quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I agree completely. People don't need jobs. People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
Sure, this statement is arguably true. But I think the current system of careers/employment is, for multiple reasons, both superior (as in, preferable) and a natural structuring (as in, unavoidable) of productivity organization in the modern world.
No argument here. I'm simply saying that the simple number of jobs isn't a reflection of level of human well being. You also have to look at the quality of the jobs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
What? What utopia are you thinking of where people didn't work? Thrived for thousands of years without jobs? Just because you are working your own land or running your own store doesn't mean you don't have a job.
I didn't say people didn't work. I said they didn't have jobs. Below are the two top dictionary definitions of job.
From the online dictionary
quote:1. a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn. 2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.
I'm certain that there are other ways that the word is commonly used but when politicians and economists talk about "creating jobs", which is the context of this discussion, they aren't talking about any kind of work people do. They are talking about employment for pay. Even in today's world people do lots of different kinds of work that doesn't count as a job -- for example caring for your own children, cleaning your own house, mowing your own lawn, volunteering at church, and so forth.
This is a really important concept to understand if you are interested in actual human well being and not just economic indicators. To understand what I'm talking about, considering the following two hypothetical example.
1. Two neighbors, A and B, help each other out by exchanging work. The Mrs. A tends all the children and prepares meals, while Mr. B does yard work and assorted odd jobs.
2. The two neighbors decide to formalize the arrangement by paying each other for the work done. Mr. B pays Mrs. A $1000 for tending his children and Mrs A. pays Mr. B $1000 for yard work and assorted odd jobs.
In case 2, two jobs are created and $2000 is added to GDP but I think we can all agree that there has been no increase in the well being of either Mrs. A or Mr. B. In fact, the exchange of cash most likely reduces their well being in numerous ways (such as more red tape, reduced feelings of appreciation and friendship, and a higher tax burden.)
Oh my stars, for the majority of human history, the labor necessary to grow food and build communal buildings has been done by SLAVES. The reason people could afford to pay the doctor's bills is because the doctor could 1)apply leaches, 2) make tea, or 3) cut it off, whereupon you would die from infection. Multiple generations lived in the same tiny place. People owned outfits in the single digits.
This nostalgic dreaming of a time when people didn't have to work is so...out there, so ignorant of actual history, so laughable I have to wonder if you're pulling my leg.
If you think the level of nourishment, shelter, and health care people got by bartering throughout human history is acceptable, what's with all the complaining? That's NOTHING. You can get a shack, monotous food, and useless health care by begging on the corner a few times a week and crashing your grandchildren's house. If that's the bar for "thrive", then America doesn't have a problem at all! A balanced budget and tax cuts for everybody!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Well, no jobs != leisure
The Rabbit is probably referring to retirement, childhood, and home-makers. According to the Canadian census, in 2001, only about half the population was in the workforce.
I was actually think more of a time before people lived in a cash economy. People have always worked, but working in exchange for cash payment is fairly new economic model in the scope of human history. But you are correct that his has modern implications since a very large fraction of the work done even in modern economies, doesn't count as "jobs".
quote:Theoretically (if there was the demand) you could for example, re-structure tax policy to further encourage home-makers to go out and join the workforce, but that wouldn't necessarily be a positive result although the number of jobs would be greater.
This is absolutely valid. A huge fraction of economic growth in the US over the past 50 years has come from women moving out of the informal economy and into the formal economy. The value of what women did in the informal economy is largely neglected. The majority of Americans feel like they are worse off than Americans felt in the 1970s. The decline of the informal economy is likely are very large factor in this.
quote:The other issue is that there are many jobs that pay less than essentials that aren't necessarily bad. I'm thinking of simple jobs intended for students like tutoring or sometimes retirees can get some minor supplemental income by doing things like travel writing or stock photography for magazines.
It is in fact a very complicated situation because jobs are not the only means by which people meet their essential needs and there is a great deal of variability in what people actually need. You will note that in list I gave of things people need, were things like "companionship" and "something meaningful to do". I suspect there are very few jobs that meet all of a persons needs, but some are worse than others in terms of inhibiting people from meeting those needs outside work. A person who is comfortably retired, may not need money but they may still need a job that gives them something of value to do with their time or provides an opportunity for social interaction. A student who is being supported by their parents, may not need money to pay rent, but can still benefit from the opportunity to gain job experience, help other students or earn money to buy luxuries.
The biggest challenge in my mind that teenagers, whose essential needs are being filled by their parents and retirees, whose essential needs are being met by SS and a pension, compete for jobs with people who need to earn a living wage to live. That's one of the reasons I support minimum wage laws.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was actually think more of a time before people lived in a cash economy. People have always worked, but working in exchange for cash payment is fairly new economic model in the scope of human history.
1. When and where? Name the time and place. Considering cash has been around since before Egypt, I'm interested as to exactly which hunter gatherer society where the women are treated like chattel and there is a 60% child mortality rate you're nostalgic for.
2. You glorify a non-cash economy, but want the benefits of a cash economy. Unless you have an actual wormhole to some other universe, you're writing a Star Trek episode here.
This is as relevant and real a possibility as the teleport.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I would've phrased that differently, but I think you're basically correct. But the fact that our present-day system is far superior to historical alternatives doesn't do much to imply that more jobs are better.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Kat, I would've phrased that differently, but I think you're basically correct. But the fact that our present-day system is far superior to historical alternatives doesn't do much to imply that more jobs are better.
More jobs than what? Than less jobs? Than historically? Than can be filled?
Sorry - I'm so distracted by the Laffy Taffy history I can't even imagine what the discussion should be. I guess I'll return when the lovefest for stone tools is over.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
More jobs than are needed to keep the economy going and keep generating wealth.
At present, for example, the US economy doesn't "want" to employ more than about 90% of the workforce. I say that's fine, as long as unemployed people's needs are provided for.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: It sounds like you and Rabbit are not understanding each other, could you perhaps try to clarify those misunderstandings. I'm not too pleased with statements where posters are accused of being so silly sounding they must be trolling. It's frustrating to have that said to you.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The biggest challenge in my mind that teenagers, whose essential needs are being filled by their parents and retirees, whose essential needs are being met by SS and a pension, compete for jobs with people who need to earn a living wage to live. That's one of the reasons I support minimum wage laws.
This is a debate for sure, but my understanding is that the overlap between people who need a living wage (and don't currently have one) and those on minimum wage is vanishingly small. Edit: Rather, the disproportional amount of overlap as compared to the general population
So increasing the minimum wage would be pretty inefficient and counter-productive.
Ex:
quote:Even under the assumption that there are no employment effects, "only 10.66 percent of total wage increases accrue to workers belonging to poor households." Given that 10.3% of households are in poverty, increasing the minimum wage is only slightly more effective as an anti-poverty measure as would be distributing money at random across households.
Not really cause for celebration, is it? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want to help people in poverty, give them money.
posted
I'm not really talking about unemployment. I'm talking about whether increasing the minimum wage would actually help anyone that has a low income.
They've already covered Card and Kruger here
quote:In the US context, Card and Krueger conclude (h/t to Alex Tabarrok)
quote:The minimum wage is a blunt instrument for reducing overall poverty, however, because many minimum-wage earners are not in poverty and because many of those in poverty are not connected to the labor market. We calculate that the 90-cent increase in the minimum wage between 1989 and 1991 transferred roughly $5.5 billion to low-wage workers.... an amount that is smaller than most other federal antipoverty programs, and that can have only limited effects on the overall income distribution.
Interestingly enough, this point of view is shared by the people at Toronto's Daily Bread Food Bank. In their profile of food bank clients, they note that
quote:It is often assumed that the low minimum wage is the reason for hunger amongst the working poor. Indeed, the minimum wage stayed at $6.85/hr in Ontario between 1995 and 2004. However, Figure 10 shows 53% of all food bank clients earn more than $10/hour, higher than the current minimum wage of $7.75/hour; just 10% receive exactly the current minimum wage. The key issue identified in the research is not the wage, but that food bank clients only work, on average, 25 hours weekly. Working part-time hours, 72% of employed clients are not receiving health benefits. Sixty percent say they want more hours at work, but are unable to get them from their employer.
Their preferred policy? An earned income tax credit.
posted
Yeah, the minimum wage sucks at actually helping poor people, and it puts the highest costs on smaller businesses that are the main drivers of recovery. It is effectively a tax on small businesses that employ low-skilled workers -- exactly the businesses we shouldn't want to penalize.
The earned income tax credit, however, is extremely effective in helping poor people, and because it is paid for out of general taxes, its cost does not fall in ways that are potentially counterproductive (and even if not, practically vindictively focused). That's why I comment above that my first priority in starting to fix things up would be to make the EITC as large as politically feasible.
This is one of the few things you'll find general agreement among economists of all stripes (excepting the most hardcore anti-subsidy, and even they'll agree that if you have to have some sort of subsidy, the EITC's probably the best way to do it), even if they think the minimum wage is an acceptable policy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom is a pretty low wage earner- higher than minimum wage but not much. She hated when the minimum wage increased because her work said, we had X money for wages, everyone at minimum wage is getting a raise and that is our raise money for this year. She was pretty bitter over that. She also just got her 25 year award, on the same day she found out her position is being eliminated in June. She is 3 years from being able to be on medicaid and she is terrified how she will find another job or cover her own health care costs She is just barely not disabled- her doctors have debated filling for disability but her job right now has been very accommodating and physically undemanding so they figured better to work and keep all the perks of having a job. Getting a new job for a sickly woman in her 60s with very little training is not going to be easy. My mom says we should buy big (we are moving when sell house) and plan on them moving in with us.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is one of the few things you'll find general agreement among economists of all stripes (excepting the most hardcore anti-subsidy, and even they'll agree that if you have to have some sort of subsidy, the EITC's probably the best way to do it)
Makes it pretty laughable when Republicans grouse about how "too many Americans pay no federal taxes."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The best that can be said about job growth is that at least it is happening, albeit in very small numbers and with a bias towards underemployment.
But, for some reason, we're fighting about the deficit and little to nothing is being said about the huge hole in our economy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's astonishingly little the federal gov't can do about job loss right now (and it's turning out, as predicted by many, that even if you take optimistic numbers for jobs created/saved by federal stimulus legislation, it would have been a heck of a lot cheaper to just give everyone large sums of money) other than wait it out. Employment is a trailing indicator, it was hit particularly bad, and the economy has only mildly recovered per other indicators. I'm not sure what you want them to do, especially that won't end up being badly counterproductive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here at the payroll company I work at (Paychex) we are seeing an increase in checks per payroll, but not a lot of new businesses.
It is both a positive and negative thing. It is good because businesses are hiring, but negative people it seems like people are still very unsure they want to take the risk of business ownership.
One of my clients recently hired an additional 500 employees. They pickup, clean, and deliver linens to almost all of the casinos on the strip. Table cloths, bed sheets, etc.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its become obvious that the greatest and most important thing that American Business produces is the rare and fragile thing called--Jobs.
Check any news report, any politician, any talking head.
The products are secondary. The services are unimportant. The only goal, the only value, that is placed on a business is its ability to "create jobs."
We give tax abatement to companies not because they will benefit society, benefit the locality, or benefit a single person. But if they create jobs--well they are golden.
I've seen arguments that demand we rescind worker safety laws, product safety laws, environmental safety laws, and any other law so that a company can produce--jobs.
I swear that if a company found the cure for cancer the main lead on the news would be about how many jobs would be created in producing the cure, and how many jobs lost in the health care industry if such a cure was allowed on the open market.
Some are now creating a new social status called, "Job creators". These are apparently the wealthy, corporations, and anyone else who hires people. Such Job Creators, it is argued, need no taxes because somehow taxes stop them from their primal urge to--create jobs.
What seems to be missing is the Job Destroyer class. This would be people who must then get extra taxes for destroying jobs. This would be companies shipping jobs overseas, companies laying off workers, companies who report increases in worker productivity--since they are pushing workers to produce more so they can hire less.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: What seems to be missing is the Job Destroyer class. This would be people who must then get extra taxes for destroying jobs. This would be companies shipping jobs overseas, companies laying off workers, companies who report increases in worker productivity--since they are pushing workers to produce more so they can hire less.
If every business were profitable, this would be fine. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Laying off workers is sometimes essential to keeping a business open, as well as worker productivity. Raising taxes on a business that is already suffering from those is only going to hurt them more.
Again, if it can be shown that the business is making MORE money and they are still doing this, then by all means. But hurting businesses that are already having a hard time is not the way to go about it.
As far as shipping jobs overseas, I don't love it or hate it. I see both sides of the argument. With the amount of taxes and regulation businesses have to deal with her compared to other countries, I can understand why they would want to ship the jobs overseas. I'd think Liberals would like that, as it promotes the whole world economy thing they want so badly. I can also see why people don't like it, as it does take jobs away from US workers.
Does anyone know of any articles that shows the percentage of businesses that ship jobs overseas, and which companies have the most out of country workers? I know the company I work for only has about 40 employees outside of the US, but it is a fully functioning payroll branch in Germany.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
People seem to be under the impression that if we bribe rich people enough they, in their benevolence, will create jobs for us little folk. But people don't create jobs because they have extra money and have run out of room to store it; jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods and services that the companies produce. The way to increase demand is to get more money into the hands of folks who need and want things but can't afford them and who, if they had money, will buy them. (People who want things and already have enough money to buy them will have already bought them.)
But our main mechanism for getting money to those people is jobs. I think handouts are a better and better idea.
If we want to create jobs here we need to create demand for goods and services made here. By making them cheaper* and/or better. Perhaps some conditions on those bribes as well.
*"Cheaper" being relative and can carefully be tweaked with tariffs if necessary.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But our main mechanism for getting money to those people is jobs. I think handouts are a better and better idea.
How do you ensure that the recipient of a handout infuses their hard-earned money back into the economy? What if they save the money instead of consuming more?
------------------
On a related note, maybe we need a government-sponsored enterprise in the housing industry so people who don't meet lending standards can get into homes whose mortgage is beyond their ability to pay. Unless, of course, someone can point to an instance in history where this has failed miserably. Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you ensure that the recipient of a handout infuses their hard-earned money back into the economy? What if they save the money instead of consuming more?
*laugh* I can't tell if this is a serious question or not. Is it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you ensure that the recipient of a handout infuses their hard-earned money back into the economy? What if they save the money instead of consuming more?
*laugh* I can't tell if this is a serious question or not. Is it?
Not for you, no.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People seem to be under the impression that if we bribe rich people enough they, in their benevolence, will create jobs for us little folk.
Wait, they don't? Dang, and here I was going to vote for Republicans because of those promises that the rich would give me a job out of said gratitude for the bribes--er, tax cuts.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Germ--the question is, what is the goal of the taxes?
If the goal is to spur the creation of Jobs, then taxing even failing companies that are shedding jobs would induce them to cut other expenses before cutting jobs. And if the company fails, too bad.
If the goal is to increase the economy by helping business, then adding taxes to failing companies would be wrong. In fact, taxing anybody would be wrong. But if that is the goal, it should be honestly admitted, not hidden behind the sham of "Job Savings".
If the goal is to pay for the needs of the country, as determined by its laws, in a fair and impartial way then somebody has to be taxed so failing or emerging companies should pay their fair taxes.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What constitutes failing? We give tax breaks to companies that are making record profits. I have no problem helping out companies that are losing money and trying to stay afloat - especially those that are responsible for a lot of jobs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'd think Liberals would like that, as it promotes the whole world economy thing they want so badly.
As far as the American definition of "Liberal" goes, sympathy for globalisation doesn't seem to be a particularly "Liberal" trait. You wouldn't expect trade unions or the local food hippies to be particularly enthused about it for example.
They're also eager (e.g.) ...
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *"Cheaper" being relative and can [i]carefully[/i[ be tweaked with tariffs if necessary.
... to throw around the tariffs, so I don't really see it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We give tax breaks to companies that are making record profits. I have no problem helping out companies that are losing money ...
While I'm not entirely unsympathetic, it seems to me that the first should be considered a sunk cost and that the latter is an example of "two wrongs don't make a right."
Whether the government should help companies that the government thinks* are likely to prosper in the future, should be independent of whether the government has wasted money in the past.
* assuming that the government is good at determining this kind of thing, which I find kinda dubious
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not sure that "carefully tweaked" is the same as "throwing around".
In context, your idea of "carefully tweaked" IS my idea of "throwing around." The level of tariffs required to ensure a substantial re-shoring of jobs, not just from China, but from all other developing countries that are currently taking "American" jobs would have to be substantial.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't think that we should give tax breaks to companies who are making record profits, yet we do. On the other hand, "bailing out" a company in trouble can sometimes avert disaster. I think that the auto industry bail out, while not a permanent solution to the problems of the auto industry, saved a lot of families from suffering. I do think that there should be safeguards built into such bailouts that regulate how the money is used.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People seem to be under the impression that if we bribe rich people enough they, in their benevolence, will create jobs for us little folk. But people don't create jobs because they have extra money and have run out of room to store it; jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods and services that the companies produce. The way to increase demand is to get more money into the hands of folks who need and want things but can't afford them and who, if they had money, will buy them. (People who want things and already have enough money to buy them will have already bought them.)
But our main mechanism for getting money to those people is jobs. I think handouts are a better and better idea.
Ok, but tell me what incentive those people that receive handouts have to actually contribute to society? If the government gives them a certain amount of money to live off of, what is stopping them from taking that money for the rest of their lives?
If jobs aren't the answer and handouts are, who is going to work?
Look, I'm totally for this, but I don't think the robotics field is far enough along to have robotic minions doing all of the work that needs done yet. Then there is the question of a robot uprising, etc.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care if they "contribute to society"; they are "society". Why do you assume that it has to be either jobs or handouts? Why not some combination? Right now, there aren't enough jobs. You may have heard about that in the news. When jobs where a person can make a decent living are going begging, the balance can shift away from handouts.
quote:Ok, but tell me what incentive those people that receive handouts have to actually contribute to society?
When you are looking at pockets of extreme social stratification, and whole generations of youth in areas which give them nothing but socioeconomic hurdles that many of them will not surmount, the question of the savvy social planner is not "can I be sure that these people are going to contribute back to society?" because it completely ignores the fact that they ARE society, and if macroeconomic trends allow that society to continue to rot out unabated, the people who are standing around saying that they shouldn't feel obligated to provide for them in any meaningful sense because they're wondering if these people are going to 'contribute back' are missing the irony that they're paying for them anyway, and many of them are probably living in areas where the cost is much more personal, dangerous, and corrosive. More of our tax dollars going to prisons. More social stratification. People of means closing themselves off in gated communities wherever rampant drug use and crime take off. More of the attitude that none of this, nor the impoverished mothers, nor the homeless, nor the innocents caught in blighted regions, should be 'their problem,' even as they clean up the glass from the latest B&E and miss what's grimly humorous about this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides which, it's just good to have more people in the world enjoying a decent standard of living.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also bothered by the notion that the only way to "contribute to society" involves monetary compensation. Some people contribute to society by being a good listener or being friendly or being a loving uncle. None of which pays the rent but all of which has value to society.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that they are society. And they can take care of themselves the way the rest of society does. The people who actually take care of themselves also contribute to society with sprinkles of joy dust. They just don't expect to be handed an easy life because of their smiles.
The only excuse otherwise is youth, disability, or old age to the point of disability. They are society, but that doesn't mean they don't have to take care of themselves. It's shameful to be a mooch when you could be otherwise.
If you have convinced someone that your sunny personality is worth them giving you a living wage, more power to you. For all that work that would take, though, you might as well just get a job.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am also bothered by the notion that the only way to "contribute to society" involves monetary compensation. Some people contribute to society by being a good listener or being friendly or being a loving uncle. None of which pays the rent but all of which has value to society.
I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately we do not live in a world in which this will ever be possible.
Being friendly, listening to others, or being a loving uncle does not grow food, clothe your children, or provide shelter. Mankind has had to work for those three things for thousands of years.
If you want to test it though, I'll give everyone my phone number, and any time you want someone to listen to you, you can call me. I'll just send you all of my mortgage, clothing, food, utility, and phone bills, and you all can pay for them. The time I am not on the phone I'll just watch TV or play games. Does that sound fair? If you don't want to send me money I understand, so you can just opt to provide me with my own house, send food to me directly, and provide me with enough solar panels to power the home. I'll accept either. Trust me, this can be revolutionary! You can keep me fed, clothed, and housed for my contribution to society.
The only problem: someone is still going to have to grow the food, create the solar panels, and make the clothes.
Tell me who is contributing more to society: A person that works, pays his taxes, and provides for his own family, or a person that "listens" to others, does not work, and collects money from the government.
The difference betweem the two is that the human race can survive without one of the groups.
What you are suggesting would also do more harm for the poor than good. I assure you that if the majority of society had the same idea it would create more of a caste system than you could ever imagine. There would be two groups: Those that produce and those that only consume. It wouldn't surprise me if those that produced received more basic rights than those who only consume.
Humans are selfish, and unfortunately nothing will change that. I like the Star Trek TNG society as much as the next person, but it will never happen.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does, say, Paris Hilton provide? I am pretty sure that we could survive without it.
Again. Right now, we don't have enough jobs to go around. We don't need more stuff done. We need to distribute the stuff we have. What part of "high unemployment rate" isn't making sense to you?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tell me who is contributing more to society: A person that works, pays his taxes, and provides for his own family, or a person that "listens" to others, does not work, and collects money from the government.
The difference betweem the two is that the human race can survive without one of the groups.
But there are already two groups like the ones you describe. Disabled people don't work, collect money from the government, etc. And just as you observe, the human race could survive without them. Yet they haven't been exterminated, and their situation, hard as it may be in many ways, is not made worse by the fact that they receive government support.
So the question isn't, as you suggest, whether to have these two groups of people. The only question is, how many do we include in the group that receives support?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What does, say, Paris Hilton provide? I am pretty sure that we could survive without it.
Again. Right now, we don't have enough jobs to go around. We don't need more stuff done. We need to distribute the stuff we have. What part of "high unemployment rate" isn't making sense to you?
You went off of unemployment and onto a completely different topic, by trying to define someone's "value" to society. My argument is that just because you are a good listener doesn't entitle you to my money. Just because you are a loving uncle doesn't mean I should have to pay for your food, clothing, or house. If you are a good listener, there is a job for that. It's called a therapist. Then you can pay taxes just like the rest of us and contribute even more.
To answer Destineer, I have no problems caring for the sick or disabled. I have a problem with able bodied people not working or making excuses. Just because there is high unemployment does not mean there are not jobs available.
I do have a question for everyone though that is relevant:
When would you classify someone as being poor. Either by amenities, salary, etc?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To answer Destineer, I have no problems caring for the sick or disabled. I have a problem with able bodied people not working or making excuses.
Why do you have a problem with it? As I pointed out above, the reasons you already mentioned are no good. They also apply to disabled people.
quote:When would you classify someone as being poor. Either by amenities, salary, etc?
Depends a lot on where you live. I would say that in many regions of the country, a single person is poor enough to need assistance if they make less than about $15-20K.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
