would if they need to.

Some people make a fundamental mistake that others will take care of them.

Not true. Everyone has to do what is their best interest. If a person doesn't go in a negotiate with their boss after they have improved/got training/met goals/taken greater resposibility/etc. They don't understand the "rules of the game" and will get screwed

. Or, the person needs to keep the resume updated and shop it around. Ever notice how, when you tell your boss you got a new job how all of a sudden they are

talking about more money/promotion/vacation time.

They should teach this stuff in school.

Ace: I usually quit jobs like that. You don't get 110 percent out of me for money and self-interest alone. You get it because I consider myself part of the team. I don't want a vendor/customer relationship with my employer; if that's what he wants, he can damn well hire me as a contractor.

Which is what I ended up doing. But I worked through the same agent for years; never pushed for more money, but I delivered the goods when others failed, even did extra without being asked and he kept upping my salary without my saying, even if that meant his slice of commission went down.

Because he was a smart guy, and knew what was best for his business in the long run. The kind of bosses you're talking about are either short-sighted, or work in a business where, as far as workers are concerned, they feel that "there's always more when they came from." The kind of people you're talking about aren't concerned with building anything lasting, just a quick buck.

Rodney · 10-12-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Some people have earned the privilage of being written off.

In that $8 to $12 dollar range, why do you think an employer would let a good employee go, have an opening, hire an unknown person, train them and let the cycle happen again and again. Seems like an inefficient way to do business. If I were one of those employees, and was being treated poorly, I would be happy to leave and go to work for a company that treated me and other employees with dignity and respect and had a long-term outlook.

Good people don't have to put up with bullsh**. But, they first have to believe they are "good" and perform accordingly.

It happens all the bloody time, especially in large chain stores where managers are under pressure from the top to keep wages down. If total wages get too high, they start looking for excuses to let high-salaried people go, even if they're good and experienced.

Or you can do what managers at Walmart do, and actually wipe hours from peoples' electronic timesheets. Top management says this isn't company policy, but managers do it to keep costs down, and nobody ever gets fired for it _unless_ some employees file a lawsuit.

Yes, good people do put up with bullshit, every day. Because they have no choice, no other jobs, no education that'll get them past the initial barriers in HR for a better job.

Put it to you this way: if everybody was able to get ahead, _where would they all get ahead to?_ There are only so many good-paying slots, so many opportunities for prosperous entrepreneurism in a finite economy. There'll always be good people on the bottom, people who try, people who have handicaps of one type or another or just bad luck.

Life isn't a Heinlein novel. Good people get crushed all the time. And saying, "If they were _really_ good, they wouldn't be crushed," is just wishful thinking.

smooth · 10-12-2004, 12:33 PM

ace:

also, I'm not saying that unmotivated people don't exist.

I understand some people are unintelligent, unmotivated, or just plain lazy; but they aren't a very sizeable slice of the impoverished people in this nation and I don't agree that opening opportunities will create more such people.

aceventura3 · 10-12-2004, 01:27 PM

After reading some of the stuff above, I am not sure what to say, but I will try to wrap-up my view on this subject.

My first job was with McDonald's while I was in high-school. I cleaned tables, mopped the floors and cleaned the bathrooms, for about $2.75/hr. I went to work, showed up on time, had a positive attitude, learned new jobs and in a year I was an assistant manager, making $3.10/hr. They offered to send me to Hamburger University, I chose to go to a real university (when away at college I worked at the McDanalds at home and school to earn money, they were always happy to have me come back). My first job out of college paid me $12,000 per year in 1982. I went to work, showed up on time, had a positive attitude, learned new jobs, took additional classes, and by the time I left that company I was a middle manager making $60,000/year. I then took a job with a smaller company as a VP, they paid me $95,000/year. I did the same as before. That company went out of business. I took a job as a stockbroker, worst experience of my life, I quit the job after 3 months. Because I had save money, I went into business for myself. Same formula-I go to work, I show up on time, I have a positive attitude, I learn new stuff. If I want a raise, I work harder, or smarter. I have to add value or I get "fired", one screw-up and I get "fired", if the guys brother in-law goes into business doing what I do, I get "fired". My boss is now my customer. But, If a customer is a a$$hole, I will walk away from the business (life is too short to put up with bs).

I look for employees who pretty much follow my formula, come to work, show up on time, have a positive attitude, and learn new stuff. It is interesting, but from when I worked at McDonald's to today, the people who follow the formula I follow do well, and those who don't always have something to complain about. Go figure.

smooth · 10-12-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

After reading some of the stuff above, I am not sure what to say, but I will try to wrap-up my view on this subject.

My first job was with McDonald's while I was in high-school. I cleaned tables, mopped the floors and cleaned the bathrooms, for about $2.75/hr. I went to work, showed up on time, had a positive attitude, learned new jobs and in a year I was an assistant manager, making $3.10/hr. They offered to send me to Hamburger University, I chose to go to a real university (when away at college I worked at the McDanalds at home and school to earn money, they were always happy to have me come back). My first job out of college paid me $12,000 per year in 1982. I went to work, showed up on time, had a positive attitude, learned new jobs, took additional classes, and by the time I left that company I was a middle manager making $60,000/year. I then took a job with a smaller company as a VP, they paid me $95,000/year. I did the same as before. That company went out of business. I took a job as a stockbroker, worst experience of my life, I quit the job after 3 months. Because I had save money, I went into business for myself. Same formula-I go to work, I show up on time, I have a positive attitude, I learn new stuff. If I want a raise, I work harder, or smarter. I have to add value or I get "fired", one screw-up and I get "fired", if the guys brother in-law goes into business doing what I do, I get "fired". My boss is now my customer. But, If a customer is a a$$hole, I will walk away from the business (life is too short to put up with bs).

I look for employees who pretty much follow my formula, come to work, show up on time, have a positive attitude, and learn new stuff. It is interesting, but from when I worked at McDonald's to today, the people who follow the formula I follow do well, and those who don't always have something to complain about. Go figure.

That is all very interesting and insightful. I would caution you, however, to avoid basing your analysis on our current economic reality by your experiences 20 years ago. A plethora of academic studies and popular writings document how rapidly opportunities for advancement have shifted in that time period. I hope you take the time to look into that, because I can't really do the subject service in short snippets on an anonymous web board.

Also, some of us follow the formula you outlined, are moving upward in our social class, and yet still criticize a rupturing economic structure in the hopes of returning or reshaping it into a globally competive and long-lasting form. I certainly hope you don't believe that everyone who complains is only doing so because they are not successful. Ironically, or tragically, most of the people adversely affected by the policies and structures some of us have outlined in this thread are not complaining; but rather working very hard to make ends meet. So while those who don't follow such a formula you believe is vital for success "always have something to complain about," they don't, while those who "do well" are the most vocal about the social injustices they recognize--because they have the economic, political, and familial resources to challenge the status quo.

aceventura3 · 10-12-2004, 07:33 PM

Thanks for the discussion, in the end I think we mostly see things the same way. It is just that I know/have known many people who have wasted opportunities by focusing on "the system", "the man", "the this", "the that" for keeping them down rather than simply taking care of business. It has been frustrating to watch.

10-07-2004, 01:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	welfare state i'm curious, and hoping someone can explain to me, the idea of the welfare state. i hear conservatives talk about it all the time, and about how it destroys the lower class or something (i know i've heard ustwo mention it). could some one please explain this to me? __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

10-07-2004, 03:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Americans tend to believe that individuals achieve material success as a direct result and only because of indefinable personal attributes. So if you are successful, it is because you worked hard and are a good person, and if you aren't, it is the result of some sort of character flaw. This belief extends all the way from the Puritans, who believed that individuals were saved or sent to hell based on God's whim, and that the only way to know if you were one of the saved was if he favored you by allowing you to do well economically. Conservatives claim that only bad people are poor, because if they were decent people they would have worked their way out of poverty. Thus, according to them, the welfare state, which is a state that provides social safety nets for its citizens (social security, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, a minimum wage, etc.) is actually just giving money to people who are too lazy to work. They think that these people live fat off the government while not actually working or giving back to society. These arguments are false for a variety of reasons. First of all, people are clearly not only succesful because they are good or hard workers (in fact, often the opposite - they lie, cheat, steal, are born rich, etc.). It is in fact incredibly difficult to get out of poverty as your opportunities for decent education and higher education (college) are rather limited. Furthermore, these "welfare state" arguments tend to take on a racial undertone on occasion as poor people are disproportionally minority, and leads to stereotypes like the single black mother with lots of kids who lives fat off the government checks. In reality, nobody can live above the poverty line on just welfare checks, and in fact it is almost impossible to live above the poverty line while holding down 3 or 4 minimum wage jobs (the wages you need to realistically live above the poverty line while working is called the living wage). Also, poor people work a lot harder on average than people who are better off because they have to in order to reach this living wage. These "welfare state" arguments tend to be made for several reasons, from ignorance of the system, racism, the desire to believe one's self has "made it" not because of societal factors but because they themselves deserved it, and crass political manipulation by the rich who wish to pay less taxes in order to retain more money. Don't believe any of it. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

10-07-2004, 07:03 PM	#8 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	You guys are right, that was a very broad overgeneralization of conservatives. I mention "conservatives" as a stereotype because that is the term used in the question. I'm trying to generalize about the sort of Rush Limbaugh-esque conservatives, and even then, obviously not every dittohead believes the exact same things. Sorry about that, I should have mentioned that in my post. I also agree that welfare in this country is more accurately depicted if you include agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. However, I don't think you hear too much from conservative politicians about decreasing either (once again, an overgeneralization, and there certainly are exceptions). However, statements like "I think those who get welfare should work for it" seems to miss the point of welfare entirely. There AREN'T enough jobs, and certainly not enough jobs providing living wages, for everyone. Trust me: pretty much everyone wants to work and be paid enough so that they need no welfare. Things just don't work out that way in the U.S. Remember when I said that conservatives tend to believe receiving welfare means that you are somehow an immoral or bad person? 98MustGT said that "I think personal welfare (not corporate welfare) is very destructive to the individual." This is what I am talking about. Despite the fact that people on welfare can eat and have a place to live thanks to government social safety nets, the argument cast against welfare is a moral one regarding the personal integrity of those receiving welfare. As for the Puritan thing, I suggest reading the works of famed sociologist Max Weber, who coined the phrase "protestant work ethic" to describe the belief that decent people work hard, and if you are a good person working hard you will be succesful - and that if you aren't succesful, you can't be a good person nor working hard. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

10-08-2004, 09:45 AM	#13 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	bish - I never said all succesful people did anything wrong to achieve their success. Not by a long shot. Just that it is sometimes true. Please note what I actually wrote: "in fact, OFTEN the opposite - they lie, cheat, steal, are born rich, etc." Ace - there is little value in super-low paying jobs. People have to work three jobs or more in order to hope to make ends meet. Living wage is well above minimum wage. Removing mimimum wage, however, would mean that all the unemployed people in this country would be fighting over jobs paying so little as to leave them in poverty. It isn't an easy question, and just raising the minimum wage isn't the answer. But lowering it would be just as, if not more disastrous. And I agree that employees who can provide more value to their employees get higher wages - that much is obvious. But it isn't that easy to do. You need education and training in order to make yourself a more valuable commodity. That simply isn't easy if you are poor. Even if you can get technical training of some kind, and no college education, it is very difficult to get your family through college, considering the extreme costs, etc. That is the problem - how do we get more people to make themselves more valuable to employers? As for people abusing welfare, besides the fact that the numbers of those people tend to be dramatically overstated - so what? Yes, it is annoying that maybe some people might abuse the system, or draw two unemployment checks, or whatever. But it is a moral question: as the wealthies country in the history of the world, how can we stand by while so many people live in poverty? A fifth of children, 2/5 of minority children, live in poverty. That is unacceptable. And the welfare state allows the U.S. to provide the basic necessities of life for the poor. If there are a couple of free-riders, so what? If we cut corporate welfare, unnecessary agricultural subsidies, and some major useless weapons programs, we could easily pay for all this. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

10-08-2004, 10:36 AM	#14 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i'm a conservative who thinks that welfare at least has a place in society... but i do not agree with it's current implementation. when you give people money for doing nothing, you are only exacerbating the problem. it promotes a sense of entitlement and slovenliness. when people earn their money, it gives them dignity and a sense of pride when they get done with the day. we can help out those who are on hard times without patronizing them or destroying their self-confidence and work ethic. people on welfare should be required to either put in an honest day's work on civic projects such as cleaning up litter, manning soup-kitchen lines etc. or make demonstrably provable steps that they are doing their best to regain employment (getting tax-assisted technical training or additional education). single parents would, of course, get concessions (less work time needed or able to work from home). additionally, those who draw welfare because of a disability would be given a job according to their abilities. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-07-2004, 01:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	basicly they are saying that people are going to not work and depend on "handouts" from the goverment. I personally believe that a lot of people find welfare a bit shamefull (at least some of the people I know). It has the connotation that you are inferior to the people who work. Also, it really isn't enough to live well (it's enough to live ok, which it should be) so the answer to your question, is that they think that the "lower class" people will become depend on welfare and they will never work.

10-07-2004, 03:40 PM	#6 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Subsidies have their merits but they are overused in general. Certain industries, like dairy are necessary for us to have, otherwise we have to import it. The trade deficit goes up and Americans are out of work. When those industries are in trouble, it makes sense to give them temporary aid.

10-07-2004, 04:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
98MustGT Crazy Location: San Diego	I have been more conservative than liberal, even when I was poor! Had a brother in law who had disabilities, 3/4 deaf, dyslexic and diabetic. He had a job for about 10 years stocking shelves at a Navy base (contract job), he did not make alot of money but was able to live alone and take care of himself. My mother in law put him on SSI, he had nothing to do all day, nothing to motivate himself and he turned to alcohol and crystal. He was dead 2 years later due to an overdose. I think personal welfare (not corporate welfare) is very destructive to the individual. I think those who get welfare should work for it.

10-07-2004, 07:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I highlighted your comment about Puritanical comments regarding salvation, not regarding the work ethic.

10-08-2004, 08:44 AM	#12 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	ace - well stated, probably one of the better statements I have heard/read regarding the minimum wage debate. Side Note: There is a corresponding increase in unemployment for every increase in the minimum wage. By raising it, you esentially put more people out of work. Something is better then nothing. Labor is a product and, thus, follows the rules of supply and demand. The lower the price for the "product" (in this case: Labor) the more "buyers" (i.e. employers) for this "product." As the prices for said "product" increase, there will be fewer and fewer "buyers" of the "product". Minimum wage was never meant to be a "living wage". Minimum wage is for unskilled, untrained, entry-level workers. You would have to more then double the minimum wage for it to be liveable. That would be like selling milk for $20.00 a gallon, no one would buy it and everyone would seek substitutes (i.e. outsourcing).

10-09-2004, 09:44 AM	#16 (permalink)
walkerboh4269 Tilted Location: Apple Valley, CA	I was on welfare once a long time ago. I hated every minute of it. I soon as I was able to support myself and my family I went and canceled all of my benefits. After I was working for about six months the janitorial company I was working for transfered me to a Welfare buliding in the Inland Empire. I would be in the building during the day and I would see the people that would come in to get there checks or provide paperwork to keep there benefits going. Now at this time I was driving a POS Ranger as that was all I could afford. The people that were coming in would regularly be driving brand new Explorers and Silverados and such. This would irrate me to no end as I was working my rear off to make ends meet and stay off welfare and these people would drive up in their brand new cars with no intention of getting a job or off welfare. When I would talk to some of the workers alot of the people had been getting money from the states for years. Now I don't have a problem with helping people who need it as I did once. However I think that ever effort should be used to get people on there on feet so that we don't have to support them. There just seems to be way too much abuse in the system.

10-09-2004, 12:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
connyosis Psycho Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned	I live in Sweden, and here we have a well working wellfare system. Do some people abuse it? Yes, of course some people will always take advantage of things when they can, however this wellfare system also helps a lot of people that really needs it. Helping poor people to get back on their feet, senior citizens that just can't live on their minimum pension and so on. Yes, we pay higher taxes but to me it's definately worth it.

10-11-2004, 10:36 AM	#18 (permalink)
madsenj37 Still searching... Location: NorCal For Life	Subsidies cause a surplus, sometimes of prodcuts, sometimes of labor. If you subsidize things, then you have a surplus of labor, meaning people will be out of work. So you then have to give them money so they can survive. To solve the problem of surplus labor via subsidies (money given out) you have to give out more money. Subsidies are bad: They cause the market which would otherwise correct itself to become messed with. They cause unemployment. They cause a suplus of products which unemployed people probably cant afford without welfare. I have no problem giving someone food, clothing, local transportation, education and shelter when in need, but giving them money should not be an option. __________________ "Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe." -- Albert Einstein Last edited by madsenj37; 10-11-2004 at 10:42 AM..

10-11-2004, 11:07 AM	#19 (permalink)
thefictionweliv Insane	I think the current welfare system prevents people from being fully accountable for their actions. Jobs are out there, I am an inexperienced food service/retail worker. When I need a job I fling out applications everywhere, weather I have to walk take the bus. I have the desire work. If at this point I had a kid I would not seek out aid I would work a second job and I would work my ass off to provide to the best of my abilities for the child. Even if I was alone in doing so. And social security? Again I want to plan my own retirement and make my own mistakes in life. In a free and capitalist society I should have every right to build myself up or tear myself down. If at 65 I don't have any money, I look back and it was my mistakes, I wouldn't want to burden the youth of next generation with my life, I would have dug my whole and then I will sit in it. There are people in my city that pay 30 dollars a month for government subsidized houses and apartments and in my opinion it is a total load of shit. When I was kicked out at 17 I paid 150+bills a month and had to split the house with 4 other people. When my car went out of working order and I had to change jobs I busted my ass and got another job. People who are fully capable of working weather they have kids or not, but while I was busting my ass at shit jobs I was subsidizing some lazy fucks to sit on their ass and that is a load of shit. /rantoff

10-11-2004, 11:58 AM	#22 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	That earlier remark on Puritanism -- that belief in God was not enough, that your salvation or damnation was actually predestined by God -- is absolutely true. The way to show that you were one of God's elites (God would apparently never get around to telling you which group you were in until you died) was through life-long hard work and a minimum of loose living. These beliefs from the early American settlers in New England had a lot of effect on American culture in the long run. People who are asking for a lowering of the federal minimum wage have already gotten their wish, in real terms. Through most of its life, minimum wage was set at about 50 percent of the average wage. Over the last 25 years or so, Congress and the President have not seen fit to maintain that ratio in the face of inflation, so federal minimum wage is now only 1/3 of the average wage. Some states have higher wages, like California. Most states allow below-minimum-wage salaries for restaurant waitstaff. Ace brings up an interesting point in saying he'd hire unskilled labor and train them, for a lesser wage. That used to be called a training wage, and I believe some businesses -- mainly fast-food chains -- still do it with the teenagers they hire, or they used to. The issue is, would employers really bump up peoples' wages as they got more valuable? I can't tell you how many landlords I talked to or read about who said they'd lower rents if property taxes were rolled back in California, back in the '70s. I think I knew one guy that did it. The rest just smirked and kept the money. Ace, you might be that one guy, but I don't feel that it's realistic to expect a whole lot of businesses to act this way, especially the ones run by bean-counters who'll find a way to pay the training wage as long as possible and then get rid of people when their wages get too high. They don't care about the "value added" in that person, just about next quarter's profits. Ace, I used to work in federal jobs programs on the county level back in the '70s (CETA, if anybody remembers), and we had a program called On-the-Job Training in which employers could choose people from a group of qualified applicants and be subsidized for 50 percent of their salaries for six months if they agreed to train them. You were supposed to keep them on board after the six months was up, but if you were having problems with them during the six month period you could blow the whistle to the jobs program and get rid of them. The idea was to encourage businesses to take a chance on people who were down and out. It was a good program. Too bad it vanished in the early '80s, like a lot of other federal social programs both good and bad. Last edited by Rodney; 10-11-2004 at 12:06 PM..

10-11-2004, 12:31 PM	#24 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	I think welfare in and of itself is not a bad idea. Help those who have lost a job, or cannot work. But when you see generations upon generations of people on welfare- thats a problem.- handouts from the goverment. That isnt what it is suppose to be- and I support WORKFARE- working for welfare.

10-11-2004, 12:47 PM	#26 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	It changes from state to state and is usually based on a dollar amount rather then by time. i.e. you have XX total dollars in unemployment benefits and receive a check of XX. Whenever the total dollar amount runs out, then your benefit ends. Could be six months, could be a year. People that get a bigger check run out more quickly and vice versa. The extension ended 12/03 (I think)

10-12-2004, 12:33 PM	#34 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ace: also, I'm not saying that unmotivated people don't exist. I understand some people are unintelligent, unmotivated, or just plain lazy; but they aren't a very sizeable slice of the impoverished people in this nation and I don't agree that opening opportunities will create more such people. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-12-2004, 01:27 PM	#35 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	After reading some of the stuff above, I am not sure what to say, but I will try to wrap-up my view on this subject. My first job was with McDonald's while I was in high-school. I cleaned tables, mopped the floors and cleaned the bathrooms, for about $2.75/hr. I went to work, showed up on time, had a positive attitude, learned new jobs and in a year I was an assistant manager, making $3.10/hr. They offered to send me to Hamburger University, I chose to go to a real university (when away at college I worked at the McDanalds at home and school to earn money, they were always happy to have me come back). My first job out of college paid me $12,000 per year in 1982. I went to work, showed up on time, had a positive attitude, learned new jobs, took additional classes, and by the time I left that company I was a middle manager making $60,000/year. I then took a job with a smaller company as a VP, they paid me $95,000/year. I did the same as before. That company went out of business. I took a job as a stockbroker, worst experience of my life, I quit the job after 3 months. Because I had save money, I went into business for myself. Same formula-I go to work, I show up on time, I have a positive attitude, I learn new stuff. If I want a raise, I work harder, or smarter. I have to add value or I get "fired", one screw-up and I get "fired", if the guys brother in-law goes into business doing what I do, I get "fired". My boss is now my customer. But, If a customer is a a$$hole, I will walk away from the business (life is too short to put up with bs). I look for employees who pretty much follow my formula, come to work, show up on time, have a positive attitude, and learn new stuff. It is interesting, but from when I worked at McDonald's to today, the people who follow the formula I follow do well, and those who don't always have something to complain about. Go figure.

10-12-2004, 07:33 PM	#37 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Thanks for the discussion, in the end I think we mostly see things the same way. It is just that I know/have known many people who have wasted opportunities by focusing on "the system", "the man", "the this", "the that" for keeping them down rather than simply taking care of business. It has been frustrating to watch.