Posted under Culture
It wasn’t until the social welfare state was established that we started encouraging people not to work and we started to erect all these barriers with things like the minimum wage law, occupational licensing and everything that we do to make it more and more difficult for people to grab the bottom rung of the employment ladder, so now we have people that are permanently unemployed, we have people that wouldn’t even consider getting a job.
I mean, this is their lifestyle…
We’ve created this subculture, which is getting bigger and bigger and bigger of people that don’t work, that don’t produce and now they have to be supported by everybody else.
In my line of work, I run across this every day. I often wonder how people got along 100 years ago before any of these programs existed. While I’m no fan of the minimum wage, that is not the main problem here, because there are many who wouldn’t seek employment even if it were more readily available. The main problem is that there exists a system (food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, disability, etc.) that makes not working a viable option.
I don’t think national level welfare programs are constitutional, but if you were starting from scratch and determined that you must have a welfare safety net, I think it should be work based. You show up to do some public work job and you get paid. If you’re disabled you show up for a job tailored to your disability. Such a program might end up being more expensive to administer than just cutting someone a check, but I think it would cut down on the moral hazard of welfare, and some public service work would get done as a result. Of course this might encourage some people to default take the government welfare job rather than job hunt, but it would have to be better than what we have.
Savrola on 17 Dec 2012 at 2:54 pm #
The culture is made up of people who own no property, and have no economic, political or ethnic stake in anything.
So why should they labor for daily bread when Monsanto runs surpluses and the the flat-screen tv broadcasts all day?
Savrola on 17 Dec 2012 at 8:35 pm #
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-has-a-huge-body-he-eats-like-a-pig-egypts-muslim-brotherhood-explains-the-average-american-during-amusing-interview/
Btw, Red, this is how a true conservative addresses political problems through commentary, with effectiveness. You and Colonel Sanders should take note.
RedPhillips on 17 Dec 2012 at 9:01 pm #
http://wordpress.com/
Btw, Sav, this is how would be pundits create their own blogs.
Savrola on 17 Dec 2012 at 9:12 pm #
There are no readers worthy of my writings.
Matt Weber on 17 Dec 2012 at 9:58 pm #
But what if people don’t work and the children starve as a result? The children, think of the children.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 17 Dec 2012 at 10:26 pm #
Matt Weber,
That’s the problem exactly. Too many people are dependent on government, and wouldn’t know how to take care of themselves without “our” aid.
Maybe a “tough love” solution is necessary? Or would there be riots?
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 17 Dec 2012 at 11:41 pm #
Red;
There is just a tiny bit of a problem there–in a zombie economy that greatly subsidizes selected industries, e.g. ‘education’ and ‘healthcare’ –while its clear you ‘work’ it is impossible to tell if your compensation is in line with productive work–that is medicine should be ethical, but also utilitarian as far as returning someone to the work force–though for what purpose, taxation?
I support doing away with the min. wage law under current conditions, but why not mandate ‘full service’ gas stations (at the local county level)? It’s humane and ethical to pay a service industry rock bottom wages–say $4 an hour, and have them rely on tips and the generosity of our people. I agree with your angle here–give the base some work.
However, that is the humane issue at hand, when the real issue is keeping 12-18 idle in that most expensive cover-ups of unemployment, compulsory education. Certainly, plenty of good produce pickers (this is how things were always done) in this age group, and plenty of good textile workers and so forth. I am all for protectionism with a purpose–though I doubt a properly run society would need much of a tariff protection, save Southern women supporting an end to “child” labor to encourage factories for women to work at in the South.
Matt Weber on 18 Dec 2012 at 2:06 am #
“Maybe a “tough love” solution is necessary?”
But that’s my point. Americans would probably be willing to let the bums starve, but as long as the bums have children we will do what it takes to make sure they never suffer. I don’t see this changing…I mean, I can’t imagine anyone saying that poor children ought to suffer because of their parents failures because of the inviolability of property rights or something. Short of a relapse into scarcity, I think the welfare state will endure. I would prefer that it were administered by the states, but I think federalism excites about 20 people in America these days.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 18 Dec 2012 at 2:15 am #
Matt Weber,
Very valid point. Also a valid concern.
Yes, the “welfare state will endure,” but can we afford it? There’s a limit to everything!
Hawthorne on 19 Dec 2012 at 1:36 am #
Hold on now…much of the salaries the pay the middle class life come from the welfare state.
Wall Street banks make a buck off running the EBT card program–on their balance sheet, it’s one of their best programs. Education and healthcare–it’s the same thing, the wages are ridiculously inflated.
The welfare state does destroy lives at the bottom–but it supports the Middle Class lifestyle for many (like Affirmative Action.) Are those in the Industry going to just give it up?
Going with the ‘tough love’ angle is only half the story.