Yes, we all have little sympathy for those who have had all the breaks and who nevertheless elect to become layabouts (which the caveat that in the US, if you were fortunate enough to have all the breaks, you very likely can become a layabout with impunity). “To whom much has been given” and all that.
Now, my good friend magellan01, take on a challenge that suits your intellect: Whatever shall we do about those who have not had all the breaks? Those who have experienced a medical catastrophe? Those with mental illness or are just unlikely enough to have been born a dullard? Addicts? (Spoiler alert: “Don’t get addicted” isn’t really an answer, just as “Don’t be schizophrenic” isn’t) Those who were inadequately discerning in their choice of parents?
Now, of course, I have shown, that “most” people work at levels far in excess of what is needed to furnish a bare minimum lifestyle. (Recall, Algher’s position is that people don’t like to work. And if allowed to have the bare minimum without working, they will do so. My counter is that if this were so, we would not expect people to work (which they hate to do) any more than is absolutely necessary. But this expectation does not occur, which shows that the hypothesis is faulty.)
Still, I will openly acknowledge this concession that he said “many,” not “most” — and all the wind it takes out of my sails.
Most people will still continue to work at levels in excess of that needed to provide a bare minimum lifestyle, as they do now voluntarily, even if that bare minimum lifestyle will furnished for free.
Many people (but a fraction short of half) will, however, opt for the free bare minimum lifestyle.
This has to be the case, otherwise, I fail to see your point in distinguishing between “many” and “most.”
Now, what fraction do you suppose will opt-in to the free bare minimum lifestyle?
One-third maybe? But then you will need to explain why the fraction of workers who today work at levels in excess of that needed to supply themselves with an air-conditioned room and some food and a tv, some utilitarian clothing, and very little else is over two-thirds. (If you wish to contend that this is the right figure, know that the U.S. population between 18 and 65 is about 200 million and would mean that about 65 millions Americans of working age live this meager a lifestyle.)
But I will let you quantify just how many this “many” is.
I’m not the one making that particular argument, so I’ll let the guy who is defend it. I just thought it was odd that you were crowing so much about disproving a strawman.
Worth reading this for hope (or despair, on recollection, how far divorced contemporary society is from reasoned arguments in favour for Socialism). It’s also interesting to remember that the reactionaries, Luddites and romantics opposed Socialism because it enjoined everyone to work: labour, technology and progress was the primary focus and it could be off-putting without any promise of the spiritual. Of course, religion is used as a tool of social control, so this precise premise has been used as a method of framing in order to constrict debate in the US.
It’s been argued that Capitalism is the creator of wealth and capitalism does the heavy lifting. I won’t go into Marxist conceptions of wealth, but I will note that this seems to anticipate progress. If the purpose of capitalism is progress, in whose favour is capitalism? Capitalism certainly causes labour to be redundant: when labour cannot compete with machinery, the population will no longer be employed. The natural collapse of industries was argued for powerfully by Hazlitt for instance. Still, the same products are being produced: ostensibly for the benefits of the general population. Revolutions in agriculture have led to the same effect, where one man’s labour may now result in one hundred’s means of subsidence (with respect to more efficient methods of transportation, storage and whatnot).
The “post-scarcity period” referred to in the OP refers to the trend of well nourished families to have fewer children (while counter-intuitive, larger numbers of children tend to serve as a sort of insurance) and thus the population to sustain itself without starvation as a limiting factor. If we have goals as society, which is the goal of capitalism? To produce for the sake of production? To produce in order to establish a hierarchy? To distribute property ownership into fewer hands and the progeny of the fewer hands? To eliminate the redundant population until eventually there is one capitalist and a legion of robots left?
If the goal of capitalism were self-sufficiency and autonomy, there’s a simple method for that. Abolish industrialisation, property and any community spirit. Each individual would have an equal claim to the land and would be forced to produce their own means of subsidence or starve. There would be no redundant population (though theft would probably naturally arise and from there, capitalism would re-establish itself).
Algher argued that many people will opt out of the workforce. I have shown that most people (indeed, by “most,” I mean such a high fraction of the workforce that it would be incorrect to call the remainder “many”) today behave in ways inconsistent with Algher’s prediction.
Your supposed counter is like arguing:
Prima: Many people will do X if Y happens. Secunda: Not really, most people (on the order of 90% of people) already do X+ and would not suddenly do no-more-than-X, just because Y happens. Prima: I said “many,” not “most”! Secunda: 10% doesn’t really constitute “many.”
That is why I have asked you to quantify the size of this “many,” and why you have resisted my invitation to do so. It is easy to move goalposts when you refuse to say where they are.
You introduced the “long term” goal post after you had said we had more or less dismantled the social safety net. So no, that doesn’t prove your original statement.
But that’s OK. I knew you couldn’t, and maybe that’s better suited for another thread.
I can see that in this thread you are advocating something quite different. So, can you answer my original question? Are there any countries that are doing a good job, based on what you want the social safety net to look like?
I can’t quantify “many.” I hypothesize based on research that has shown that there is a correlation between length of unemployment benefits and length of actual unemployment:
So if people will stay on the unemployment dole as long as possible, why is it so uncanny to assume that others will take the rather nice proposal listed earlier rather than have to work?
Again - the proposal offered a lifestyle superior to that of our entry-level Enlisted forces (I did not have a private room, nor did I have my own TV in the barracks. There was a tv for movies on the ship that I shared with 40 others). I am arguing that the lifestyle offered at zero cost is superior to the one currently enjoyed by a not-insignificant portion of the workforce today. That will trigger a change in the work habits of some people, as they decide to forego working to get a shared apartment in favor of a private room with the meals for free.
Of course I can’t disprove a negative John. Show me that long term welfare system that so rankles you. And I DID say long-term, in my post at 11:17 a.m.
Meanwhile, there is no health insurance for many of the unemployed, both because it isn’t offered and because it costs too much at the very low wages people make now – unless you count going to emergency rooms as an indigent as a good idea, which it is not always, as Anna Brown’s mother can tell you. It is not always. There is no housing for the unemployed. Most people who live in the street have mental health problems or drug problems or both, but families do show up in shelters nowadays.
The food banks are working fairly well for charities, but as my previous cite demonstrates, they are being hit hard.
Show me the wonderful social safety net we have here, John.
I never said we had a wonderful safety net, and I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m just asking you to prove that the safety net we do have has been dismantled. The post you made yesterday-- the one that did not say anything about long term in it.
But it seems you want to move the goal post and shift the discussion.
Which is fine, as I said earlier.
Now, I’m trying to understand the other part of my question, which is: Which country are you asking us to emulate? Your proposal is short on specifics, and I’ld like to know what it is before I agree or disagree with it.
I agree, to say that Europe’s problems are entirely a result of socialism would be simplistic. I was merely pointing that your OP holds up Europe as an example, and right at this moment Europe is not a particularly convincing example.
The situation in Europe is complicated, and different for different countries. While socialism by itself isn’t the sole cause, the general notion that the government should have a lot of power over economic activity contributes to many of those causes. If tax rates are high, that gives everyone stronger motivation for tax evasion. If there are lots of restrictions on labor, that drives up unemployment. If there are huge subsidies to support industries (such as agriculture) that can’t support themselves, that discourages innovation and leads to high national debt. If there are extremely generous pension, retirement, and health care systems, that also contributes to high national debt. If you have some combination of all of these things, it gets you into the sort of situation that many European countries are in.
Of course results vary depending on many factors. But a skeptic might wonder, if we were to adopt socialism wholesale, what guarantee do we have that we’d become a Finland rather than a Greece or a Spain?
I prefer using Norway as an example. Tax avoidance is only a consideration if it has notable (citable) policy effects, otherwise it’s an argumentum ad baculum. Norwegian unemployment is half that of the US. Their debt to GDP ratio is lower than that of the US. They spend less per capita on healthcare with better outcomes in terms of lifespan and infant mortality (as do Greece and Spain actually). If US turns into another Greece or Spain, people will live longer and their children will be less likely to die post-partum. As a holder of a US passport, I’d consider moving there.
