# What to do with losers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 16, 2008, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131 "2008-10-16T00:42:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Oregon\_sunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/50afbb/32.png) [@Oregon\_sunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oregon_sunshine)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/41 "2008-10-17T03:45:46Z")
Well, in this scenario we are defining the term “loser” in the context of the capitalist system of compulsory work in which some types (creative people, persons who for whatever reasons lack social skills, traumatized people, people who are mildly mentally retarded, high functioning autistic, extremely high IQ, transgendered people, etc etc) do not fit neatly into any current job situations, demands or needs. Do we then discard these individuals as if they were trash just because there is no “use” for them? Just the fact that this discussion is happening speaks volumes about how sad and disgusting our society is. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/42 "2008-10-17T03:46:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It is not in the public interest to ignore a persistent underclass who use resources despite best efforts to deny them access. They burden emergency rooms where they show up for primary medical care, they burden public schools with special needs, they often drift into antisocial and criminal behavior. All of these outcomes cost money, so you are paying for them whether you like it or not. Ignoring them is a luxury we cannot afford. If your goal is to not pay for them, you must take some sort of proactive effort to make them productive citizens, or just admit the only alternative is to shoot them in the back of the head. You are paying for them already, one way or another. A little investment now will often pay off in reduced costs later. Well, this is far from a complete analysis. First of all, there would of course be emergency rooms, public schools, and the police even if there weren’t losers, so you have to isolate the marginal cost increase caused by losers, which is difficult to do. Second, you have to determine the cost and efficacy of different programs to help the losers and compare that the the amount obtained in the first analysis. Just saying “we’ll pay for them one way or another” can’t be used as an argument to support all kinds of social programs aimed at losers. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/43 "2008-10-17T03:49:38Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > I would give them a room where the rent is paid directly to the landlord, and give them $50 a week in credit at the nearest grocery store. Nothing Else. They could have a place to stay and food but nothing else they did not work for. Clothes would be second hand donations. Why should the rest of society pay for the privilege of having someone around who has decided not to contribute? I don’t understand why having a heartbeat creates a claim against everyone else in society. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/44 "2008-10-17T03:54:06Z")
> [@Oregon\_sunshine](#): > > Well, in this scenario we are defining the term “loser” in the context of the capitalist system of compulsory work in which some types (creative people, persons who for whatever reasons lack social skills, traumatized people, people who are mildly mentally retarded, high functioning autistic, extremely high IQ, transgendered people, etc etc) do not fit neatly into any current job situations, demands or needs. Do we then discard these individuals as if they were trash just because there is no “use” for them? Just the fact that this discussion is happening speaks volumes about how sad and disgusting our society is. First, your premise is entirely wrong. The capitalist system in no way involves “compulsory work.” Many people add value by not working at all. The big idea of capitalism is that society divvies up its wealth according to how that wealth is created. If someone decides not to create any wealth, they don’t get any stuff. What is the system of divvying up society’s wealth that you more favor? And you must not leave your house much if you think that all of the types of people in your list have problems in a capitalist system. As one example, the top 1% of taxpayers is chock full of “creative people.” ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/45 "2008-10-17T04:06:58Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Workhouses. > > Victorian workhouses have a terrible reputation as being prison-like places of slavery and destruction - and not without cause, however, the motive behind many of them - at their institution - was quite often a noble and compassionate one. It just didn’t seem to keep going that way in practice. > > With modern standards of control, ethics, rights and accountability, I think we could implement the concept again and get it right this time. We have those in the Netherlands. They are called: " sociale werkplaatsen". They are meant for people with a physical, mental or severe social handicap. The work there is paid a real salary(but the money is often paid to the institute where tye employee is cared for), well supervised, and the superviser makes sure the employee works according to his ability. However, work there is voluntary. Sending unwilling emplyees there would tax the superviser too much. ---
**Author:** ![sovtawen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@sovtawen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sovtawen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/46 "2008-10-17T04:16:25Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Why should the rest of society pay for the privilege of having someone around who has decided not to contribute? I don’t understand why having a heartbeat creates a claim against everyone else in society. Why shouldn’t we? Based on the morals I was raised with, a human being, absent everything else, still has intrinsic value and should not be allowed to suffer or go hungry. It’s just the right thing to do – I don’t care how much of a hopeless dirtbag he might be. That’s the kind of society I want to live in, and I would gladly pay for it with my tax dollars. I also believe that a strong social safety net pays for itself many times over in the long run. The people that we do not help are going to end up taxing the system in one way or another. They will end up in jail, they will commit crimes to stay afloat, they will clog up mental institutions, they will end up homeless on the street, begging you for change. They will have kids, and since they don’t even know how to take care of themselves, their kills will be trapped in the same cycle. We can’t pretend they don’t exist in the hopes that we can save a few tax dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/47 "2008-10-17T04:18:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Why should the rest of society pay for the privilege of having someone around who has decided not to contribute? I don’t understand why having a heartbeat creates a claim against everyone else in society. Because either you or someone you love might end up a “loser”, either permanently or temporarily. The world is a better place if you know there is a safety net when that happens. A friend of mine is a sweet, intelligent girl, who went through med school and is now a doctor. Her dad used to be a math professor. I knew him when he still was one. He had always been eccentric, but over the years, and especially after is divorce, his eccentricity became full blown mental illness. At one point, he became the smelly old straggly bearded guy who walks the streets muttering angrily, crazily, in himself. By that time, me and my friend, then nineteen years old and in medschool, met him downtown. He didn’t even recognize her, his daughter, but stepped aggresivily straight down the street, muttering curses under his breath. My friend paled and cried. > [@](#): > > Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954]. > > The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. > ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer > > A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. > ~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson > > The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877]. > "…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey > “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~ Mahatma Ghandi > > “Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members – the last, the least, the littlest.” > ~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life > The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/48 "2008-10-17T04:57:08Z")
> [@oregon sunshine](#): > > well, in this scenario we are defining the term “loser” in the context of the capitalist system of compulsory work in which some types (creative people, persons who for whatever reasons lack social skills, traumatized people, people who are mildly mentally retarded, high functioning autistic, extremely high iq, transgendered people, etc etc) do not fit neatly into any current job situations, demands or needs. Do we then discard these individuals as if they were trash just because there is no “use” for them? yup. > [@](#): > > just the fact that this discussion is happening speaks volumes about how sad and disgusting our society is. yup. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/49 "2008-10-17T05:03:43Z")
> [@bubba\_jr](#): > > Its really easy, **stop rewarding failure**. When failure doesn’t pay, there won’t be so many losers… You know, whenever someone proclaims an easy answer to a challenging social problem that has been argued for centuries, I really lose interest in reading anything else you have to offer. ---
**Author:** ![bubba\_jr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@bubba\_jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bubba_jr)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/50 "2008-10-17T05:34:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You know, whenever someone proclaims an easy answer to a challenging social problem that has been argued for centuries, I really lose interest in reading anything else you have to offer. That’s fair, “Stop Rewarding Failure” is a generic statement and doesn’t actually offer a solution. But its a start. So who do we reward with free money? What should the criteria be? Should the government reward failures? Should the government reward lazy? Should the government reward chronic breeders? On the other hand maybe we do need the government to babysit for us and reward us for our failures? Free money to those that just can’t be bothered. Free money to those that can’t work because they might miss Jerry Springer. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If your goal is to not pay for them, you must take some sort of proactive effort to make them productive citizens, or just admit the only alternative is to shoot them in the back of the head. You are paying for them already, one way or another. A little investment now will often pay off in reduced costs later. Exactly, as I said, “a leg up”. But where do you draw the line between awarding failure and making them productive citizens. At this point I do believe that it is simply stuck on rewarding failure. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/51 "2008-10-17T05:49:06Z")
> [@bubba\_jr](#): > > Exactly, as I said, “a leg up”. But where do you draw the line between awarding failure and making them productive citizens. At this point I do believe that it is simply stuck on rewarding failure. There is no line. For society as a whole and for most individuals, the minimum amount of help (regardless of the form the help takes) that will actually provide benefit is greater than the minimum amount that will reward dependence. Furthermore, there are now people who deserve help who are unable to receive it and people who receive help who do not deserve it. Any attempt to reduce one number will cause the other number to increase, and this is true for any set of initial conditions. So…given all this, what do we do? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/52 "2008-10-17T06:18:49Z")
Hmm. I’d say that we could solve the problem by re-instituting the concept of the outlaw or unperson, and mandating that people who do not contribute a given amount quality and can be either hunted by private citizens or exterminated by government hit-squads, should they prove unusually wily. Just ignoring the poor tends to turn them into criminals, as noted upthread. Either help them or murder them outright, I say; faffing about and letting them starve slowly, get expensive medical conditions, and start ganking productive citizens for their wallets is uneconomical. ---
**Author:** ![bubba\_jr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@bubba\_jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bubba_jr)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/53 "2008-10-17T12:14:33Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > There is no line. For society as a whole and for most individuals, the minimum amount of help (regardless of the form the help takes) that will actually provide benefit is greater than the minimum amount that will reward dependence. Furthermore, there are now people who deserve help who are unable to receive it and people who receive help who do not deserve it. Any attempt to reduce one number will cause the other number to increase, and this is true for any set of initial conditions. Those are some depressing thoughts to start the morning off with, true but depressing. One place I would like to see a little more help is the VA, one guy I knew, 4 months to get an appointment, and then it was canceled and rescheduled for 3 months further down the road, then the secretary told him that if he didn’t want to pay out of pocket for a regular doctor, then he should just die. Another veteran I know with cancer is sent to a hospital 300 miles away for tests every 3 weeks or so, seems a waste. Then there is the girl my mom works with, nasty divorce, dead beat dad, going to school to be a nurse and working as a CNA. Told to keep getting that leg up, she had to make less money. Her case worker told her “I see so much trash coming through here, your trying, I don’t see anything”, and signed off. Thats good. Then there is the one that is 32 years old and too fat to work, on disability for being fat, and makes sure he stays fat. Works under the table on the side. Thats not good, and really pisses me off. > [@](#): > > So…given all this, what do we do? I’m going to put on my boots, fire up some machines and make some money, so the government can suck out their fair share plus some. Then they can distribute it as they see fit. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/54 "2008-10-17T12:29:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Why should the rest of society pay for the privilege of having someone around who has decided not to contribute? I don’t understand why having a heartbeat creates a claim against everyone else in society. Because the only alternative is letting them die. We don’t want to do that, but rewarding them with anything but free food, clothing & shelter is ridiculous. I would add that I personally would support this program for only a year. At the end of six months, the participants would be reexamined to see what they are doing to get off of it. At the end of a year, if you haven’t made progress, you get six more months. Then it’s homelessness and starving. If people know they can work the system indefinately, some will do it. I’ve seen too many second generation “welfare bunnies”–the children of woman who had children to stay on welfare who now are having children to stay on welfare. One such creature was 14, and her mother (a grandmother) was 29. I know in five years in or I’ll start seeing the third generation. The cycle has to be stopped. I wish I knew how. ETA: When I was out of work and desperate for a job, I went to the state employment office. Several times. And every fucking time I got told the same fucking thing: GO ON WELFARE! If the state employment office, the place where people go to get jobs, is encouring people to GO ON WELFARE, what does that tell you about the government and people wanting to work. I later found out they wanted people who would get on welfare and then get off in a short time in order to change the figures and make it look like peoiple were not staying on welfare for so long. “The average stay on welfare is just over a year.” Yeah, cause same people are on for two months and some for three years. The stats are totally meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/55 "2008-10-17T13:25:58Z")
_Mistake number 1: there are people who want to give handouts to losers._ Opponents of welfare systems typically frame all their arguments in moral terms so that they can avoid the problems associated with practical, real-world systems. People don’t want to support losers with tax dollars, in general (there are of course exceptions). _Mistake number 2: Finding losers is free._ Without a cost/benefit analysis, I cannot assume that these people standing on their soapbox are proposing we spend ten dollars to save a penny, or whether they’re proposing we spend a penny to save ten dollars. Without this, I cannot possibly argue against or support their position. ---
**Author:** ![Oregon\_sunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/50afbb/32.png) [@Oregon\_sunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oregon_sunshine)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/56 "2008-10-18T01:20:08Z")
Does no one see that we are defining human beings in terms of how they contribute (or don’t) to a contrived economic system, and not what they are as living creatures? And yes, **Rand** , I do leave the house, five days a week. I am a welfare worker. Most of the people I see at my job fit into some combination of the categories I outlined, plus a large helping of people whose parents neglected to teach them anything. Also, yes work _is_ compulsory in our society. This is an atmosphere where ordinary people (like right here on this message board) feel free to state that those who refuse to work should die on the streets - and passively allow it to happen every day. My last job was working with homeless individuals, and as I witnessed, the penalty for not working, ultimately,is death. That’s about as compulsory as it gets. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/57 "2008-10-18T01:30:52Z")
> [@bubba\_jr](#): > > […]you literally do not have a conscience, that in such a fundamental way, your very mind is not the same as theirs. > > The panicked feeling of a guilty conscience never squeezes at your heart or wakes you in the night. Despite your lifestyle, you never feel irresponsible, neglectful or so much as embarrassed > > […] > > Let them die on my doorstep, I have no problem with that. Its called evolution. What if the loser in question is actually miserable and constantly feeling guilty, irresponsible and so forth? How do you separate the mild sociopaths you describe from genuinely distressed losers? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/58 "2008-10-18T01:35:33Z")
What to do with losers Well we could just keep electing them. It has worked for us so far. ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131/59 "2008-10-18T12:37:53Z")
1. Define loser. 2. Describe the person or persons who enacts whatever “doing” happens to #1 and who grants their authority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-to-do-with-losers/468131.md?page=2)