Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exempt people who cannot work............for the ones that can work, especially ones with the capabilities of making babies, my suggestion is to make welfare a 5 year affair, no but no ifs no nothing........look at it as savings for the rainy days
Well, if that's what you think, and if that's what you enjoy, I guess that is the way it has to be. Tens of millions of people grudgingly endure massive traffic jams every morning, at the cost of billions of barrels of imported oil, filling the air with toxic pollutants, to suit your whim.
BTW... if I didn't have to work at all, I'd be driving around in my car all day. So for 99% of the people that don't have to work, would you take away their cars and SUV's? And the summer weekend and holiday traffic in my area is as bad, if not worse that regular weekday rush hour traffic.
BTW... if I didn't have to work at all, I'd be driving around in my car all day. So for 99% of the people that don't have to work, would you take away their cars and SUV's? And the summer weekend and holiday traffic in my area is as bad, if not worse that regular weekday rush hour traffic. rolleyes:
People who don't work would not be paid 50K a year. They would receive enough for a simple life of dignity. Probably would not be able to afford a tank of gas every few days. A simple house or apartment, enough to eat a healthy diet, an expectation they would cook at home, choices about how to spend a little extra to fulfill themselves, which might include a fairly reliable old car, land line phone, TV, their choice within a limited budget. All those seniors living on 12K SS can show them how to do it. It would mean the workers who are making 50K (the median in this country) might have to cut back to 48K, and figure out how to make do on that. Maybe have to give up a shopping trip a year to Saks, or trade in their Escalade every three years instead of two, or downscale to a 4-star hotel when they go to the Caribbean.
People who don't work would not be paid 50K a year. They would receive enough for a simple life of dignity. Probably would not be able to afford a tank of gas every few days. A simple house or apartment, enough to eat a healthy diet, an expectation they would cook at home, choices about how to spend a little extra to fulfill themselves, which might include a fairly reliable old car, land line phone, TV, their choice within a limited budget. All those seniors living on 12K SS can show them how to do it. It would mean the workers who are making 50K (the median in this country) might have to cut back to 48K, and figure out how to make do on that. Maybe have to give up a shopping trip a year to Saks, or trade in their Escalade every three years instead of two, or downscale to a 4-star hotel when they go to the Caribbean.
That experiment was tried by non other than the Soviet Union. Eventually it failed.
It is interesting that the countries that have tried capitalist economy have fared much better. Standards of living are higher, life span is longer, and luxuries are more in those countries.
In the end look at the results. Sure capitalism has its flaws but when you compare what you suggest and the alternative, the alternative has proven to work much better.
Actually, many people in other countries wish to have the life the poor have in capitalist countries.
What you suggest is forcing people to give money they earned to others that did not earn it.
Your comment reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day:
Work harder, those on welfare depend on you.
Nobody answered my question yesterday, so I'll try it out on you.
Why do people still think that everybody needs to work, in order to keep American from running down?
One man with a bulldozer can do the work of a hundred by hand. Why do the other 99 have to keep going to work? To do what?
That one man with the bulldozer does not owe the other 99 a living. It is an individual's responsibility to provide for himself and his family. I owe nothing to strangers.
That experiment was tried by non other than the Soviet Union. Eventually it failed.
Our experiment was tried in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Haiti---glowing successes.
The USSR did not fail because of bad economics. The USSR failed because the US forced them to spend all their resources defending themselves against our constant threats of nuclear destruction. After the war, they started out in smoking ruins, while we were untouched. We forced them to match our military spending, which they could ill afford to do. Yet, starting with nothing, they won the space race, they had every Russian living in decent housing with adequate health care, and higher educational standards than ours with every child in school.
Originally Posted by jtur88 Nobody answered my question yesterday, so I'll try it out on you.
Why do people still think that everybody needs to work, in order to keep American from running down?
One man with a bulldozer can do the work of a hundred by hand. Why do the other 99 have to keep going to work? To do what?
The question you bring up does not necessarily apply to all situations or at least give the same answer to all situations.
If I run a business I may buy a piece of machinery to do the job of 99 and have the 99 just standing there watching the guy doing what they used to do.
I could transfer them to do other jobs where I need help but not to stand there doing nothing. They need to be productive not sit there for me and the guy running the bulldozer.
The point is that people is responsible to earn a living. That means to find work to do so, not you and I work to support them. I support my family, not some stranger sitting down waiting for his meal at my expense.
In the overall societal picture, innovations may require less people to do a job. That is the time when people move around and find other types of jobs. What is wrong with that?
Because technology changes productivity techinques does not mean those displaced cannot do anything. There are other doors from other businesses or types of work for them to wait. They don't just say "well, it is time for me to sit down and let those that still can work feed me".
Businesses do that all the time also. If some product is not on demand anymore for whatever reason, many simply shift to produce other commodities. They do not just sit down.
The point is that people is responsible to earn a living.
A century ago, the work force needed to produce all that people needed was one adult in each family. It now requires two adults in each family to produce all that is needed plus all that is wanted. Supposedly, industrialization made it possible for all that it needed to be produced by even fewer people, such as our 'dozer driver.
Are you willing to grant that our benevolent and generous society, quite effortlessly now, can produce all that everyone needs, and just give it away, for it is such a small part of the overall GDP? And then, let those who want (rather than need) all the extras are free to work as hard as they like for them.
The line I quoted above is not a self-evident truth, so you are going to have to back it up with something. You can't just call it a self evident truth, and then build a thesis on it.
It is closer to the truth, in my opinion, that a society is responsible to earn a living. Some lucky people live in a place where fruit falls from the trees and fish jump onto the shore, and the only shelter they need is shade from the warm sun, and the Christians haven't arrived yet to make them wear clothing. The only responsibility that falls on those people is to treat each other kindly and grant other their dignity, and make sure nobody hogs all the fruit.
Absent such good luck, the members of the society have the collective responsibility to do the work that is necessary to sustain the society, and try to make it a more comfortable one for all the members of the society. Some will work more productively than others, and generally, some kind of system of rewards is set up for those who contribute more. But that does not justify drawing a theoretical productivity line, and refusing the basic necessities to everyone who is on the wrong side of that line.
If you penalize a million unproductive people because there are a few hundred goldbricks among them, you are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That denies a million people a share of the bounty, merely to punish a few hundred who may well deserve to be.
A century ago, the work force needed to produce all that people needed was one adult in each family. It now requires two adults in each family to produce all that is needed plus all that is wanted. Supposedly, industrialization made it possible for all that it needed to be produced by even fewer people, such as our 'dozer driver.
Are you willing to grant that our benevolent and generous society, quite effortlessly now, can produce all that everyone needs, and just give it away, for it is such a small part of the overall GDP? And then, let those who want (rather than need) all the extras are free to work as hard as they like for them.
The line I quoted above is not a self-evident truth, so you are going to have to back it up with something. You can't just call it a self evident truth, and then build a thesis on it.
It is closer to the truth, in my opinion, that a society is responsible to earn a living. Some lucky people live in a place where fruit falls from the trees and fish jump onto the shore, and the only shelter they need is shade from the warm sun, and the Christians haven't arrived yet to make them wear clothing. The only responsibility that falls on those people is to treat each other kindly and grant other their dignity, and make sure nobody hogs all the fruit.
Absent such good luck, the members of the society have the collective responsibility to do the work that is necessary to sustain the society, and try to make it a more comfortable one for all the members of the society. Some will work more productively than others, and generally, some kind of system of rewards is set up for those who contribute more. But that does not justify drawing a theoretical productivity line, and refusing the basic necessities to everyone who is on the wrong side of that line.
If you penalize a million unproductive people because there are a few hundred goldbricks among them, you are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That denies a million people a share of the bounty, merely to punish a few hundred who may well deserve to be.
Well hell, If I am not required to work, I guess I will quit my job tomorrow and well.. Live off of you, like a parasite, or a leech, whichever you choose, but I will choose to be a lazy sob, and suck the money out of YOU, just PM me your address, and your name, and I will transfer all of my bills into your name.
I love it when you guys ask me challenging questions and then answer them for yourselves. Those of you who love to work can keep right on doing it, for about half your present salary. The rest can be used to support those who, for example, have small kids at home to take care of, or who are seeking an education but still need to be housed and fed. Or, are simply not intelligent or strong enough to be fully productive workers. Or who have behavioral or emotional disabilities that make them relatively useless at the job site.
You want it both ways. You want to do what you love to do, and get paid enough for doing it to have a couple of new cars and a paid-up mortgage in the country club suburbs. First you need to sweep society clean of all human imperfections. Then your can start in organizing your Utopia where everybody is as perfect as you are. Footnote: eliminating all human imperfections cannot be achieved by putting everyone to work. That's been tried. Got another idea?
I prefer to let the market determine my salary, not you arbitrarily wanting to cut my pay in half. I've worked over 30 years in the IT industry to bring a comfortable life to myself and won't give that up because somebody else wants to create some type of socialist utopia off of my time and hard work. Everything I own in life was gotten through hard work and depriving myself of other things. If you want to take away my salary and possessions, you better come with guns blazing!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
