So you want a program that basically disperses money to people to give them jobs when they can’t find any. This sounds like the WPA to me.
The term “WPA” sends a lot of people into paranoia overdrive, but I actually think it was a great idea - as a temporary and emergency solution to get the country out of the pothole it had dropped into. There’s no way a program like that would be sustainable over the long term without crippling the economy. Especially the model you propose.
Think about it - what motivation would I have to stay at my job and do well if anytime I got tired of it, I could get myself fired, and then be hired into one of these cushy government jobs? I could never get fired from one of these programs no matter what I did, right? Then why work at all? Soon half the country would be working for this program, and the other half would be paying for it. That’s called a “Welfare State” and it’s not sustainable.
I believe that, which is why I wouldn’t support it. And I’m a lefty, too!
Siege, I say this as a friend, and since you have been blunt with me in the past, I’m going to do the same now-we KNOW. We know about your history. All right? There’s no need to keep bringing it up, especially twice in one thread. Brevity sometimes makes a better point. (And I say this as someone who has a tendency to rattle on and on about nothing).
Okay? I’m not trying to hurt your feelings, just sometimes you say in 100 words what could be said in 10. (And I too have that same tendency) We cool?
Evil Captor, if you honestly think there’s a similarity between asking for someone’s age and for someone’s credit card, you’re even more cracked than I thought you were.
Guinastasia, since Evil Captor was specifically concerned about the effects of getting laid off on the mentally ill, I considered my background relevant. Remember, I spend a lot of time in GD, so I tend to offer cites before they’re asked for and I don’t assume people know my history.
Evil Captor, are you familiar with the concept “enabling”? Basically it’s doing something which allows someone someone who’s already in a bad way due to addiction, mental illness, etc. to continue in their self-destructive behaviour. I’ve spent time talking to recovering addicts and people who have mental illnesses (Guinastasia, it’s relevant and can’t be assumed). Some of them will tell you losing their jobs was a good thing in the long run because it forced them to re-evaluate their lives and their behaviour and make the changes they need to. It’s part of hitting rock bottom and it’s not pretty or pleasant, but sometimes that’s the only thing that works. People can ignore everything from subtle hints to strong suggestions that they change, even when they’re told that they clearly have a problem and are referred to Employee Assistance Programs, etc. They see no need to change and they don’t think anything’s wrong.
If Maureen hadn’t fired Joan, she would still have been able to rationalize that there was nothing wrong with her behaviour and there was no need to change, despite being repeatedly told that her behaviour was unacceptable and being kicked out of several departments. She still had a job, therefore there was no need to change and no reason to. This may be the wake up call she needs.
If you really want to do something for the mentally ill, let me give you a different windmill to tilt at. It’s much easier for an alcoholic or a recovering drug addict to get treatment and support for addiction than it is for someone who has a mental illness to get treatment and support. That strikes me as far more unjust than people losing their jobs for cause.
It sort of sounds like the WPA, but if you do reading about the WPA, that wasn’t what the WPA was at all. For one thing, the men in the WPA were expected to work, and work hard. Many WPA jobs were hard labor - lifting building. Fighting and insubordination were not lightly tolerated and not pulling your share or being desruptive would put you on the next train or bus home. There were fewer WPA jobs than folks out of work in the depression, and even FDR wasn’t handing out jobs where nothing was intended to get accomplished to people who didn’t want to work.
The other programs EC brings up were government funding research programs. It does seem to be the case that a number of PhD physicists are not really socially astute and probably wouldn’t fit well in industry, but are capable of incredible output focused on a task. But there we are bringing a specific and real skill that is very rare and much needed in to solve a problem - and feeling that the intellectual gains are worth Dr. Absentminded forgetting to shower or screaming obsenities at his assistant. However, when I’ve been in those cases (and I’ve been in a few), the folks who don’t rate as brilliant are expected to be competent and socially asute - you can’t have an entire department of nutjobs. You are willing to overlook Albert Einstein not changing his sweater for three days to get Albert Einstein - you are not willing to overlook Joan calling Mrs. Einstein to tell her about an imagined affair to get Joan.
I am not so much concerned specifically with the mentally ill, as with people who get fired and have a hard time getting rehired. I don’t think this is necessarily a symptom of mental illness. I don’t know that Joan is mentally ill … I don’t know that she isn’t. But she’s obviously got problems of some kind if she didn’t see her termination coming with all the sanctions she’d been given. I just think we should try to do a better job of handling the human cost of firing.
Yeah. I’m with you here. Where did I say that in order to be liberal one had to come from money or even to be conservative one had to come from money? I am not talking about political opinions, although I believe that they are also influenced by life circumstances. Strange how one upper middle class white kid can turn out liberal and another with the same “advantages” can turn out conservative. Perhaps there is more to those people’s lives than just party affiliation? Perhaps their experiences, I dunno, somehow shaped their points of view?
I am not and was not referring to the validity of his views. His views are valid if only because they are his. Why would he have to agree with my thinking in order for me to consider him savvy? That doesn’t even parse. The notion that he is positing an idealistic scheme for nurturing chronic malcontents who would not accept his help if offered strikes me as naive, regardless of his age, race, gender or circumstance. It IS a commonly held notion among those new to the workforce, though–hence, my remark.
Where did I say he lives in “his mommy’s basement”? WTF? Are you confusing me with someone else?
Your life–your place of birth/growing up/the schools you went to or the home schooling you had/the friends you made or never made/the people you dated/the teachers/pastors/rabbis you had or didn’t have/the TV you watched or didn’t watch/the cultural customs that include not only holidays but the very food choices on your table (do I need to keep going?)–ALL of these influence your views of the world.
To say it does not is rather silly. Nowhere in there is a denial of diversity of views or choices or even lives or a conflating of my own POV of the world.
No, I’m very sorry to have to say this, Siege, since I do like you and have made that plain more than once before, but Guinastasia is right. You don’t have to recite your personal background each time you wish to make some point. Should someone ask you what basis you have for your statement, responding with such material is fine. But pre-emptive injection of yourself into whatever issue you’re addressing is unnecessary and, over the long run, off-putting.
This is not intended as an attack on you. Your perceptions are very valuable to me and there are few Dopers I consider more warm-hearted. But (just as I undoubtedly have posting habits which drive other Dopers mad), you do speak too often of yourself.
No, rude dudes will insist on hijacking other peoples thread for their own amusement and for “witchhunts” against some other poster with the temerity to (gasp!- dare I say it?) disagree with then. Thus sucking all the fun out of the tread for everyone else. That kind of rude asshole jerk won’t listen to repeated requests to “stop the hijack please” or "open your own thread’ as they have their head so far up their own ass all they can see is themselves- they care nothing for others. They will insist upon bring up some posters personal information from another post in “ad hominem” atacks- thus showing that they are bigots who hate others just because that other persons sexual preferences are different from their own. (Dudes? There is nothing wrong with bondage fantasies. It’s perfectly Ok among consenting adults. Even legal in most states. :rolleyes: Bringing that up in a thread about another poster (where it’s not an issue) shows only that *you * are 1. An intolerant bigoted asshole and 2. Can only win arguments by “ad hominem” attacks)
EddyTeddyFreddy, fair enough. I’ll try to make adjustments, but please do e-mail me if you think I’m going overboard again. With any luck I’ll be able to pull myself up short of the brink.
To each his own, then. Personally, I see your position as idiosyncratic as protecting people from the consequences of car-surfing or otherwise attempting to win a Darwin Award, but that’s just me. You see, as far as I’m concerned, if a person is told repeatedly that doing something will result in certain specific, painful consequences yet persists in doing that thing at some point that person, not society becomes solely responsible for his actions.
There are safety nets available for people who’ve been fired or laid off; I’ve made use of them myself. There are programs which can help a person become better qualified to get and keep a job. The thing is, a person has to be willing to make use of them for them to help. I’m not sure Joan is. I’m not sure there’s anything we can do for a person who isn’t willing to make use of the resources available to her.
Siege, that’s great! And feel free to whack me over the head with advice any time you think I need it. Just be sure to protect your hand; my head is mighty thick sometimes.
Quite honestly, I would HOPE that people would tell me if I’m getting annoying. Because I don’t intend to be, and whenever in the past I found someone felt that way, my first thought was always, “Dammit, why didn’t they say something!”
