|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/22/2012 8:23:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk
You were the one going on about 'typical lefty drivel' and welfare. I just wanted you to be aware of the socialist work ethic because there is one. That's why we were all marching last Saturday in London.
Your claim was that they continued to work so they could be hired in terms favorable to the employers. While it's admirable that they would do that, that is not a healthy thing. In it's initial beginnings, the American Labor Movement righted a lot of wrongs. They worked to improve working conditions and improved employee protections. But, different times; different circumstances.
quote:
quote:
quote:
From what I have seen in my life in different places Conservatives far outstrip any left-wingers when it comes to creating unemployment, poverty and forcing people to live off welfare.
By removing the incentive to work, right?
No, by removing the opportunity to work.
Interestingly enough, there is no way to remove the opportunity for any capable person to work, if he or she wants to work. One of the things that does remove the opportunity to work for those less skilled (which mostly includes those that are just getting their first jobs) is minimum wage laws. And, that certainly isn't a conservative/free market action.
quote:
quote:
Isn't one of the US Labor Movement's successes that those who are ill and disabled aren't forced to work? And, one of the arguments over here is that employers have the responsibility to hire and almost "give" jobs (which I contend is a perversion by the modern day Labor Movement). Forcing employees to suffer the whims of employers is anathema to most lefties.
This was how it was set up here with the Labour governments, but it was always intended to be a short term solution - temporary - until people recovered from their incapacity to work or found other employment.
And, that is precisely how, I believe, a safety net is supposed to work.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The welfare state is a necessity if you have a free market and competition because you will have both people making money and people who are destitute.
This is as true today as it was around the time of Dickens. People should not be without opportunities to work, but wherever there is a free market you will always have unemployment.
I do not have an issue with a social safety net. None. However, many do not rely on the social safety net as a safety net. Rather, many rely on it as a way of life. It is planned on and taken advantage of. It's not simply those who can not work, or have fallen on hard times. It also contains those who have decided that it's acceptable to rely on the benevolence of Big Gov, and then complain when they don't get as much as they want.
Do you have any actual evidence of many people abusing the system of is this your assumptions supported by anecdotal evidence?
I am aware that a minority of people abuse the system but the vast majority really don't have much choice, either through their physical conditions or through their circumstances. The vast majority of people here on welfare struggle and many would if they had the opportunity do something to change their circumstances.
I believe you are mistaking my use of the word "many" as implying that the majority of welfare recipients abuse the system. That is not accurate. Many means more than a few, or more than several. I completely agree that the vast majority of recipients are among the "truly needy."
quote:
You see our current Government makes that same assumption that people on welfare benefits don't really need them, which is why they are systematically stripping the sick and disabled of their benefits and forcing them to work. People found to be 'fit for work' include people suffering from cancer, COPD, kidney disease, mental illness, heart disease and so on. There have been over a thousand deaths as a result of these decisions, which means on average 32 deaths a week. This does not include the number of people who have committed suicide.
This is where I have a major issue when it comes to welfare. Giving someone a pittance to live on and expecting them to independently change their own circumstances isn't enough. There has to be more opportunity, and more help for people to make use of existing opportunities.
I've worked with the homeless a lot, and it doesn't matter in a day centre, a night shelter or a hostel, every homeless person gets a case worker, someone there to provide support. Why can't this be the case for people on welfare? Why can't there be incentives for both employers and the people on welfare themselves to come off welfare?
Welfare should never be a scrapheap for the less desirable in the employment market and aren't these victim blaming strategies for social issues getting outdated?
Who is blaming the victims for the issue? I'm blaming those that abuse the system (which are not the victims).
|
|
|
|
