I said those horrible things, and I was pointing out that that was the natrual result of your opposition to any remedy for the unemployment that is a natural product of the capitalist system. You got an answer, I’m willing to listen.
I don’t think this is true, though. Most welfare recipients have had this kind of education and/or job training and/or direct job experience, either before or during the time they’re on welfare. There is clearly no “bright line” distinguishing people who actively seek to qualify themselves to get jobs from people who receive welfare benefits.
And I do have a cite for that, from this 2003 report:
You know, I’ve been hearing this one for at least 40 years and counting, and I’ve always wanted to ask. How do you know this? I mean, I’ve seen this trotted out more times than I’ve had hot meals, and no one ever pointed to anything to prove it, simply offered as an article of faith, as something so obvious as to defy challenge.
But really, sez who? Where is it written? Is it one of those “everybody knows” things, that are so often wrong?
You know, I think its poverty itself that destroys dignity, I think poverty gobbles up dignity like Oprah eats chocolates. But if you have some authoritative citation for this, I’m willing to be convinced.
I believe you. I guess the next step, then, is to provide help in finding a job, and/or, provide assistance with training in a different profession.
Yup. You may be right that it’s possible to work relocation prospects into such assistance programs. I just don’t think it will be a viable strategy for large numbers of the working poor to implement without assistance.
Well, I really think it’s just common sense. And in any case, even if being supported by the government is very healthy for self-esteem, you really can’t consider it fair for those who do work to support someone indefinitely. I wouldn’t support my own child indefinitely, unless they were disabled and had no ability to work for a living.
So, then, it is just “one of those things everyone knows”?
-Joe
If it makes you happy to characterize what I said that way, then fine.
I think there’s no question that being on government assistance, especially long-term, generally has a negative impact on self-esteem. And there’s a good deal of psychological research to support that, such as this article (on JSTOR: full citation is “Impact of Work, Family, and Welfare Receipt on Women’s Self-Esteem in Young Adulthood”, Marta Elliott, Social Psychology Quarterly 59, 1, 80-95). The author looks at a sample of “white women who were in their twenties during the late 1980s”, and notes:
It stands to reason that if lots of people think that going on welfare is the act of a lazy, parasitic bum—and lots of people certainly do think that way, although I’m not suggesting that anyone in this discussion is doing so—then somebody who ends up going on welfare is likely to internalize that contempt and criticism and think worse of themselves as a result.
I think this is a pity, partly because nobody should be ashamed of needing help in an emergency, and partly because depressed and self-despising people find it even harder to break out of conditions of poverty and dependence than confident and optimistic people do. The more we vilify welfare recipients, the more we’re undermining the self-confidence and positive attitude that they desperately need to get free of their situation.
I think our culture should regard an occasional short-term stint on welfare the way we regard getting catastrophic medical care paid for by the insurance company: too bad you had to go through that, and we all hope you’re back on your own two feet soon, but we don’t grudge you the use of some of our shared resources to help you out during your unfortunate emergency. That’s what the shared resources are for.
Getting back to the OP (remember the OP?): According to this, the GOP’s grip on rural America is slipping. Of course, this is based on a poll on W’s job performance, which might not necessarily reflect attitudes toward the GOP as a whole.
Not just rural America - young America also, based on this article from the Times.
Swell, now we’ll have to translate the Constitution into leetspeak.
Actaully, Sarahfeena, you and I are not really very far apart. I think people should either have a job, be on their way to having a job through retraining/relocation/whatever or be demonstrated unable to work (blind, retarded, rich, etc.) I agree that simple entitlements are ultimately unproductive for all including those who are getting them. I just think when the economic system fails our people, as any honest economist admits even the best one will periodically, there should be help available. What’s so radical about that?
This is pretty much what I was driving at in my comment about the fundamental flaw in capitalism. Also, most economists admit that any free market system will periodically have “corrections” that will increase unemployment. These are flaws in the system as far as human beings go, that we should take into account and ensure that the mere human beings who are involved in the Mighty Free Market system won’t be hurt too badly.
Thanks, Kimstu, for spelling it out much better than I did.
Nothing is radical about that, at all, and it exactly describes my opinion. But do you think that this is how the system is working right now?
Why do you assume that a small unemployment rate is necessarily a bad thing? Just the fact that it takes time to transition between jobs means that any given snapshot in time will show a certain percentage of the population as unemployed. Why it should suddenly be the government’s job to foot the bill for them during the transition is beyond me.
If there are people who cannot work due to mental or physical disabilities, let’s help them lead a nice, comfortable life. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with state-sponsored catastrophic health insurance, or any other program designed to help the truly desperate.
But the minute you start expanding such programs to cover not just the people who absolutely need the help, but people who are simply being made uncomfortable due to temporary circumstances, you cross a big line. For one thing, programs like this create a moral hazard - they reward destructive and non-productive behaviour. They create dependencies. Left in place long enough, the entire economy shifts around them so they become extremely difficult to remove. Someone mentioned reservations before - a perfect example of a moral hazard. Life on the reservation is hard, but it’s not impossible. We subsidize it just enough to have created whole populations of people utterly dependent on government support to survive. And absent the need to adapt and learn new skills, they have chosen to simply live poor but subsidized lives. We’re doing them no favors.
You see the results of heavy employment subsidies in Atlantic Canada, where the population is heavily subsidized. The economy has adapted to that subsidy, and it has locked people into an unsustainable way of life that depends on government handouts to maintain. And they aren’t particularly happy, either.
Another example of a moral hazard is the destruction of the extended family that was a consequence of social security. Families typically didn’t just break apart and get together a couple of times a year like they do now - they tended to stay together because they were the social welfare and retirement programs. When you got old, your family looked after you. If you were in financial difficulty or between jobs, the family helped out. Government social programs reduced this need and contributed to the decline of the large, extended family as a social unit. To our detriment. And people don’t even save for themselves.
Talk to people from my grandfather’s generation, and they’ll tell you that saving was a way of life. You had to have savings, because you needed them in case of emergencies, job loss, illness, and retirement. Now if you get sick, we want the state to pay the bills. If you lose your job, we want unemployment support. When we retire, the state will give us the money to live on. In helping some people who truly need it, we’ve wound up replacing family and community with a faceless bureaucracy.
So, then, it would be fair to say that family values are stronger and more sustaining in families that don’t require any form of governmental handouts? The middle class, the wealthy, are reliably more healthy, and moral, when it comes to such values?
Well, hell, could be, I read Mr. Bork’s book, Slackers with Gonnorhea, and found out that we dirty fucking hippies are directly culpable in the demise of Western Civilization. So, what the heck, might as well throw Canada’s family values on top, what difference does it make now?
Gee, Sam, look…we’re sorry, OK? Don’t take it personal.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
If these dreadful consequence are visited upon those people who need such governmental intervention, then they are not visited upon those who don’t. So if then it must follow that they are not subject to such strains, which means the wealthy and comfortable classes have much stronger family values and cohesion, not being rotted from within by socialistic nanny states.
Well, is that the case?
No. It’s failing MISERABLY wrt health care. 45 million Americans are uninsured. That’s just pathetic.
It’s also failing wrt housing. Even people who have jobs sometimes can’t afford housing. Granted, they tend to be minimum wage jobs, but I don’t see why a woman who’s working full-time as a waitress at IHOP should have to live in a collection of cardboard boxes.
Older workers who lose good-paying jobs are particularly vulnuerable: it can be very hard to find new work at comparable wages to their old jobs, and it can be very hard for them to find health insurance, since they are older and not such a good risk any more.
I’m sure some people regard these as minor incoveinciences to be overlooked, I am absolutely certain that such people are wrong. These are greivous failures that we as a society should acknowledge and correct.