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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
yup.
yup.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What to do with losers
Well we could just keep electing them. It has worked for us so far.
-
Define loser.
2. Describe the person or persons who enacts whatever “doing” happens to #1 and who grants their authority.The laws of nature dictate “no work, no eat”. Humans are certainly capable of breaking the laws of nature, like nursing the animal that would otherwise be eaten by its birthmates or mother. Is it fear of other laws that prevent me from putting my decrepit physically unable parent on an ice floe?
Personally, I couldn’t be in the second category. Too often I find judgements of almost any sort turn out to be They Aren’t like Me.
Besides, one of the meaningful aspects of human existence is conscious striving for abstractions likely not obtainable.