From steel to Trump. What Happened? (Pittsburgh, York: credit, loan, houses)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by RonSantoRules

We should just give everyone bootstraps and call it a day. That way everyone could pull themselves up if they try hard enough, so long as they wholesale disregard the pervasive structural inequalities inherent in our society that continually conspire against them.

Or do what makes the most sense and have those who are able-bodied contribute to society rather than having those that do have to pay and do more.

[slavicamerican]

In my view, work is generally a blessing, not a punishment. Obviously, I'm talking about able-bodied adults and not seniors, kids or the disabled.

Most people feel better about themselves when they work and receive praise and fair compensation. Not working screws people up. If I were czar (which I hope to be), every able bodied person would work in some way, even if it means sweeping sidewalks. Of course, there would be subsidized childcare and meals for kids so having kids wouldn't be a barrier to working.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by slavicamerican

In my view, work is generally a blessing, not a punishment. Obviously, I'm talking about able-bodied adults and not seniors, kids or the disabled.

Most people feel better about themselves when they work and receive praise and fair compensation. Not working screws people up. If I were czar (which I hope to be), every able bodied person would work in some way, even if it means sweeping sidewalks. Of course, there would be subsidized childcare and meals for kids so having kids wouldn't be a barrier to working.

That's just rational thinking. Unfortunately there are those that think everyone owes them...and that thinking is a big reason things are the way they are. It's easier to throw cards and expect others to coddle them than to take responsibility for themselves.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Nope. I'm suggesting that able bodied citizens able to work should work and those that are unable should not.

There's no debating there are those collecting a free ride.

Everyone can't work.

First, there's the macroeconomic element. The Federal Reserve generally tries to maintain a "natural unemployment" level of around 4%. If unemployment drops below this, the labor market gets too tight, and inflation starts to rise. hence an economy functioning properly according to market principles will always have jobless people.

Let's crunch numbers for a second though. According to the BLS, there are currently 93,671,000 people of working age (over 16) not in the labor force, out of whom 87,589,000 have no interest in getting a job. The majority of these are either in the 16-24 bracket (thus likely disproportionately in school) or over age 55 (thus likely retired). But there are still 21,344,000 people of prime working age who don't want a job. Looking at men alone with this age bracket, there is around 7,087,000. Where do you think seven million jobs will come from?

Jobs are created if there is demand to fill them. There can be no demand without spending. One could presume that if you cut off public benefits and returned that money to taxpayers, that would provide enough benefit to grow the economy. This probably is not true though. Money which is transferred to poor people is the most stimulative, because poor people generally don't save at all, so 100% of their income goes to material needs. Hence if you took money away from the poor, and gave it to the middle class and wealthy, the result would likely be a slight decrease in the number of jobs.

As I've said in the past, there's also the issue that a lot of the reasons these people aren't in the workforce are effectively disabilities. If you have a drug or alcohol problem, are as dumb as a post, are horrible at planning ahead, have trouble controlling your impulses, or are monumentally lazy, chances are you will be a horrible employee and get frequently fired. You may be able to deal with the issue of addiction, but the other elements are pretty much hard-wired as part of your personality by adulthood if not before, meaning some people are just foreordained to be terrible workers, no matter how many times they screw up.

It seems that you are approaching this situation from a standpoint of morality however, rather than social policy. That's fine I suppose. Just understand that there really aren't jobs for most of the people you are talking about. The "solution" slashing the social safety net would bring about is for the chronically unemployed to die early deaths due to lack of food, sanitation, and medical care, thus not reproducing and having more poor children. If you're okay with this morally, go right ahead. But that's where the policies you are espousing lead. That and revolution.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Everyone can't work.

First, there's the macroeconomic element. The Federal Reserve generally tries to maintain a "natural unemployment" level of around 4%. If unemployment drops below this, the labor market gets too tight, and inflation starts to rise. hence an economy functioning properly according to market principles will always have jobless people.

Let's crunch numbers for a second though. According to the BLS, there are currently 93,671,000 people of working age (over 16) not in the labor force, out of whom 87,589,000 have no interest in getting a job. The majority of these are either in the 16-24 bracket (thus likely disproportionately in school) or over age 55 (thus likely retired). But there are still 21,344,000 people of prime working age who don't want a job. Looking at men alone with this age bracket, there is around 7,087,000. Where do you think seven million jobs will come from?

Jobs are created if there is demand to fill them. There can be no demand without spending. One could presume that if you cut off public benefits and returned that money to taxpayers, that would provide enough benefit to grow the economy. This probably is not true though. Money which is transferred to poor people is the most stimulative, because poor people generally don't save at all, so 100% of their income goes to material needs. Hence if you took money away from the poor, and gave it to the middle class and wealthy, the result would likely be a slight decrease in the number of jobs.

As I've said in the past, there's also the issue that a lot of the reasons these people aren't in the workforce are effectively disabilities. If you have a drug or alcohol problem, are as dumb as a post, are horrible at planning ahead, have trouble controlling your impulses, or are monumentally lazy, chances are you will be a horrible employee and get frequently fired. You may be able to deal with the issue of addiction, but the other elements are pretty much hard-wired as part of your personality by adulthood if not before, meaning some people are just foreordained to be terrible workers, no matter how many times they screw up.

It seems that you are approaching this situation from a standpoint of morality however, rather than social policy. That's fine I suppose. Just understand that there really aren't jobs for most of the people you are talking about. The "solution" slashing the social safety net would bring about is for the chronically unemployed to die early deaths due to lack of food, sanitation, and medical care, thus not reproducing and having more poor children. If you're okay with this morally, go right ahead. But that's where the policies you are espousing lead. That and revolution.

Again, able-bodied people that can work should be working and contributing, not getting a free ride and being defended for doing so.

If you choose to see it differently that's you're prerogative and if you feel it's okay, feel free to contribute or contribute more to them.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Again, able-bodied people that can work should be working and contributing, not getting a free ride.

If you choose to see it differently that's you're perogitive and if you feel it's okay, feel free to contribute more.

Again, you're making a blanket moral statement of principle. The problem with statements of principle is sometimes reality conflicts with them. This is one such case. Ever since we moved out of traditional village-based systems to larger cities and towns, there have always been paupers and beggars - many of whom technically would be capable of working. No matter how much moral indignation society put on their status, it didn't help. There's actually some blackly amusing newspaper articles from the late 1800s, before economic cycles were understood, talking about "epics of hobodom sweeping the nation." It was treated as a social issue, and it was thought if being homeless was criminalized people would "go back to work." It didn't work, because the economy was in recession or depression - there was no work to go back to.

The "stick" approach doesn't solve, or even reduce, poverty. It would reduce your tax returns though I suppose, which is why you are for it.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Again, you're making a blanket moral statement of principle. The problem with statements of principle is sometimes reality conflicts with them. This is one such case. Ever since we moved out of traditional village-based systems to larger cities and towns, there have always been paupers and beggars - many of whom technically would be capable of working. No matter how much moral indignation society put on their status, it didn't help. There's actually some blackly amusing newspaper articles from the late 1800s, before economic cycles were understood, talking about "epics of hobodom sweeping the nation." It was treated as a social issue, and it was thought if being homeless was criminalized people would "go back to work." It didn't work, because the economy was in recession or depression - there was no work to go back to.

The "stick" approach doesn't solve, or even reduce, poverty. It would reduce your tax returns though I suppose, which is why you are for it.

Tax returns? I love assumptions. Haven't seen one of those in decades. The real issue lies with those who do ride the free train, their returns will be less.

You can defend those and their free ride all you like. While it's a disgrace to society and those of us that have to pay the way of those that can work to pay themselves, it's unfortunately the way it is for now. Hopefully that changes in the near future, however.

[UKyank]

Technically it is a bit hard to argue on one hand that there are not enough jobs to go around while also arguing that illegal immigrantion is necessary to 'do the jobs Americans won't' - this is only the case because
A. The government has chosen to turn a blind eye & support a system of employers paying people lower then legal wages
Combined with
B. A social safety net that pays more to not work said jobs then to take them.

[theta_sigma]

Every time a state has cracked down on illegal immigration to the point of really making it impossible for them to work, farmers have wound up freaking the heck out because suddenly they have no labor. They try to get other people to do it, and no one will. The job is back-breaking and incredibly miserable, and dangerous. In order to pay enough to get people with other options to endure it, the price of all your produce would skyrocket. (Also normally it's paid piece-work style, so folks who didn't grow up doing it have a steep learning curve and barely make anything at first.)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by theta_sigma

Every time a state has cracked down on illegal immigration to the point of really making it impossible for them to work, farmers have wound up freaking the heck out because suddenly they have no labor. They try to get other people to do it, and no one will. The job is back-breaking and incredibly miserable, and dangerous. In order to pay enough to get people with other options to endure it, the price of all your produce would skyrocket. (Also normally it's paid piece-work style, so folks who didn't grow up doing it have a steep learning curve and barely make anything at first.)

Tough to get people to work if the government will have taxpayers support them.