Political Compass #34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
[/size]
*Proposition #34: * Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Disagree.

Throughout this series of threads, the economic debates have usually had US conservatives on one side and Europeans and US ‘leftists’ on the other. This is a proposition in which I must admit I sit rather leftwards even by European standards, which puts me way, way in the far left distance US-wise, so I expect to be pretty much on my own here in a sea of Strongly Agrees.

“Why the hell should the tax on my hard work support someone who refuses to work?” comes the entirely reasonable question. My answer, essentially, is that so long as that support is minimal, temporary and subject to conditions, then since non-zero unemployment is economically desirable, why not load the misery of unemployment only onto those who are prepared to live frugally without a job, thus easing the pressure on those poor sods who desperately want a job but can’t find one?

Now, one has to be pretty damned frugal when one does not to have a job even in Europe, where unemployment benefit is relatively generous. Housing benefit only allows the rent of the absolute crappiest rooms in the very cheapest areas - in some cities not even that. The additional allowance for food, bills, transport etc. really does not allow for much more than a poverty-line existence. Meeting friends for a meal, drink or evening’s entertainment is pretty much out of the question; a few beers from the off-license, a take-away or a rented video might be more realistic, but even then only very occasionally.

Nevertheless, it is entirely possible for a small minority of people to be happy living so - indeed I’ve done it myself. Reading and studying in libraries, cycling to interesting places, composing music, practising sports, writing creatively - what more does a person really need for a fulfilling life? Not much, said I, and yet even I took the first job I was offered, because I am just like almost everyone else: I am not willing to be so desperately poor if the option of employment is available.
(Incidentally, were it not for unemployment benefit some of Britain’s recent musical, cultural or creative blooms would likely never have blossomed - JK Rowling says she could never have written Harry Potter if she’d been forced to find a job, for example.)

Let us begin from this position: If unemployment is too low (less than around 4% is generally considered a little on the low side), there is not enough competition for jobs. Such increased “indispensability” makes the labour market overpriced and too inflexible. Unemployment is to some extent a necessary evil.

So what of these unemployed people? Let us first consider them all furiously competing for the lowliest of positions, expending Herculean effort in improving their CV/resume and arranging interview after interview all day, every day. Result: The best qualified, most able, most motivated of the unemployed get the jobs, and the losers miss out even though they put in just as much effort. Then let us consider an alternative situation: some of the unemployed compete furiously because they really desire a job, and some don’t try. Result? The best qualified, most able, most motivated of the unemployed still get the jobs, and the losers still miss out. There is still competition for jobs - some merely throw in the towel instantly - but there appears much less frustration, dissatisfaction and despair in the second scenario.

So, these non-workers can be characterised as lazy thieves of everyone else’s money, or saints who sacrifice “their” jobs for other people more in need of one and willingly endure the consequent poverty. How can we ensure that unemployment remains a choice only for a tiny minority of people? Well, there’s the frugality, of course - as I’ve said, even the least materialistic person gets fed up with budgeting for a loaf of bread eventually. But there are other disincentives, which fortunately also act as fraud-busters preventing people with cash-in-hand jobs claiming such benefits. Regular checks and forced appointments, eg. short-notice mandates to appear at the local library, can easily be met by the non-fraudulent and do not intrude too much into the schedule of even the ultra-keen unemployed who fill their days with interviews and job searches. After, say, a year of unemployment, a spell of mandatory work experience might be useful just so that one does not forget what ‘routine’ feels like. Better still, perhaps a single job (necessarily an unskilled government job, I would think) could be forcibly shared out between several people - even a single 8 hour day on minimum wage is comparable to weekly unemployment benefit. (Incidentally, scale this up and everyone might live comfortably whilst having more time off : efficient, greedy workaholics unfortunately appear to stymie this idea from the get go.)

This is the minimal, temporary and conditional support I advocate (which, of course, I benefited from when I was unemployed). If, after all such incentives to get a job and disincentives to stay in bed, some people are happy to just enjoy their simple, frugal existence on this wondrous and improbable life-filled rock in preference to leaving retirement until one is almost dead (what’s the point of saving all your days off until you have trouble walking anywhere?), I will not advocate its withdrawal. The simple fact is that unemployment benefit is already so meagre that any further reduction aimed at squeezing those already-frugal voluntarily-unemployed into not refusing work would impact the reluctantly unemployed yet more negatively (and perhaps even make crime a more attractive option).

Should refusing work ever be supported, no matter how far into the future we progress? (I have visions of energetically self-sufficient houses, wonder-foods and already-paid-for-in-full communications infrastructure such that work became a gradually more voluntary affair in essence, and still the greedy and workaholic refusing to shift their paradigm.) It seems that so long as unemployment is non-zero even for the willing, removing support for the unwilling will only make them pretend to be willing. Better, I say, if they were to pretend to compete for jobs with those who genuinely wanted one, and then gallantly concede victory.

2

Strongly Disagree

This discussing makes me think of the homeless in our society. I believe we could easily eliminate this problem if we simply gave all the homeless cheap apartments to live in, some clean clothes to wear, and three square meals a day. Nothing fancy, if they want any luxories they’ll have to work for it. But give them the bare essentials at least.

It’d be cheaper than throwing them in jail for vagrancy, and we wouldn’t have to see them sleep on park benches anymore.

If we stopped screaming at them to get a job (like someone in filthy clothes and without a home can easily get one!) and put a roof over their heads, society would probably be better off and more of them would end up becoming productive in the long run. I think that (paradoxically) the derision we heap on them for their joblessness is what keeps many of them from getting a job.

3

Disagree. I think my score was something like 0.75, -5.

While it would be awfully convenient to load the “misery of unemployment” onto those who choose to take it, the simple fact is that there will ALWAYS be people who need these benefits who don’t want to be unemployed, and paying such benefits to those who choose not to work means less money for those who want to work but cannot find employment (or, indirectly, less money for everyone who pays for it in taxes.) It also means less money for programs for people to get employable - for instance, less money to put into student grants and loans.

I don’t see why the proposition necessitates this assumption. The proposition was that those who choose not to work don’t get benefits, not that we reduce all benefits to prod SOME people into working.

I guess it depends where you live, but here, the level of attention paid to whether you’re seeking work or not is basically nonexistent; even the most cursory investigation would easily reveal those who are mooching without having to drive away to “reluctantly unemployed.” And some do mooch, and I’ve known them.

Now, I am distinguishing UNEMPLOYMENT from WELFARE, which, at least here, is a completely different concept.

4

Whoops!

I meant to “Agree.”

5

Strongly disagree. We cannot as a society sit back and watch as others starve. The very minimal necessities for human existence must be provided by society regardless of the person’s desire to work. If you want more than that as an individual, and nearly everybody does, then it is up to you to earn it.

6

RickJay, I think we are in agreement that there will always be unemployed people. Realistically however, the problem with proposing a policy dividing them into ‘voluntarily’ and ‘reluctantly’ unemployed is that as soon as you start treating them differently, the voluntarily unemployed magically disappear to be replaced by thousands more apparently reluctantly unemployed people: that disincentive for honesty thus necessitates yet more burdensome investigation and bureaucracy in order to distinguish the two types.

If we agree that unemployment is a necessary evil, the question is what society does with them, realistically.

7

Strongly Agree. (0.25 -2.??)

I call folk who can work but don’t want to deadbeats. If they’re willing to starve themselves to death to avoid work, so be it. No big loss. However, I’d have to wonder at the psychological stability of such a person refuses to work to such a degree.

Ah, so does this mean we need unemployment benefits to tide over struggling “artists” until they make the Big Time? Forgive me if that isn’t what you meant.

There is no evidence across the pond, that I’ve seen, of a European cultural or creative bloom. There are tons of dross and a rare talent here and there, same as America. An artist with the burning need to create—whether writing, composing, or painting—will do so with or without Government checks. Who needs the hacks?

Despite the phenomenal success of Rowling, I don’t think her case, if as true as you say, could justify Government support.

What would you call the very minimal necessities?

In 2000, a Green Party Web Site offered such a bonanza of Government Give-Aways on the ticket, I thought, yeah, I could live off that. Sell my McMansion and buy outright a little place in the middle of nowhere, then let the Government pay for all the other little essentials. Good clean and simplified living, retired at 40. Maybe try my hand at the Great American Novel. :wink:

8

No, I propose that we need unemployment benefits to provide some minimium level of existence for those without a job in our respective wealthy democracies. What they do with their day, be it walking the streets desperately seeking even the lowliest paid position or writing bad fiction, doesn’t concern me overmuch: the former will (eventually) get the job and the increased income, the latter must live exceptionally frugally.

9

-4.75, -3.38 Disagree

At the same time as I wouldn’t like to promote slacking, I do think that it’s interesting and sometimes productive to have a few people about the place who choose not to work; providing minimal support is possible (like essential healthcare, for example), without pampering them to the point where it becomes universally attractive to avoid employment.

Also, providing for those who don’t necessarily deserve it is the mark of a society that tends towards care and compassion, rather than towards strict enforcement of regime; I’d rather live in a slightly inefficient world, if it comes hand in hand with a little leeway for those who don’t quite fit in.

10

Another somewhat tricksy* question.

Note that it says “society” and yet everyone immediately thinks “government”.

Still I (7/-3) would say Agree, especially if we take “society” to be “government”. “Refuses” is awfully strong language. There might be some mentally ill folks whose refusal is based on not understanding reality. But somone who is able to work, and yet “refuses” to do so will NEVER get off the dole. Never. It would seem that the only way to turn the refusal into acceptance would be to withold support.

I also base my answer on the belief that there are very, very people in this category. I think it is a mistake to make government policy (or societal policy) based on extreme situations. Kind of like basing your moralty on situations that would only occur in a lifeboat adrift at sea.

*as Golllum would say.

11

Oops. Should’ve been “very, very few people” in the first sentence of the last paragraph.

12

-4.62, -5.28

I have to say a tentative agree, for pretty much the same reasons as John Mace put in. It does say refuse, which is pretty direct. I have lived around and known many individuals who were lifetime welfare recipients for no better reason than because they were lazy, selfish and ignorant. It bothered me immensely to see them buying cases of beer and ordering pizzas on the 1st of the month, then begging for money by the 15th. I despise these people and cannot support them in any way.

I can understand quite easily how difficult it can be to end up unemployed, for whatever reason. However, the second you lose your job you should be looking for a new one, and taking whatever is offered. I will support a single mother, because the child comes first, and she needs to be there to support it, but if you have no reason beyond laziness or a lack of will, tough shit. Get off your ass and get a job, and if you want to write, or paint, or whatever, do it after work.

This is all conditional on a refusal to work, rather than a loss of a job or some situation that prevents a person from working. As well, SentientMeat makes some good points: the stipend provided should be just barely enough to keep someone alive, thus hopefully giving them the incentive to get off their ass and work.

13

Very little. A cot in a shelter, clothes on the back, and whatever food that the shelter happens to have on hand that day.

14

No medical care? No dental check-ups? No counceling? No showers or clothes washing facilities? No haircuts or shaving items?

15

They won’t and currently DON"T “starve” if the Governement and us Taxpaters refuses to pick up the tab. Nor as they brave soldiers making the sacrifice of not having a job so that others can. When the government dole is cut off, they do not go out and get a job.

I have worked with the hard-core homeless. They won’t “work” (at a “job”), and they don’t starve- well, except maybe those who are crazy and die of some odd dietary deficiency.

Besides us taxpayers- there are other, voluntary sources of handouts. Many Churchs- including the Catholic Church- have programs to feed the homeless, and there are 'soup kitchens", etc.

The “hardcore” homeless also beg (rather lucrative) perform odd jobs, perform acts of minor crime, and scavange for things like aluminum cans. In this last, they perform a service to the community. Sometimes they dig food out, too.

If the Government cuts off aid (which by-and-large they have, except to Single mothers), these men won’t starve- I know becuase they aren’t starving now, and have not starved.

Most won’t stay in Shelters (many of which are provided by Non-governmental agencies) because they also don’t want to follow the rules there- no drugs, smoking, drinking, and some small degree of personal cleanliness. Sometimes they come in- after much grumbling- when the weather is VERY bad.

Note that the question does say “Society” rather than “Government”. However, I think that Society with a cap S usually means Government but at all levels. I have no objection at all for someone else speding their money on the hard-core homeless- in fact it’s be wrong to try and stop it. What I do object to is being forced to support such characters through my taxes.

16

My oversight- I forgot these.

17

Strongly agree. (I think my scores were about +2,-5 the last time I took it)

I’m curious how anyone can support restrictions/time limits on welfare and disagree with this statement. I would say the entire purpose of restrictions/time limits is to eliminate those who refuse to work despite being able. I can’t really imagine any restrictions that wouldn’t eliminate them (except for nonsensical ones).

So for those of you that disagree, do you support totally unrestricted benefits? If not, what restrictions do you support and how will they not eliminate those who are simply refusing to work?

18

I Agree, although this is at least partially because of the word “expect”, something other posters don’t seem to have focused on.

If the statement were “Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not receive society’s support” I might have gone with Disagree. But it does say “expect”, and I think if you actually refuse to work then you don’t have any business expecting handouts from society. (I’m taking “society” to mean strangers, private charities, or the government, not family or friends.) I like to think I’d help a starving man to get some food even if I knew he’d refused the opportunity to earn an honest living for himself, but I don’t see how he’d have the right to expect this of me unless we shared some kind of personal relationship. Hope, yes. Expect, no. If I chose to help it would be just that, a choice.

What kept me from Strongly Agree was some concern over what might be considered “refusing an opportunity”. What if you’re a devout Hindu and the only job opening is cow-killer in a slaughterhouse? A more common problem might be single parents who need working hours short/flexible enough to allow them to care for their children. I wouldn’t consider it a real “opportunity” if the job offered would require someone to violate deeply held moral beliefs or abandon family responsibilities.

19

Another question thats difficult to just answer, as there are tons of qualifiers (at least from me). Should those able to work but refuse too get support from the ‘society’? Depends on what ‘society’ encompasses for myself. Should the GOVERNMENT support them at the expense of our taxes? No. Does this preclude private charities from helping out such people? No.

However, forced to simply answer the question I’d have to say I agree…that such people, able to work but refusing too, should not EXPECT ‘society’s’ support.

-XT

20

[QUOTE=DrDeth]

Most won’t stay in Shelters (many of which are provided by Non-governmental agencies) because they also don’t want to follow the rules there- no drugs, smoking, drinking, and some small degree of personal cleanliness. Sometimes they come in- after much grumbling- when the weather is VERY bad.

[QUOTE]

I’m given to understand by many news-type articles that a good many of the shelters are percieved as dangerous. Seems that a high rate of assaults, extortion, and theft go along with the shelters.

I don’t know for sure, never having been in one, but I got no problem believing that an underfunded program would have trouble hiring enough qualified staff (you know, trained in social work/psychology/security, dedicated to ensuring that the shelter is a safe, secure environment - which comes out to people worth more than 8-10$hr) to prevent such occurences. And from what I read, most of these programs are underfunded.

I’m also given to understand that more than a few shelters have rules about how many times you can sleep there in a given time slot (X times a week, Y times a month, etc…). And apparently, some sheltering associations Don’t Get It, and harague those that come in about ‘clean up, get a job, get a real life, you loser’ (as opposed to shelters that help you find available resouces) which doesn’t exactly make for even a tolerable atmosphere.

Dunno. It’s not much of an issue up here, we don’t have more homeless than Maryhouse and St. Joseph’s can accommodate, and it doesn’t tend to be long term. Mostly because they migrate to warmer climes, I guess. Couch surfing is popular, and we do have issues with young people afraid to go home and trying to sleep in the lobby of apartment buildings and whatnot, but nothing on the scale of say, Vancouver or Toronto.