Welfare pays more than work in most states
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
How long will it be before you start using the term genocide?
Social responsibility is a 2-way street and while I believe that there is an obligation to help, it is tempered by the ideal that a hand-up is better than a hand out.
As it stands, the system today is little more than a demand to provide people with a lifestyle regardless of the poor decisions that are made... maybe attach a few consequences to people and their choices and you'll see fewer stupid choices
okay then it was the way you worded it:
so now I am truly unclear about how you intend to move people off of the dole by getting rid of minimum wage... my ideal situation would be to assist everyone from where they are with the goal of increasing self sufficiency according to their ability...
As far as I know Sweden has an amazing safety net, with health care and dental for all and a huge push on education, so you are using Sweden as an example and then saying don't have a good safety net, banish minimum wage. I think your crime rate would go over the roof...but I am truly lost as to what you are saying...but that's just me.
At least you are trying to come up with a solution.
Just to clarify, when I say social security ought to be better than the minimum wage (as is naturally the case by definition in countries with no minimum wage), I did not necessarily mean it in monetary terms. Supposing for instance that Canada had no minimum wage, but anyone had the legal right to quit his job and move into government room and board along with compulsory education (whether rehab, literacy education, or advanced skills training, while still guaranteeing each person his private room for the sake of personal dignity), or alternatively they could choose to join a peace corps where they would be guaranteed employment (at a slightly lower wage than the private sector to discourage abuse of course), this peace corps offering some options similar to the military such as x years of service in exchange for y years of education, which could be especially beneficial for those who leave highschool in the midst of recession, etc.
There you'd have a healthy balance whereby the poor are cared for, with guaranteed necessities of life in a clean, safe and quiet environment while still being expected to exercise their abilities.
Of course there could be exceptions where a doctor prescribes additional help or exceptions to rules in special circumstances, but that would require an official recommendation from a doctor owing to special personal or family circumstances.
You could even include family areas in social security buildings.
I think part of the problem is public perceptions of the poor. Owing to some nasty things people say about the poor, along with prejudices etc. some have concluded that the solution is to help the poor in such a way as to not reveal that they are poor, making the system more expensive. I'd argue the real solution is not to spend so much money to try to mask that they are poor, but rather change the attitudes of the middle to uppoer classes about them. I for one would not judge a person living in such facilities or having to join the peace corps. Things happen, some people are unlucky in life, but in fact it would be an honour for me to contribute to help them get back on their feet.
However, in such a situation, even if a rich person could quit his job and move into such a facility, why would he want to. Abuse is prevented naturally that way.
slippery slope argument...drama..good heavens... yes I will certainly be going in that direction
yet you argue every single change to the system that would encourage people to move forward... interesting
I never said weaken the safety net. In fact, the safety net might even need more funding. What I am saying is that if the safety net is of good quality, we wouldn't need legislated minimum wage since the moment the wage is too low a worker would quit and apply for social assistance, meaning that that employer would be left without workers. From that point of view, in the absence of minimum wage, the employer is essentially competing not only with other employers for the labour force, but also with the social system. In other words, he has to offer a wage that is more attractive than the social system otherwise people will just quit their jobs and apply for assistance instead.
Another way to look at it, if we need a minimum wage to force people onto social assistance because they would have chosen to work at below minimum wage otherwise, then the system is a failure. Sweden needs to minimum wage because any employer knows that if he doesn't treat his workers well, they have a safety net to turn to.
As for the crime rate, if their is a gap between the minimum wage and social assistance (i.e. the minimum wage is better than social assistance, or social assistance is worse than minimum wage, then you have a case where we are legislating people out of a job and onto social assistance which pays less than what they would have earned otherwise, essentially legislating them into poverty). How does that help with the crime rate?
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that there is not one member of CC that hasn't qualified as 'poor' at some point in their life.
I disagree with your assertion that there is a stigma attached
What do you really expect when you make comments along the lines that they need more money or it's just like slavery... Not 'wage slavery' - slavery
Nothing is changing other than the demand to pour more money down this hole with no rationale that it will accomplish anything other than raising the income of these individuals... Absolutely nothing towards the option of limitations or expectations
Have you been missing my repeated comments about those in the social services system needing to have some real responsibilities foisted upon them?
okay but you make it sound as though going on social assistance and receiving that help is easy. It isn't...first they have to use up all of their assets and savings and maybe their car, I don't know...then there's a waiting period while they work it all out...how are they going to pay the rent and the bills and feed their kids...they will likely have to move and the waiting list for subsidized housing is endlessly long. You don't just walk into some office sign a paper and voila, here's your cheque. You need to look into the systems currently in place, know how they work and how much is given before you rip the fabric out and destroy a system currently placed there in order to control corporations from paying next to nothing.
also trying to get information on social assistance is difficult or at least I have found it difficult when I have tried to research it I would like to know exactly what someone can receive and where our tax dollars are going and how they are used for our assistance programs...nope, had very little luck
I have to disagree here. Managers do notice good employees in fast food. I know because I worked for BK for 3 years when I was a teenager. I was given step raises and was asked to open the store on weekends and given a raise to do that. Sure it sounds silly but "Jimmy the broom pusher" does indeed get noticed. An employee that was a younger than I and started after me asked to go to Manager training after he graduated high school. His wish was granted. I remember visiting the folks at BK while I was a Marine and there he is in his shirt and tie being a manager.
So even the lowest fast food worker is offered a ladder up if he wants.
Sal, I'm not sure if the confusion lies in the following, and you could tell me if it's the case. I get the impression that you are assuming that opposition to minimum wage automatically means opposition to a social safety net, as if the two are somehow inseparably linked.
Just to correct Capt Morgan above, Sweden has been governed by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden for most of its recent history in the last century, that party being a left-leaning party, and yet it has never introduced a minimum wage, so no we cannot assume that all on the left support minimum wage. Many economists, and I'm sure many on the left too, oppose minimum wage owing to the harm it can cause and have chosen alternative solutions to dealing with poverty based on empirical research:
Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You also seem to be linking minimum wage to social security. In reality though, while it is important to improve the social safety net, the minimum wage does nothing to help in the mean time and even exacerbates the problem. After all, if the social safety net is of poor quality, why would you then raise the minimum wage to force a person onto social assistance when a little less than minimum wage pays more than social assistance?
Social assistance and the minimum wage are two separate and unrelated things in my mind (except in that the employer must then compete against the social safety net to attrract workers, and that is a positive thing as ti could push wages up as employer compete with a quality safety net) as it is in the minds of many economists. This is not a right-left issue, but a fact based on economic theory.
Just to correct Capt Morgan above, Sweden has been governed by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden for most of its recent history in the last century, that party being a left-leaning party, and yet it has never introduced a minimum wage, so no we cannot assume that all on the left support minimum wage. Many economists, and I'm sure many on the left too, oppose minimum wage owing to the harm it can cause and have chosen alternative solutions to dealing with poverty based on empirical research:
Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You also seem to be linking minimum wage to social security. In reality though, while it is important to improve the social safety net, the minimum wage does nothing to help in the mean time and even exacerbates the problem. After all, if the social safety net is of poor quality, why would you then raise the minimum wage to force a person onto social assistance when a little less than minimum wage pays more than social assistance?
Social assistance and the minimum wage are two separate and unrelated things in my mind (except in that the employer must then compete against the social safety net to attrract workers, and that is a positive thing as ti could push wages up as employer compete with a quality safety net) as it is in the minds of many economists. This is not a right-left issue, but a fact based on economic theory.
I'm not talking about min wage here Machjo, nor am I speaking towards Sweden.
No corrections needed here
No corrections needed here
slavery is slavery, you want to split hairs have at it
essentially someone is making huge profits off of someone's work while that worker can barely survive...I was in the business world for years..I know how it works...
you are wrong, yes the system is broken, the way to fix it is to make it right for the kids so they don't end up with zero motivation and zero reason to work toward a better life...that is not throwing good money after bad it is helping a little human being to have hope and desire for the betterment of self and thus the world
no but you have no understanding of the psychology of motivation. That's how we landed in this mess to begin with, from those old held beliefs. You have the right desire but you do not have the right approach. I don't want all my tax dollars going toward locking people up, do you really want to do that?
What we need is to move people off of the need for complete social assistance, you can't beat a beaten dog down, it won't get up and obey you, it will rip your hand off. Leave the dog, feed it give it what it needs. Beating the pups is cruel and pointless. Help the pups so you don't create another cur and you will then move forward.
some things are too broken to fix, identify what can be fixed, place your dollars there and move forward
consequence that system
well at least in the place where you worked it operated that way and that is wonderful. If all would work that way it would greatly improve our system and that is what we are looking for.
Unfortunately I have seen systems where it just doesn't matter how hard you work, there is scaled wage structure and they stick to the scale and those are the places that need to be forced to change.
We need to expect our corporate employers to pay employee worth so that we as a society are not saddled with supporting people who can't find a job with a livable wage.
But this is a totally separate matter. Yes, we should make it easier for those who need social assistance to access it. Yes, we should make it easier for people to know where to turn when they do need assistance, and not stigmatize asking for help when needed.
However, in a way you prove my point. If getting social assistance right now is so difficult, why would you want to force more people to turn to it? While it may need to be improved, clearly people need otehr options, however inadequate but better than social assistance, until it is improved, no?
And then there are jobs that pay liveable wages, but you just have to work 90 hours a week to live! -
Yes!
As long as the goal is to reduce the number of people on Social Assistance, make people self sufficient and capable of meeting their required needs to live (Maslow's bottom two should be assisted by society) then it's all good with me.
I'm a slave to my d*ck... Does that mean gvt should be writing me cheques?.. I am a slave after all
You were in the business world, eh?.. How much corporate welfare did you get?... Pay any corp taxes at all? Payroll taxes maybe?.. Did the insurance companies, donate coverage for dental, optical, medical and what not?.. How about when you moved cash from the corp entity to yourself personally - did you get to pay (income) tax again?
BTW - not all business' make huge profits on the backs of their employees, but even if they do - that's the result of spending a crap ton of cash on operations in addition to assuming tremendous risks. I sure hope that you're not under the impression that people are going to risk their time and money exclusively for the purpose of funding welfare
Your applying band-aids after the fact... What on earth is going through someone's mind if they aren't in a position to be responsible for themselves to start a family or if they are on the edge already, not to take steps to mitigate the circumstance?
This points directly to the consequences thingy I am getting at... In continually upping the ante, you absolve people taking responsibility for themselves and family.
By the way, there is no lack of people that elect to become baby factories in order to generate more income.
All you're providing is an environment that motivates people to ignore their responsibilities.
Agreed... But you won't accomplish this by paying them more now, will you?
.. And on the 'beating a beaten dog'.... Society isn't beating these people - they are beating themselves.