What about the stupid?

[Cephus]

Who said we are only talking about the USA? Not me and I´m the OP.

There is enough wealth in India to feed the poor. Instead they have allowed a tremendous disparity of wealth to continue. (I believe change is starting to happen in that regard) The USA is moving towards a greater disparity of wealth also. The consequences are there to be seen just south of our border. They were also quite evident here in some regions of the USA until just a few decades ago. The fact is that the quality of life in any country is largely dependent on how the poor are treated.

Go take that up with the Indians then. I'm only talking about the U.S. and other first-world nations.

 

[Mr X]

why does it have to be with government assistance cant it be with the compassion of their fellow man. why do we have to be forced why cant we choose who and when we help
back in the day we would help our fellow man or neighbor or church member if they lost their job or got ill they didn't need government assistance it was the right thing to do.

Because charity donations aren't regular or guaranteed, and people (especially the disabled) need a regular source of income that they know will be there otherwise they will go from one week to the next never knowing if they will have enough to survive. It doesn't allow you to make any plans for the future.
Also the idea that charity donations would be able to cover everyone's needs is patently ridiculous and never worked pre-welfare either in the US or UK.

 

[Fenton]

Exploitation and
feudalism aren´t new either.

Lol.....feudalism.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Youv'e already devolved down to demagoguery so I suppose hyperbole isn't far behind.

It does nothing to bolster your argument or your point of view, and actually makes your point of view less legitimate, but it's intertaining none the less.

 

[Mr X]

No ones being exploited. Ridiculous.

You get paid what your worth until you increase your worth.

Its not a new concept.

Who decides what you're worth? Oh yes, the employer who wants to pay you as little as possible.

If you pay someone a dollar a day because you know they are so desperate they have to take whatever they are offered, of course that is exploitation.

 

[Tigger]

Because charity donations aren't regular or guaranteed, and people (especially the disabled) need a regular source of income that they know will be there otherwise they will go from one week to the next never knowing if they will have enough to survive. It doesn't allow you to make any plans for the future.
Also the idea that charity donations would be able to cover everyone's needs is patently ridiculous and never worked pre-welfare either in the US or UK.

Okay, then please show me the specific item in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows the Government to be involved in Social Welfare. Again, the specific listed item, not an item from the paragraph preceding the list.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This is a question primarily addressed to conservatives and libertarians:

The arguments opposing unionization, living wages, minimum wages, minimum wage increases and government benefits for the working poor are primarily based on the argument that the lowest wage working poor deserve to be paid poorly because they have not made an effort to increase their education and/or skills. What out people who do not have the mental capacity for higher level jobs? I am not referring to the mentally or developmentally disabled, but the people at the lower end of average intelligence.

What kind of life are those lower intelligence, relatively unskilled workers entitled to when they work full time?

Should they be able to afford their own apartment, quality food, a car, health care, to raise children?

If they deserve more than a minimum wage can provide, should they be required to move to a less expensive region?

Should they go to private charities for support rather than get government benefits such as food stamps?

Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it is immoral exploitation?

Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it should be illegal exploitation?

Would your answers be the same if the obstacle to obtaining more skills/education are not intelligence, but other circumstances such as having children to raise?

Would your answers be the same if the reason that the worker hasn't obtained more skills/education is that they have other life priorities (i.e. working on their acting career), or they just don't want to( fearful or lazy)?

If these different types of unskilled workers (the unintelligent, the life circumstance and the lazy/other priorities) should be treated differently, what mechanism/laws should be used to create these divisions and allow for different treatment of the three types?

In my experience I've actually seen the stupid are more likely to achieve happiness. With intelligence often comes ambition, which makes you never satisfied with what you have.

Minimum wage locks out anybody whose value is under that level, because no successful businessman will ever hire a worker for a loss. Simply put, there has never in human history been a higher standard of living for the poor than in cold, hard capitolism. We all want the same thing, but only some of us seem to be looking at history.

 

[Fenton]

Who decides what you're worth? Oh yes, the employer who wants to pay you as little as possible.

If you pay someone a dollar a day because you know they are so desperate they have to take whatever they are offered, of course that is exploitation.

Then please, show me the employer that's currently paying their employees a dollar an hour. You people go straight to your hyperbolic descriptions to back a ridiculous opinion in a vacuum.

You make no mention of the actions that put those people in the low paying jobs in the first place. It's the evil greedy corporations fault, or some cartoon characterization of a rich guy counting money in his office as the workers starve.

I mean I guess we're suppose to believe that life has just been unfair to these individuals, to the point that their only option is fast food....unreal.

Never mind the reason for the debate in the first place, that fast food jobs are among the few available under a Democrat administration 5 years in.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Who decides what you're worth? Oh yes, the employer who wants to pay you as little as possible.

If I want to buy your computer from you for fifty cents, does that make your computer worth fifty cents?

If you're so desperate as to accept that offer, it doesn't say anything about me (except that I'm a low-baller) and it doesn't say anything about the actual value of the computer. If it says anything, it's that you're so irrational that maybe you shouldn't be recognized by our laws as being competent to make your own adult decisions. Or maybe you're just being charitable to me. That's your prerogative.

The other thing is this is not about what people are worth. It's about what the value of the completion of a task or set of tasks is worth in the market. It's not that my neighbor Clay is worth x-amount as a person. It's that his ability to fix diesel engines and generators while hanging upside down on fishing fleets afloat in the ocean is a task that is worth a great deal (and he doesn't even have a college education). The same guy Clay could also decide to gather shopping carts for the local grocer, but that task is worth next to nothing because it's so easy.

There are certain things that make contracts valid, and none of those things necessarily include consensus from everyone in the greater society that it's a 100% fair deal. Thats between the buyer and seller. Unless you've shown a pattern of making such schizophrenic decisions that leave you vulnerable to abuse by others that a probate court wants to assign you a guardian to make decisions for you, your allegations against employers are moot.

 

[Misterveritis]

Good evening Misterveritis,

Good evening to you as well.

The Constitution does not mention a safety net.

Great. We agree. Argument over. It is not in the Constitution. All of the things we do to take wealth from the ones who create it to give to others are immoral takings. They make a slave of me.

But that does not mean the Founders did not believe in one.

Does that matter? Anything they did that is not in the Constitution is irrelevant.

Prior to the Constitution, the people in the 13 colonies had adopted the British Poor Laws as a way for local governments to address the needy. These were called poorhouses, work farms, poor farms etc. In these places if you were physically able, you had to work to earn your keep. Whether you worked the fields to grow the food you would consume or the care for livestock. Whatever you were capable of doing it was required of you. An elderly person may not be able to do hard labor but was often still capable of caring for children while their parents worked. Women would often have the domestic chores. But the key here is everyone was required to WORK at their fullest capacity. Charities would contribute but so did the local governments and this limited safety net was well established in their societies long before the Constitution. So even though the Constitution does not mention a "safety net" the people at that time practiced one on a local level of government. Even before the Constitution under the Continental Congress you can see the delegates agreeing to things like widow and orphaned children pensions of husbands/fathers that served in the Revolutionary War. And it is well documented these safety net provisions continued after the Constitution was ratified. Now the Founders through their writings you understand completely that they saw a great danger in overly generous welfare policy that would result in irresponsible behavior whether it be at a local, state or federal level. This country has gone from British Poor Laws to a Welfare State because the road map called the Constitution was not followed. You know I keep hearing a lot about the Federal government encroaching on States rights but the States themselves have not lived up to what was expected of them. States should be providing for their needy. It makes perfect sense for state and local governments know where the needs are within their own cities and communities. And it should be done not on federal money but what is collected from the citizenry within each state. Do you think people are going to put up with bullsh*t like making entitlements a way of life if they on a local/state level had to pay for it? Hell no! And hence the abuse of the system may not completely stop but close. We now have over 70 federal welfare programs that cost this country over a trillion a year and only one encourages greater self reliance (Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Have a good evening.

While that was interesting it is not relevant. We have one group of people who plunder another group of people. It is wrong and it must stop or be stopped.

You have a good evening too.

 

[Misterveritis]

Wow, I don't really know how to respond to that. I never brought up capitalism, size of government, or public aid. But, sure, I'll go with it.

To me, collectivism is just a higher order of individualism. It seeks to universalize the opportunities and material gains of a society. So, unlike individualism, which just lets the cards fall as they may, this kind of morality does to all what it does to some. But it doesn't have to be through a central apparatus. The comunas (Venezuela) and the Kibbutzes (Israel) are good examples of that.

I shall assume that you have sold all that you have and given it to your commune. If it is good for you then you pursue it on your own. Leave me out of your schemes.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Because in many cases there is too much antagonism and distrust between employers and unions due to the ease of union busting and a culture that respects entrepreneurs but not workers in the USA.

No, it's because unions in America want too much and don't care if they destroy companies getting it.

 

[Hard Truth]

Okay, then please show me the specific item in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows the Government to be involved in Social Welfare. Again, the specific listed item, not an item from the paragraph preceding the list.

I agree that charity alone is not enough to help the poor. I don´t speak for Mr. X, but this thread is not about the pros and cons of federalism and welfare but addressing the issue of wages.

 

[Hard Truth]

No, it's because unions in America want too much and don't care if they destroy companies getting it.

That´s what the corporate interests want you to believe.

 

[Hard Truth]

If I want to buy your computer from you for fifty cents, does that make your computer worth fifty cents?

If you're so desperate as to accept that offer, it doesn't say anything about me (except that I'm a low-baller) and it doesn't say anything about the actual value of the computer. If it says anything, it's that you're so irrational that maybe you shouldn't be recognized by our laws as being competent to make your own adult decisions.

Often corporate business interests do the equivalent of surrounding your village with an armed force, cutting off your electricity and keeping you from leaving. After enough time of no electricty or batteries, you will sell your computer for less than 50 cents. When its the people who cut off your electricty buying it, that´s exploitation.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I agree that charity alone is not enough to help the poor.

False. Please reword. Private charity always helps the poor significantly more than if it didn't exist. Maybe you mean charity alone is not enough to... do... Something else?

What is it specifically that charity necessarily fails to do?

 

[vesper]

Good evening to you as well.

Great. We agree. Argument over. It is not in the Constitution. All of the things we do to take wealth from the ones who create it to give to others are immoral takings. They make a slave of me.


Does that matter? Anything they did that is not in the Constitution is irrelevant.


While that was interesting it is not relevant. We have one group of people who plunder another group of people. It is wrong and it must stop or be stopped.

You have a good evening too.

If you recall this whole discussion began because I stated the Founders believed in a safety net. Whether you find that significant or not, I proved they did from Poor Laws to pensions to widows and orphans during the Revolutionary War. So as far as the discussion goes, it is relevant.

 

[Tigger]

I agree that charity alone is not enough to help the poor. I don´t speak for Mr. X, but this thread is not about the pros and cons of federalism and welfare but addressing the issue of wages.

There is nothing in that area of the Constitution (or anywhere else in the document) about wages; therefore THAT is not a legitimate area of concern for the Federal Government either.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

That´s what the corporate interests want you to believe.

So when the corps go over seas because unions have made wages here way out of line don't cry about jobs going away.

 

[Hard Truth]

False. Please reword. Private charity always helps the poor significantly more than if it didn't exist. Maybe you mean charity alone is not enough to... do... Something else?

What is it specifically that charity necessarily fails to do?

Provide ongoing assistance for all who need it long enough for people to get back on their feet. That usually requires government assistance.

 

[Hard Truth]

So when the corps go over seas because unions have made wages here way out of line don't cry about jobs going away.

I don´t want to see our wages go down to Indian or Chinese levels. That is why we need a trade policy that encourages decent pay and human rights for workers.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Provide ongoing assistance for all who need it long enough for people to get back on their feet. That usually requires government assistance.

So you admit it is inaccurate to characterize charity as a failure just because it does not provide everything to everyone who you think needs it?

The problem you refuse to acknowledge is that, over time, people invariably come to rely on the assistance not as a way to "get back on their feet" but as a way to comfortably stay off their feet.

 

[Hard Truth]

So you admit it is inaccurate to characterize charity as a failure just because it does not provide everything to everyone who you think needs it?

The problem you refuse to acknowledge is that, over time, people invariably come to rely on the assistance not as a way to "get back on their feet" but as a way to comfortably stay off their feet.

I never said that charity was a failure. I said ¨I agree that charity alone is not enough to help the poor.¨ Note the inclusion of the word alone. Dependence on welfare is an issue that needs to be addressed. That is why I support welfare to work initiatives when they are fair and effective and not just a form of slavery or a punishment for being poor. Most people who use welfare do not stay on it for life, they use it for just a few months.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I don´t want to see our wages go down to Indian or Chinese levels. That is why we need a trade policy that encourages decent pay and human rights for workers.

I never was for free trade when it didn't make other countries live up to our environmental standards and at least impose some fair wage restrictions on them but the reality is we are competing with the rest of the world now and they work cheap so our wages have to at least moderate or we will have no production whatsoever.

 

[Misterveritis]

If you recall this whole discussion began because I stated the Founders believed in a safety net. Whether you find that significant or not, I proved they did from Poor Laws to pensions to widows and orphans during the Revolutionary War. So as far as the discussion goes, it is relevant.

Whatever they believed individually is irrelevant. The federal government has no business taking money from me through the threat of use of force to give it to you.

If you want to start a charity just make sure the name you choose does not include "patriot' or Tea" or "911"... Try something like "Forward", or "Progress"..

 

[Neomalthusian]

I never said that charity was a failure. I said ¨I agree that charity alone is not enough to help the poor. Note the inclusion of the word alone.

That doesn't qualify your statements. Charity alone DOES help the poor (assuming it's not a scam of a charity). It just doesn't help the poor to a degree that lives up to your lofty standards. That's why I advised you to reword what you said.

Dependence on welfare is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I wouldn't say it that way. I'd say dependence is inherent to welfare, and that needs to be acknowledged.

That is why I support welfare to work initiatives when they are fair and effective and not just a form of slavery

That might win you points with some people, but not me. Welfare-to-work is de facto bottom-rung government employment. They pay you to do menial labor for them for a nominal fee. Whatever the intent behind that really is, doesn't really make a difference. Welfare to work is simply government temp work.

Most people who use welfare do not stay on it for life, they use it for just a few months.

You should cite evidence for this claim, but I will just assume it's true so that the conversation can proceed. The duration of time people are on welfare is a minor point. The fact is all welfare is a social bailout, meaning it softens the pain of stupidity (and please suspend your outrage about my use of the word stupidity, as it's used in the thread title).

For example, if your statement is true that people typically are doing okay, then temporarily not doing okay and thus use welfare, and then are doing okay again, how does that temporary assistance affect the society's belief over time about the government's role in their lives? The answer is that they learn to expect that government will cushion them whenever they hit a rough patch, hence it reduces the incentive to plan and save. This belief that we deserve to be rescued is fostered by government "help" over time. Why else would we have such foaming-at-the-mouth dissatisfaction about our situations despite there being larger nominal outlays for welfare currently than there ever were before in all of history? Because society is learning to become dependent on government.

Two questions right back atcha:
1) Should people naturally be motivated to live below their means, financially plan, and save?
2) Would people be more motivated to do this, or less so, if they knew nothing would be there to bail them out should they fail to do this?