Does "you have to work to make a living" = "some people just deserve to die"?

[RTFirefly]

@Orwell

That’s BS. There are jobs out there.

Of course ‘there are jobs out there.’ There are always people quitting and looking for new jobs, always new jobs opening up.

But are there enough jobs to put everyone back to work who was working at the beginning of 2008? No, we’re still millions shy.

Specifically: in January 2008, according to the BLS Current Employment Statistics survey (the survey of businesses), there were 138,365,000 nonfarm jobs in the U.S. In October 2014, that number had increased to 139,680,000, an increase of 1,315,000.

The problem is that the labor force (conservatively) increases by ~90,000 per month, on average. 81 months later, we’d need to have had an increase of 7,290,000 jobs just to keep up.

We’re about 6 million behind.

But unemployment benefits, food stamps, rent subsidies and other forms of welfare all disincentivize work.

Sure, they do. And a candle gives off heat, so it technically disincentivizes you from turning on your heater. But probably not enough to make a difference.

The question is, by how much? There’s no evidence that, as currently practiced, they have much effect. Given the spartan nature of unemployment benefits and food stamps to begin with, that’s pretty believable.

The number of people on disability has increased dramatically over the past decade, at a rate that is preposterous compared to any reasonable need for disability welfare.

It’s called ‘any port in a storm.’ If you have people who had been able to work, despite potentially being eligible for disability, and then you go for two years without being able to get an interview, of course you’re going to freakin’ apply for disability aid.

And nobody can seriously argue that extending unemployment benefits again and again doesn’t simply delay people from seeking employment.

Yes, they can.

In fact, many analysts attribute much of the recent job growth to unemployment benefits finally ending.

And your ‘many analysts’ would be…?

Helping someone who has been unemployed for three months is noble. Helping them for six months is foolish. And helping them for 12 months (or longer) simply fosters and encourages a new, lazy lifestyle - one which they then find hard to change.

You are aware, are you not, that many employers have been discriminating on the basis of length of unemployment - that the same resume will or won’t get responses based on whether someone’s last job ended 3 months ago or 2 years ago?

I realize that many here disparage libertarian viewpoints, but taking money from productive working people to give to those who cannot or won’t work has lots of unintended (or cynically, absolutely intended) consequences. There are other ways to meet needs rather than by force and law.

What are the unintended consequences of supporting those who can’t work?

Now I’m OK with not subsidizing people who won’t work, but funny how it’s a lot harder to find people who aren’t working when the economy is booming and there are lots of jobs. Maybe you’re just blaming the victim here.

As for the poor dying in the streets, it seems to me every post here conveniently ignores charity. Lots of people willingly give of their time and money to see to it that other people don’t starve and freeze to death.

And they’ve never been anywhere near sufficient to meet the need.

[RTFirefly]

@Velocity

Maybe we could have a welfare system whereby you get 12 months of welfare - a very long time - and then all subsequent welfare beyond that comes in the form of an interest-free loan from the government.
Because some unemployed may need welfare significantly longer than 12 months, yet we can’t have un-reimbursed welfare that goes on forever.

Maybe you haven’t heard of the welfare reform law that was passed in 1996?

It limited welfare to 2 years at a stretch, and 5 years lifetime. Of course, when jobs are scarce for 6 years or more, then Houston, we have a problem.

[Velocity]

@Orwell

That’s BS. There are jobs out there.

But unemployed people may not be able to meet the role.
Hospitals may have a severe shortage of neurosurgeons, but very few out of 6 million unemployed people would be able to fit the role.

[Orwell]

@RTFirefly

Sure, they do. And a candle gives off heat, so it technically disincentivizes you from turning on your heater. But probably not enough to make a difference.

The question is, by how much? There’s no evidence that, as currently practiced, they have much effect. Given the spartan nature of unemployment benefits and food stamps to begin with, that’s pretty believable.

I know people who voluntarily take layoffs every winter and collect unemployment benefits. I know others who step to the front of the line whenever their employers talk about layoffs. They collect unemployment and then work construction or other jobs on a cash basis. I know families who have made a lifestyle out of collecting rent assistance, food stamps and other welfare rather than working.

And your ‘many analysts’ would be…?

How about the New York Federal Reserve Bank. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/1/fed-end-of-unemployment-benefits-boosted-job-marke/?page=all According to the Fed official, “Unemployed workers might also respond to unemployment insurance extensions by searching less intensively or by being picky about job opportunities,” he added. “As a consequence, firms anticipate lower profits and cut back job creation, which lowers the job finding rate and increases the unemployment rate.”

You are aware, are you not, that many employers have been discriminating on the basis of length of unemployment - that the same resume will or won’t get responses based on whether someone’s last job ended 3 months ago or 2 years ago?

Of course I’m aware of that, and it’s completely understandable. I’ve had several business owners and HR people say that they cast a jaundiced eye at applicants who have been unemployed for more than six months. They say it is a reflection of how industrious and motivated the applicant is. I would never recommend that anyone be unemployed for more than a few months.

[clairobscur]

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

Poor Parisian’s budget (???)

Income: 9600 Euros
Housing: 4200
Food: 2700
Clothing: 1350
Utilities: 1350
Insurance: 0
Savings: 0

This is bizarrely unrealistic. I understand the need to be fashionable in Paris, but really?

Savings = 0 seems obvious if you’re on a € 800/month budget.

For the rest, I didn’t exactly think it through. It seemed possible to find a room to rent somewhere in a remote subburb for €350/month, which is why I picked this amount. I divided the rest between what seemed the most necessary (food, clothing, power) and it seemed to me that it was probably workable. I didn’t think any further nor tried to work out a realistic/ optimal budget.

[clairobscur]

@Velocity

Maybe we could have a welfare system whereby you get 12 months of welfare - a very long time - and then all subsequent welfare beyond that comes in the form of an interest-free loan from the government.
Because some unemployed may need welfare significantly longer than 12 months, yet we can’t have un-reimbursed welfare that goes on forever.

It seems to me that this would be a big disincentive to seek a job if you begin to get behind. At some point, the extra income you could make by working will be offset by the reimbursements.

[Eonwe]

@Orwell

I know people who voluntarily take layoffs every winter and collect unemployment benefits. I know others who step to the front of the line whenever their employers talk about layoffs. They collect unemployment and then work construction or other jobs on a cash basis. I know families who have made a lifestyle out of collecting rent assistance, food stamps and other welfare rather than working.

And here’s the thing . . . there are always going to be people who take advantage of a system in a way it was not meant to be used. You’re just going to have to suck it up and get over the fact that some “non-deserving” people are gaming you out of 0.00001% of your hard earned income. Refusing to help a group of people because some percentage of them might be taking advantage of the help just to get a free lunch results in a society where we, to quote Mr. Nylock, “couldn’t give 2 shits” about the poor.

Some people in this world are going to leave this world with more “free stuff” than I got. When me and Mr. Poor But Greedy are standing at the end of times, if he wants to gloat about how he got to live off of my tax dollar, let him. I’ll still be happy I gave to charities when I could afford it, and that my taxes went to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise help people who, on the whole, found themselves in stickier situations than I have. To withhold help to those in need when that help is easy to give because it pisses you off to see some of those people be ungrateful or manipulative is the epitome of selfishness.

[Orwell]

When the government takes money by force from people who get up every day and go to work, they have the duty to do so in an efficient and fair manner. There is nothing about government that is either fair or efficient, so forgive me if I don’t want to “suck it up” and watch my tax dollars wasted.

And forgive me if I’m a little more cranky than usual, as I’ve been exploring health insurance options due to our benevolent government instituting Obamacare. I’m finding that I will have to pay 50 percent more for a horrible policy, or pay about 90 percent more for one that is similar to what I have now. With $5,000 in higher premiums and $5,000 in higher out-of-pocket, I’m looking at spending up to $10k more next year for health care. That money was “not a tax” when Obama and Pelosi were selling the plan, but is now “a tax”, according to the supreme court. Guess what, that $5-10k is not available to be given to charity.

[Mr.Nylock]

@Eonwe

And here’s the thing . . . there are always going to be people who take advantage of a system in a way it was not meant to be used. You’re just going to have to suck it up and get over the fact that some “non-deserving” people are gaming you out of 0.00001% of your hard earned income. Refusing to help a group of people because some percentage of them might be taking advantage of the help just to get a free lunch results in a society where we, to quote Mr. Nylock, “couldn’t give 2 shits” about the poor.

Some people in this world are going to leave this world with more “free stuff” than I got. When me and Mr. Poor But Greedy are standing at the end of times, if he wants to gloat about how he got to live off of my tax dollar, let him. I’ll still be happy I gave to charities when I could afford it, and that my taxes went to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise help people who, on the whole, found themselves in stickier situations than I have. To withhold help to those in need when that help is easy to give because it pisses you off to see some of those people be ungrateful or manipulative is the epitome of selfishness.

Perhaps I should clarify my stance and put it in context. I actually am in favor of redistributive economic policies. I am convinced it is cheaper and better for society to provide minimum basic housing and healthcare for poor people whether they work or not.

But to me “the poor” are not a concept, they are a reality, they are people. There was a time when I was racked with guilt about the unfairness of a society where some (such as my self) start out with so many advantages, and others start out with so few. There are plenty of people who start out with advantages and spout such nonsense about the unfairness of things and go on about the need for society to change, but they fully take advantage of every opportunity given to them without a second thought.

I wasn’t so interested in that, I wanted to live as if I never had any opportunities. Out of college, I took the most menial, hard job I could find, and followed it with several others - I would not mention I went to college or put it on a resume unless it was required. I did this for years. I took a few things away from this experience, one of which is that if people continue to be excessively poor even well into adulthood, then they either, for the most part, have fairly pronounced mental issues(including addiction), are terrible with money(spend everything at a strip club for example), or have pretty profound character or moral issues.

So, to me, poor people are not some sort of homogenous group of unfortunates who did nothing to deserve their lot in life. A few are, and I care about them; but they are not “the poor” they are people who have just been very unlucky.

So, I guess you could say I care about good people being able to live a decent life. I don’t really care about “the poor” but I believe redistributive economic policies that help everyone at least have a minimum basic standard of living are best in terms of increasing practical functioning of society.