IGX

odin wrote:Welfare is generally portrayed as an essential lifeline by those who use it, and sneered at by those that perceive themselves to be middle class or are conservative. It appears to them to be money for nothing, and allegedly encourages a work shy attitude.

-Improving technology and increased efficiency necessarily means decreasing need for actual human employment. Add to this increasing population & society has a real problem of what to do with the jobless.

odin wrote:Freemarket economics has seen a rise in inequality between rich & poor. We can debate this all we like but it's fairly conclusive. If we don't take care of the have nots in some way or other then history suggests revolutions will be afoot. No-one would really want this in their own back yard.

Turdacious wrote:

odin wrote:Freemarket economics has seen a rise in inequality between rich & poor. We can debate this all we like but it's fairly conclusive. If we don't take care of the have nots in some way or other then history suggests revolutions will be afoot. No-one would really want this in their own back yard.

It really all depends on how you define inequality.

At least in the US, once you get past the histrionics of the right and left-- there's pretty broad agreement that the current welfare system is structured to keep people poor and needs to be changed.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

odin wrote:Freemarket economics has seen a rise in inequality between rich & poor. We can debate this all we like but it's fairly conclusive. If we don't take care of the have nots in some way or other then history suggests revolutions will be afoot. No-one would really want this in their own back yard.

It really all depends on how you define inequality.

Income or wealth. Either way, inequality is increasing, while economic mobility (ability of individuals to rise or fall from the state they are born into) has gone down. Serious problem.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

At least in the US, once you get past the histrionics of the right and left-- there's pretty broad agreement that the current welfare system is structured to keep people poor and needs to be changed.

If there's evidence of this, it would be interesting to see. Other societies with bigger welfare states have less inequality and better economic mobility than the US.

odin wrote:It's the 70th anniversary of the creation of the welfare state here in the UK. It's a divisive topic, and one I'm not entirely sure of my stance on. So lets thrash the definitive solution out right here, and then after the great fall we can set up an IGX state and run things properly.

My thoughts and musings at present:

The basic issue is how should those who don't or can't work be looked after. As such, it extends to the basic question of what kind of society we want to live in, and what function society, the government and the rest of the state should serve.

There are two polar extremes to consider; one is a socialist ideal whereby the state protects and serves the people, and all work is done for the common good - probably through a system of very high taxation. This is balanced by an abundance of public services, but at a cost to individual consumer choice. The other would be an anarchist one (or maybe ultra-conservative?); the state is pretty much non-existant, and it is up to the individual to look after themselves. Services would be private and paid for on use. Unemployed folks are basically fucked unless they've sorted out their own insurance.

Welfare is generally portrayed as an essential lifeline by those who use it, and sneered at by those that perceive themselves to be middle class or are conservative. It appears to them to be money for nothing, and allegedly encourages a work shy attitude. The media is patricularly good at whipping up a frenzy around benefit scroungers, which is occasionally justified.

Beveredge (sp?) originally wanted an insurance policy style approach; you paid in while you were working, and if you fell on hard times through the whims of the market or ill-health, then the pot you had paid into helped you out and kept you alive. In the UK, paying into the pot in the first place is no longer a pre-requisite. Some European countries, (inc France & Germany) have the same system, and indeed extend this to indiscriminatory benefits to pensioners.


Some issues I can foresee;

-Improving technology and increased efficiency necessarily means decreasing need for actual human employment. Add to this increasing population & society has a real problem of what to do with the jobless. Welfare claimants who seem to live as well as I do may well get on my nerves, but I'd rather that than they were robbing my house when I was out at work.

-Conversely a life on benefits should not be a default position for anyone. That is common sense; you can't simply take from society without giving anything back.

-Freemarket economics has seen a rise in inequality between rich & poor. We can debate this all we like but it's fairly conclusive. If we don't take care of the have nots in some way or other then history suggests revolutions will be afoot. No-one would really want this in their own back yard.

-berating people to 'get a job' is only well and good if there are jobs around.


I consider myself to be a hard centre man. My solution would include generous welfare payments coupled with armed Columbian-style death squads patrolling the council estates and clearing out the dross. I haven't really go beyond that though.


Hit me with some knowledges and opinions.

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

odin wrote:Freemarket economics has seen a rise in inequality between rich & poor. We can debate this all we like but it's fairly conclusive. If we don't take care of the have nots in some way or other then history suggests revolutions will be afoot. No-one would really want this in their own back yard.

It really all depends on how you define inequality.

Income or wealth. Either way, inequality is increasing, while economic mobility (ability of individuals to rise or fall from the state they are born into) has gone down. Serious problem.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ly/262371/

Freki wrote:

odin wrote:It's the 70th anniversary of the creation of the welfare state here in the UK. It's a divisive topic, and one I'm not entirely sure of my stance on. So lets thrash the definitive solution out right here, and then after the great fall we can set up an IGX state and run things properly.

My thoughts and musings at present:

The basic issue is how should those who don't or can't work be looked after. As such, it extends to the basic question of what kind of society we want to live in, and what function society, the government and the rest of the state should serve.

There are two polar extremes to consider; one is a socialist ideal whereby the state protects and serves the people, and all work is done for the common good - probably through a system of very high taxation. This is balanced by an abundance of public services, but at a cost to individual consumer choice. The other would be an anarchist one (or maybe ultra-conservative?); the state is pretty much non-existant, and it is up to the individual to look after themselves. Services would be private and paid for on use. Unemployed folks are basically fucked unless they've sorted out their own insurance.

Welfare is generally portrayed as an essential lifeline by those who use it, and sneered at by those that perceive themselves to be middle class or are conservative. It appears to them to be money for nothing, and allegedly encourages a work shy attitude. The media is patricularly good at whipping up a frenzy around benefit scroungers, which is occasionally justified.

Beveredge (sp?) originally wanted an insurance policy style approach; you paid in while you were working, and if you fell on hard times through the whims of the market or ill-health, then the pot you had paid into helped you out and kept you alive. In the UK, paying into the pot in the first place is no longer a pre-requisite. Some European countries, (inc France & Germany) have the same system, and indeed extend this to indiscriminatory benefits to pensioners.


Some issues I can foresee;

-Improving technology and increased efficiency necessarily means decreasing need for actual human employment. Add to this increasing population & society has a real problem of what to do with the jobless. Welfare claimants who seem to live as well as I do may well get on my nerves, but I'd rather that than they were robbing my house when I was out at work.

-Conversely a life on benefits should not be a default position for anyone. That is common sense; you can't simply take from society without giving anything back.

-Freemarket economics has seen a rise in inequality between rich & poor. We can debate this all we like but it's fairly conclusive. If we don't take care of the have nots in some way or other then history suggests revolutions will be afoot. No-one would really want this in their own back yard.

-berating people to 'get a job' is only well and good if there are jobs around.


I consider myself to be a hard centre man. My solution would include generous welfare payments coupled with armed Columbian-style death squads patrolling the council estates and clearing out the dross. I haven't really go beyond that though.


Hit me with some knowledges and opinions.

Do you know of any data on the upward mobility (or down) amongst our friends across the pond? Like the Brits, Germans, French, Scandinavians.

Pinky wrote:There are some very smart researchers who worry that this might drive another spike in returns to education, which would result in more income inequality.

Pinky wrote:IMO, both this and any problems we have with economic mobility in the US are the fault of our educational system.

Pinky wrote:...with inequality in consumption being an under-appreciated measure.

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:There are some very smart researchers who worry that this might drive another spike in returns to education, which would result in more income inequality.

Increase in returns to education, or relative to returns by those with less education?

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:There are some very smart researchers who worry that this might drive another spike in returns to education, which would result in more income inequality.

Increase in returns to education, or relative to returns by those with less education?

Pinky wrote:IMO, both this and any problems we have with economic mobility in the US are the fault of our educational system.

This.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:See, I bet everyone thinks that I'm going to go off on a rant about the niggers, but I'm not...

odin wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:There are some very smart researchers who worry that this might drive another spike in returns to education, which would result in more income inequality.

Increase in returns to education, or relative to returns by those with less education?

Pinky wrote:IMO, both this and any problems we have with economic mobility in the US are the fault of our educational system.

This.

Yep, that's a major issue over here. Inequality in standards of education from school to school is huge, and there is a vast difference between public & private schools. Most comps don't teach enough critical thinking, public speaking or any kind of 'bigger-picture' skills that you need to lead people or see a way of getting on in life. In fairness this is not the fault of teachers, who are hamstrung by narrow curriculums and excessive class sizes. This is a generalisation, but a fair one.

Extortionate University fees are going to further exacerbate this division too, although the previous situation was equally undesirable.

Fat Cat wrote:Social welfare programs for persons over 18 are mind control and should be eliminated. Also on the chopping block, all forms of corporate welfare and most other laws.

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

Emperor Haile Selassie I wrote:For there is only one means to solve the poverty problem: work.

johno wrote:

Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

One, eliminate the minimum wage.
Two, institute a negative income tax that supplements wages up to what is livable & fair.
Three, able-bodied adults who refuse to work -> Soylent Green.

Single parents of pre-school kids are excepted.

Ed Zachary wrote:What's your reasoning for the elemination of the minimum wage?

baffled wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:What's your reasoning for the elemination of the minimum wage?

I don't know Johno's, but a common argument (as I understand it, which I may not) is that many people lack the education and skills to justify being paid a minimum wage. In California, it's $8/hour.

Milton Friedman used to call the minimum wage "the most anti-negro law there is."

Maybe Johno will explain his take in a bit.

Ed Zachary wrote:

baffled wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:What's your reasoning for the elemination of the minimum wage?

I don't know Johno's, but a common argument (as I understand it, which I may not) is that many people lack the education and skills to justify being paid a minimum wage. In California, it's $8/hour.

Milton Friedman used to call the minimum wage "the most anti-negro law there is."

Maybe Johno will explain his take in a bit.

I can dig that.

I'd like to see more push to learn math, science, and trades.

I stress every time I talk to my kids that they need to get a "good" degree or learn a trade. Too many people with fucking "business" degrees that know fuck all about business or pretty much anything.