2012-05-14, 04:31 PM
Eos Wrote:I can tell you the longer someone remains on wellfare, the more likely it is by choice, not cruel circumstance. It was meant to be a net to catch someone until they can pick themselves back up and move on, not a lifestyle.
The problem is, the longer you're on welfare, the harder the circumstances get. It may be hard to get employment with 5%+ unemployment rates, but it's even harder to get it if your job history ends several years ago. Companies go with the proven option, which is people who have recent prior employment.
There are obviously work placement programs that combat this - but, if they prefer people from unfortunate circumstances, ie. ghettos, ie predominantly black, it gets called affirmative action. So how do you win?
It's a fallacy that someone who's unemployed is not contributing to society. It's a necessary part of the system that not everyone be employed. This can't change unless the system changes.
I find it quite ridiculous that on the one hand we're finding ways to eliminate menial jobs, and on the other hand abusing people for not being able to find those very jobs that were just eliminated. You invent a machine that can dig a foundation for a few bucks of gasoline, then complain that 10 workers with shovels are asking for handouts. The machine isn't the problem - the workers aren't the problem - the false idea that those workers should have jobs is the problem. The food to feed them doesn't stop existing because they're laid off. The housing to shelter them doesn't stop existing because they're laid off. The only actual difference is that they are no longer working, and thus no longer worthy to take their share of the resources.
America's wealthy enough to support every citizen - to educate them, keep them healthy, and well fed - that this doesn't happen is not because people are 'lazy', or are abusing the welfare system. It's because the people who already have a lot want a little more, and they don't care who loses. They don't think about who goes hungry to pay for their third home, or their private yacht, because the American dream means that it's these peoples' own fault that they're increasingly not necessary to run the country.
I imagine many of you have seen this cartoon before, but given the direction of this argument I feel like it bears repeating.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating the successes of the people who do drag their way out of poverty - but by definition not everybody can become the upper 50%. To make more people 'successful', the bar needs to be lowered - provide enough that 70% of the population is living comfortably, then 80%, 90%, and 100%. Don't say they should all pull themselves up into the upper 50%. That's ridiculous. The system of wealth distribution needs to change so there is no starvation circumstance, or people will starve.