Welfare state for children?

Bergslagstroll · Jan 10, 2016

I live in a more left wing country, Sweden that have a comprehensive welfare state including forchildren. For example with parental leave, subsidized daycare, freehealth care and free universities for children. While countries like for example USA have a lot less welfare both for adults and children.

What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives? Because children can't choose their parents so they will be hurt and held back by the size of their parents wallets something they can't controle. That at the same time it becomes more important to succeed in life and a have a good career in an unequal country with less welfare for adults.

We also live in globalized economy with rapid technological advances so many people can't be certain of a secure and steady income for the almost twenty years it takes to raise a child. So if only people that could guarantee that they could provide not only all the necessities children need but also pay for daycare, health care and university studies for the children, became parents, then we would see a drastic decline in numbers of children born. A decline that would have extreme negative consequences both for the economy, individuals and the society.

joG · Jan 10, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I live in a more left wing country, Sweden that have a comprehensive welfare state including forchildren. For example with parental leave, subsidized daycare, freehealth care and free universities for children. While countries like for example USA have a lot less welfare both for adults and children.

What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives? Because children can't choose their parents so they will be hurt and held back by the size of their parents wallets something they can't controle. That at the same time it becomes more important to succeed in life and a have a good career in an unequal country with less welfare for adults.

We also live in globalized economy with rapid technological advances so many people can't be certain of a secure and steady income for the almost twenty years it takes to raise a child. So if only people that could guarantee that they could provide not only all the necessities children need but also pay for daycare, health care and university studies for the children, became parents, then we would see a drastic decline in numbers of children born. A decline that would have extreme negative consequences both for the economy, individuals and the society.

You are right. Alone the amount of criminality caused by bad socialization would be a boon to get rid of. Alas, it is more than that going on behind the data. But it is not free education ect that does it. I have been living in a country that grants long maternaty leave with your job guaranteed, subsidizes children on a monthly basis, subsidizes poor income persons, gives free kindergarten, free schooling, free university if you are good and loans if not, free means tested healthcare etcetcetc. Upward mobility is somewhat more probable than the US number, but way less likely than Finnland. The question is much more complicated and involves things like cultural traits, immigration 20 or more years ago, population homogeneity, peer group methods, pervasiveness and robustness as well as the amount of economic growth the society wants to forego for present spending. At present we are seeing Finnland begin to rethink the methodology of its welfare system because the costs have become untenable and we shall what they finally come up with in a few years.

But in short words, no it is not a good idea to emulate the socialist systems and it would be horribly hair brained to do so.

ttwtt78640 · Jan 10, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I live in a more left wing country, Sweden that have a comprehensive welfare state including forchildren. For example with parental leave, subsidized daycare, freehealth care and free universities for children. While countries like for example USA have a lot less welfare both for adults and children.

What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives? Because children can't choose their parents so they will be hurt and held back by the size of their parents wallets something they can't controle. That at the same time it becomes more important to succeed in life and a have a good career in an unequal country with less welfare for adults.

We also live in globalized economy with rapid technological advances so many people can't be certain of a secure and steady income for the almost twenty years it takes to raise a child. So if only people that could guarantee that they could provide not only all the necessities children need but also pay for daycare, health care and university studies for the children, became parents, then we would see a drastic decline in numbers of children born. A decline that would have extreme negative consequences both for the economy, individuals and the society.

The theory that if you reward failure, by taxing success more, then it will create more success has yet to be proven. Has Sweden tried birthright citizenship, lax border security and letting folks overstay temporary visas for decades?

Bergslagstroll · Jan 10, 2016

joG said:
You are right. Alone the amount of criminality caused by bad socialization would be a boon to get rid of. Alas, it is more than that going on behind the data. But it is not free education ect that does it. I have been living in a country that grants long maternaty leave with your job guaranteed, subsidizes children on a monthly basis, subsidizes poor income persons, gives free kindergarten, free schooling, free university if you are good and loans if not, free means tested healthcare etcetcetc. Upward mobility is somewhat more probable than the US number, but way less likely than Finnland. The question is much more complicated and involves things like cultural traits, immigration 20 or more years ago, population homogeneity, peer group methods, pervasiveness and robustness as well as the amount of economic growth the society wants to forego for present spending. At present we are seeing Finnland begin to rethink the methodology of its welfare system because the costs have become untenable and we shall what they finally come up with in a few years.

But in short words, no it is not a good idea to emulate the socialist systems and it would be horribly hair brained to do so.

It is true that is mostly more socialist countries like Sweden and Finland that have more comrpehensive welfare states for children. But is welfare state for children really a socialist idea? Could you not for example have a liberatarian society their adults had to fend for themself but at the same time have a welfare state for children so every person could be ready and prepared for that tough life?

You are correct that other factors also influence childrens freedom, but if you want to give children freedom to shape their own life instead having their parents wallets shaping their life a welfare state for children is a good start. For example that Sweden and other countries with more welfare have more social mobility then USA.

The American Myth of Social MobilityÂ*|Â*Howard Steven Friedman

Also is it really true that we not only longer can afford welfare but also no longer can afford welfare for children? Because if you look at the last 30 years both Sweden, USA and Finland have become a lot richer countries. What instead have happened is that right wing ideology have taken over with for example the idea that a competitve and succesful economy needs les staxes, salaries lowered or held back for workers while salaries should increase for high earners.

But if you look at the list of worlds most competitive countries you not only have USA but also countries with more comprehensive welfare states and moreequality like for exampel Sweden. The same goes for the list over the most innovative countries in the world. So it is possible to have a competiteve and innovative economy with a lot more welfare and equality than USA.

Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016 - Reports - World Economic Forum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Innovation_Index

ttwtt78640 said:
The theory that if you reward failure, by taxing success more, then it will create more success has yet to be proven. Has Sweden tried birthright citizenship, lax border security and letting folks overstay temporary visas for decades?

I don't understand what you mean. That children can't choose their parents so how is it rewarding failure to give children a fair and good start in life? Also if you wan't a truly competitive society you have to start with every child having a fair and good start in life. That it is better to have a society their people pay a bit more taxes and more children have the change to succeed. Instead of a society their taxes are lower but less children have the opportunity to succeed.

ttwtt78640 · Jan 10, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
It is true that is mostly more socialist countries like Sweden and Finland that have more comrpehensive welfare states for children. But is welfare state for children really a socialist idea? Could you not for example have a liberatarian society their adults had to fend for themself but at the same time have a welfare state for children so every person could be ready and prepared for that tough life?

You are correct that other factors also influence childrens freedom, but if you want to give children freedom to shape their own life instead having their parents wallets shaping their life a welfare state for children is a good start. For example that Sweden and other countries with more welfare have more social mobility then USA.

The American Myth of Social MobilityÂ*|Â*Howard Steven Friedman

Also is it really true that we not only longer can afford welfare but also no longer can afford welfare for children? Because if you look at the last 30 years both Sweden, USA and Finland have become a lot richer countries. What instead have happened is that right wing ideology have taken over with for example the idea that a competitve and succesful economy needs les staxes, salaries lowered or held back for workers while salaries should increase for high earners.

But if you look at the list of worlds most competitive countries you not only have USA but also countries with more comprehensive welfare states and moreequality like for exampel Sweden. The same goes for the list over the most innovative countries in the world. So it is possible to have a competiteve and innovative economy with a lot more welfare and equality than USA.

Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016 - Reports - World Economic Forum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Innovation_Index

I don't understand what you mean. That children can't choose their parents so how is it rewarding failure to give children a fair and good start in life? Also if you wan't a truly competitive society you have to start with every child having a fair and good start in life. That it is better to have a society their people pay a bit more taxes and more children have the change to succeed. Instead of a society their taxes are lower but less children have the opportunity to succeed.

How is it possible to reward just the children without also rewarding their parents?

Do these children live in a different house, eat from a different family meal, get heat/light from different utilities, watch a different TV or ride in a different car than their parents do?

If only services for children were provided, e.g. education, day care and kids meals then, yes, I see that as good thing for all of society - but once that income redistribution barn door gets opened the parents, whether good, bad or in between caretakers, get head of line status.

FieldTheorist · Jan 10, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives?

You may as well be talking to a brick wall, as you're soon about to find out. (EDIT: As you have already found out.) What your analysis isn't taking into account is that a lot of effort --both by domestic rich people and rich people abroad, i.e. Saudi princes-- has gone into misinforming the American public and pushing them to be irrational, uninformed, (or, at best, defeatist) voters.

I mean, unless you want to commit yourself to the position that US (and in lesser but similar way, UK) citizens are genetically stupid, you have to look to other causes for why the US went from at least acknowledging that poverty was wrong to now denying that it matters or openly declaring that income inequality is righteous and just.

And the answer is that for the past 40-50 years, Americans have had it repeatedly drilled into their heads that neoliberal policies (lowering taxes for the rich, instituting austerity measures during recessions, cutting social safety nets that "we can't afford," de-regulating industries, privatizing governmental functions, and writing laws against unions) are Great, Just, and True. There's additional considerations, the propaganda for neoliberalism is justified --both amongst Republicans and Democrats-- in a variety of different ways. It can use classism, racism, ethnocentrism/xenophobia, religiousity, and so on in order to convince people that there are bigger worries out there than some "hard working" rich guy who's just trying to keep his "fair share of wealth that he earned." (Mexicans are stealing your job opportunities, blacks are stealing money from your hard-earned paycheck for "their" welfare programs, etc, etc) And the story is spun over and over again, even in the so-called left-wing news (e.g. MSNBC), although the propaganda takes a different form for the "liberals" in America. Very serious and sophisticated advertisement and PR campaigns were put into place to change people's beliefs about these policies --or just to not tell people about these policies. And that breeds campaigns like Trump's.

So if you ask an average American what they think about "welfare for children" (and the topic does come up), they'll pretty quickly respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to pay for someone's child?" Usually, some hint of race is thrown in here, so maybe they'll ask why they need to fund black people's children. And if you listen to this propaganda long enough, you'll start thinking in these irrational, unjust ways, too.

By the way, these neoliberal policies are already attempting to be rolled out in Scandanavian countries (and in some instances, very successfully), and you can bet the propaganda mills are or will soon be built up over your way, too. I would advise any Scandanavian person to keep a look out for their version of Fox News when it sprouts up. And you all need to nip that in the bud or far worse things will be coming your way in twenty years --just look at American politics if you doubt that.

SocialD · Jan 10, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I live in a more left wing country, Sweden that have a comprehensive welfare state including forchildren. For example with parental leave, subsidized daycare, freehealth care and free universities for children. While countries like for example USA have a lot less welfare both for adults and children.

What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives? Because children can't choose their parents so they will be hurt and held back by the size of their parents wallets something they can't controle. That at the same time it becomes more important to succeed in life and a have a good career in an unequal country with less welfare for adults.

We also live in globalized economy with rapid technological advances so many people can't be certain of a secure and steady income for the almost twenty years it takes to raise a child. So if only people that could guarantee that they could provide not only all the necessities children need but also pay for daycare, health care and university studies for the children, became parents, then we would see a drastic decline in numbers of children born. A decline that would have extreme negative consequences both for the economy, individuals and the society.

THe USA has family leave and it looks like its going to be expanded, the usa has subsidized daycare, subsidized healthcare and there are programs in certain cases that subsidize education both primary, secondary and higher education as well. There is also food subsidies and other things. its just not in one program its dozens of different social programs for this stuff. I think people, here and abroad, don't realize it.

Paleocon · Jan 10, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I live in a more left wing country, Sweden that have a comprehensive welfare state including forchildren. For example with parental leave, subsidized daycare, freehealth care and free universities for children. While countries like for example USA have a lot less welfare both for adults and children.

What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives? Because children can't choose their parents so they will be hurt and held back by the size of their parents wallets something they can't controle. That at the same time it becomes more important to succeed in life and a have a good career in an unequal country with less welfare for adults.

We also live in globalized economy with rapid technological advances so many people can't be certain of a secure and steady income for the almost twenty years it takes to raise a child. So if only people that could guarantee that they could provide not only all the necessities children need but also pay for daycare, health care and university studies for the children, became parents, then we would see a drastic decline in numbers of children born. A decline that would have extreme negative consequences both for the economy, individuals and the society.

Child welfare is wrong because it is against subsidiarity. A man should provide for his children's necessities through his work. Day care and the like would not be needed if women were able to stay home, rather than have to work outside the home. I'm not really opposed in principle to health care and education subsidies, provided that the provision of these things remains strictly private.

And if you want an economy sufficiently stable and pro-family to raise children in confidently, then one should implement such an economic system, rather than simply trying to have the state compensate for the excesses of capitalism.

Bergslagstroll · Jan 11, 2016

ttwtt78640 said:
How is it possible to reward just the children without also rewarding their parents?

Do these children live in a different house, eat from a different family meal, get heat/light from different utilities, watch a different TV or ride in a different car than their parents do?

If only services for children were provided, e.g. education, day care and kids meals then, yes, I see that as good thing for all of society - but once that income redistribution barn door gets opened the parents, whether good, bad or in between caretakers, get head of line status.

You can see it as a choice either punishing kids for that their parents are poor or give children the necessities they need and have some of those necessities also benefit the poor parents.

Also as you state some of benefit only benefit the children like education. Also some like daycare can make the parents more productive. That daycare make it easier and more affordable for both parents to work and contribute to society.

Also living on welfare is not a luxury in Sweden that of course people and children living on that get just the necessities. Also for the parents it also means a meager pension. Also we have a universal welfare state. Meaning that thing like subsidies daycare, free health care and free universities is for all parents, so the parents can keep those services even if they get a job or a more high paid job. So people still have a lot of motivation to better themselves.

Also if you want to have a more right wing society you can make it very tough for their parents after the children is grown up.

Paleocon said:
Child welfare is wrong because it is against subsidiarity. A man should provide for his children's necessities through his work. Day care and the like would not be needed if women were able to stay home, rather than have to work outside the home. I'm not really opposed in principle to health care and education subsidies, provided that the provision of these things remains strictly private.

And if you want an economy sufficiently stable and pro-family to raise children in confidently, then one should implement such an economic system, rather than simply trying to have the state compensate for the excesses of capitalism.

Families are an important part of society but not all families is happy families. So it can be bad for woman and also for the children if woman have to stay in a bad or even abusive relationship because she and her kids are dependent on the husbands income. Also staying home with your kids in a can lead to a life long dependency especially in countries without welfare, because staying at home can both lead to very meager pension and also that it can be hard to find a job with a decent pay if you been away from labor market a long time.

Also it makes it much harder for woman to choice their life partner because they have to find a partner that can provide for them the 50/60 years a marriage can last. Also a lot can happen and change during such long period of time so if woman want to be certain of being provided during such long time they have to only choose only very rich men.

Bergslagstroll · Jan 11, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
You may as well be talking to a brick wall, as you're soon about to find out. (EDIT: As you have already found out.) What your analysis isn't taking into account is that a lot of effort --both by domestic rich people and rich people abroad, i.e. Saudi princes-- has gone into misinforming the American public and pushing them to be irrational, uninformed, (or, at best, defeatist) voters.

I mean, unless you want to commit yourself to the position that US (and in lesser but similar way, UK) citizens are genetically stupid, you have to look to other causes for why the US went from at least acknowledging that poverty was wrong to now denying that it matters or openly declaring that income inequality is righteous and just.

And the answer is that for the past 40-50 years, Americans have had it repeatedly drilled into their heads that neoliberal policies (lowering taxes for the rich, instituting austerity measures during recessions, cutting social safety nets that "we can't afford," de-regulating industries, privatizing governmental functions, and writing laws against unions) are Great, Just, and True. There's additional considerations, the propaganda for neoliberalism is justified --both amongst Republicans and Democrats-- in a variety of different ways. It can use classism, racism, ethnocentrism/xenophobia, religiousity, and so on in order to convince people that there are bigger worries out there than some "hard working" rich guy who's just trying to keep his "fair share of wealth that he earned." (Mexicans are stealing your job opportunities, blacks are stealing money from your hard-earned paycheck for "their" welfare programs, etc, etc) And the story is spun over and over again, even in the so-called left-wing news (e.g. MSNBC), although the propaganda takes a different form for the "liberals" in America. Very serious and sophisticated advertisement and PR campaigns were put into place to change people's beliefs about these policies --or just to not tell people about these policies. And that breeds campaigns like Trump's.

So if you ask an average American what they think about "welfare for children" (and the topic does come up), they'll pretty quickly respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to pay for someone's child?" Usually, some hint of race is thrown in here, so maybe they'll ask why they need to fund black people's children. And if you listen to this propaganda long enough, you'll start thinking in these irrational, unjust ways, too.

By the way, these neoliberal policies are already attempting to be rolled out in Scandanavian countries (and in some instances, very successfully), and you can bet the propaganda mills are or will soon be built up over your way, too. I would advise any Scandanavian person to keep a look out for their version of Fox News when it sprouts up. And you all need to nip that in the bud or far worse things will be coming your way in twenty years --just look at American politics if you doubt that.

One important part of politics I think is never give up. Take for example Sweden in the beging of 20:th century then few workers had the right to vote, people could loose their jobs if the joined a union or got involved in politics and people also arrested by police or beaten up by thugs if the voiced their opion. Still Social democrats managed together with liberals to make Sweden a country with suffrage for all and Socialdemocrats could also during the following decades build up the Sweden welfare and strong unions. That today we have seen a sharp shift to the right in many countries including Sweden but change is still possible. Just think of the fact that a socialist is running in the democratic primary or here in Europe their anti establishment Jeremy Corbyn the head of Labour in UK and all the new left wing parties.

Also the sharp shift to the right have been done on the promise that it will give freedom to people and the idea that people should take responsibility for their own life. But children can't provide for themself for almost the first 20 years. So if right wing people want to be true to their idea of freedom and personal responsibilty they also have to see to that every child get a fair and good start. There welfare state for children is probably the only feasible they to accomplish that.

American · Jan 11, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
You may as well be talking to a brick wall, as you're soon about to find out. (EDIT: As you have already found out.) What your analysis isn't taking into account is that a lot of effort --both by domestic rich people and rich people abroad, i.e. Saudi princes-- has gone into misinforming the American public and pushing them to be irrational, uninformed, (or, at best, defeatist) voters.

I mean, unless you want to commit yourself to the position that US (and in lesser but similar way, UK) citizens are genetically stupid, you have to look to other causes for why the US went from at least acknowledging that poverty was wrong to now denying that it matters or openly declaring that income inequality is righteous and just.

And the answer is that for the past 40-50 years, Americans have had it repeatedly drilled into their heads that neoliberal policies (lowering taxes for the rich, instituting austerity measures during recessions, cutting social safety nets that "we can't afford," de-regulating industries, privatizing governmental functions, and writing laws against unions) are Great, Just, and True. There's additional considerations, the propaganda for neoliberalism is justified --both amongst Republicans and Democrats-- in a variety of different ways. It can use classism, racism, ethnocentrism/xenophobia, religiousity, and so on in order to convince people that there are bigger worries out there than some "hard working" rich guy who's just trying to keep his "fair share of wealth that he earned." (Mexicans are stealing your job opportunities, blacks are stealing money from your hard-earned paycheck for "their" welfare programs, etc, etc) And the story is spun over and over again, even in the so-called left-wing news (e.g. MSNBC), although the propaganda takes a different form for the "liberals" in America. Very serious and sophisticated advertisement and PR campaigns were put into place to change people's beliefs about these policies --or just to not tell people about these policies. And that breeds campaigns like Trump's.

So if you ask an average American what they think about "welfare for children" (and the topic does come up), they'll pretty quickly respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to pay for someone's child?" Usually, some hint of race is thrown in here, so maybe they'll ask why they need to fund black people's children. And if you listen to this propaganda long enough, you'll start thinking in these irrational, unjust ways, too.

By the way, these neoliberal policies are already attempting to be rolled out in Scandanavian countries (and in some instances, very successfully), and you can bet the propaganda mills are or will soon be built up over your way, too. I would advise any Scandanavian person to keep a look out for their version of Fox News when it sprouts up. And you all need to nip that in the bud or far worse things will be coming your way in twenty years --just look at American politics if you doubt that.

Instead of picking on the US, where you'd have to fundamentally alter the govt, you could hold up a shining example of socialism (where children have everything given to them on golden platters) like Russia; where no child goes without a State-of-the Art life. :lol:

FieldTheorist · Jan 11, 2016

American said:
Instead of picking on the US, where you'd have to fundamentally alter the govt, you could hold up a shining example of socialism (where children have everything given to them on golden platters) like Russia; where no child goes without a State-of-the Art life. :lol:

Well, let's be charitable; you probably didn't know this before. I'm a libertarian socialist. If you bother to look up the term, you can understand why I will sooner be holding up state capitalism (however severely reluctantly) as a better example than I would state socialism (e.g. Leninism/Stalinism).

FieldTheorist · Jan 11, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
One important part of politics I think is never give up. Take for example Sweden in the beging of 20:th century then few workers had the right to vote, people could loose their jobs if the joined a union or got involved in politics and people also arrested by police or beaten up by thugs if the voiced their opion. Still Social democrats managed together with liberals to make Sweden a country with suffrage for all and Socialdemocrats could also during the following decades build up the Sweden welfare and strong unions. That today we have seen a sharp shift to the right in many countries including Sweden but change is still possible. Just think of the fact that a socialist is running in the democratic primary or here in Europe their anti establishment Jeremy Corbyn the head of Labour in UK and all the new left wing parties.

And hopefully Bernie Sanders will pull off the same in America, although it seems less likely than Corbyn. But yes, it is always heartening to see these historical examples.

Also the sharp shift to the right have been done on the promise that it will give freedom to people and the idea that people should take responsibility for their own life.

Sure, but it's a completely farce and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise.

American · Jan 11, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
Well, let's be charitable; you probably didn't know this before. I'm a libertarian socialist. If you bother to look up the term, you can understand why I will sooner be holding up state capitalism (however severely reluctantly) as a better example than I would state socialism (e.g. Leninism/Stalinism).

Then I suggest you change your lean, but your choice.

FieldTheorist · Jan 11, 2016

American said:
Then I suggest you change your lean, but your choice.

I respond to evidence, not suggestions.

Bergslagstroll · Jan 12, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
And hopefully Bernie Sanders will pull off the same in America, although it seems less likely than Corbyn. But yes, it is always heartening to see these historical examples.

Sure, but it's a completely farce and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise.

It is also interesting how the system is being rigged in countries with less welfare and more inequality like for example UK and USA. That you have for example more private schools with high tuition their rich parents can send their kids while public school can be underfunded.

Also that you have high tuition for universities so it becomes harder for kids with low income parents.Both getting into university but also get good grades because they can have to work a lot during their studies while rich kids can just have prestigious internships during sumer. Not only that but as I understand it in for example in countries like USA it easier to get into some universities if you parents have made huge donations to that university.

That if idea with more right wing societies was to reward hard work and that people should take responsibility for their own life, then shouldn't a lot more be done to give every child a fair and good start in life?

Mycroft · Jan 12, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I live in a more left wing country, Sweden that have a comprehensive welfare state including forchildren. For example with parental leave, subsidized daycare, freehealth care and free universities for children. While countries like for example USA have a lot less welfare both for adults and children.

What I wondering is why not at least have a welfare state for children? Because if you want to have a more unequal country with less welfare for adults shouldn't you then also want to have a welfare state for children so every child get a fair and good start in lives? Because children can't choose their parents so they will be hurt and held back by the size of their parents wallets something they can't controle. That at the same time it becomes more important to succeed in life and a have a good career in an unequal country with less welfare for adults.

We also live in globalized economy with rapid technological advances so many people can't be certain of a secure and steady income for the almost twenty years it takes to raise a child. So if only people that could guarantee that they could provide not only all the necessities children need but also pay for daycare, health care and university studies for the children, became parents, then we would see a drastic decline in numbers of children born. A decline that would have extreme negative consequences both for the economy, individuals and the society.

First of all, life is not fair...not even in a social welfare country like Sweden. For example, is it fair to take money away from an ambitious, smart, hard-working individual so you can give it to people who do not have those qualities? I don't think it is.

Two...which do you think is a better personal characteristic of a parent? The parent who will do whatever it takes to personally provide opportunities for their children? The parent who is content to do little for their children...but is willing to rely on government force to provide for their children? Personally, I could never respect myself as a parent if I were the second type of person.

Three...with government control of institutions such as daycare, health care and universities comes the loss of competition that would increase the quality of such institutions. What you end up with is almost zero innovation and a "one-size-fits-all" attitude. People who live under these conditions tend to become satisfied with such a situation and lose the inclination to strive for improvement. I believe a society that accepts this will stagnate...and eventually fall by the wayside.

So...no...I would not advocate for a welfare state for children because it only harms the society that makes the mistake of enacting it.

JayDubya · Jan 12, 2016

A welfare state of any kind is demonstrable evidence of the state overstepping its bounds and violating the rights of its citizens.

FieldTheorist · Jan 12, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
It is also interesting how the system is being rigged in countries with less welfare and more inequality like for example UK and USA. That you have for example more private schools with high tuition their rich parents can send their kids while public school can be underfunded.

Also that you have high tuition for universities so it becomes harder for kids with low income parents.Both getting into university but also get good grades because they can have to work a lot during their studies while rich kids can just have prestigious internships during sumer. Not only that but as I understand it in for example in countries like USA it easier to get into some universities if you parents have made huge donations to that university.

That if idea with more right wing societies was to reward hard work and that people should take responsibility for their own life, then shouldn't a lot more be done to give every child a fair and good start in life?

Yes, but I don't even agree that social safety nets should disappear for adults. The point of society is have it be productive and free. Continuing to perpetuation systems of wage slavery does absolutely nothing to further those goals, unless our definition of productivity is so myopic as to only mean "increased concentration of wealth for the private owners."

Bergslagstroll · Jan 14, 2016

Mycroft said:
First of all, life is not fair...not even in a social welfare country like Sweden. For example, is it fair to take money away from an ambitious, smart, hard-working individual so you can give it to people who do not have those qualities? I don't think it is.

Two...which do you think is a better personal characteristic of a parent? The parent who will do whatever it takes to personally provide opportunities for their children? The parent who is content to do little for their children...but is willing to rely on government force to provide for their children? Personally, I could never respect myself as a parent if I were the second type of person.

Three...with government control of institutions such as daycare, health care and universities comes the loss of competition that would increase the quality of such institutions. What you end up with is almost zero innovation and a "one-size-fits-all" attitude. People who live under these conditions tend to become satisfied with such a situation and lose the inclination to strive for improvement. I believe a society that accepts this will stagnate...and eventually fall by the wayside.

So...no...I would not advocate for a welfare state for children because it only harms the society that makes the mistake of enacting it.

Yes there will always be unfairness in societies, but there are things to be done to make societies more fair. For example rewarding ambitious, smart, hard-working individual by making their grades become the determent factor if they can go to and succeed in college instead of their parents wallets.

Also this doesn't mean that the taxes will be so high that there are no rich and successful people. Look for example at Sweden that have not only welfare state for children but also welfare state for adults. That in Sweden there are a lot of millionaires and of course we also have billionaires. Also Sweden have successful companies like H & M and many IT companies have started in Sweden like Spotify, Skype and Mojang (Minecraft).

For your second point,children can't choose what kind of parents they have. So why reduce children choices in life because what kind of parents they have?

For you third point their are different school system then it comes to elementary school. Like for example the Swedish system of free choice and competition. That the schools are public funded and we have almost no privately funded schools with tuition, but at the same time government schools, non profits school and profit schools compete and children can freely choose their schoolystem. This is a system people to the right in Sweden really like but me and a lot of people see a lot of problem with that system.

That I prefer instead the successful Finish system then it comes to elementary school. That it not based on competition but instead making teaching a attractive carrier choice and giving teachers the freedom and resources to help every child.

Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?- page 1 | Innovation | Smithsonian

But of course competition can be good at other areas like for example university level. Their Sweden mostly have public run university but the universities compete both for students, the best teacher but of course also for public and private research grants.

Also that welfare state for children should lead to stagnate society is completely wrong. Take for example Sweden that is on place seven in most innovative countries and Finland is the second most innovative country and even beats USA.

World Economic Forum: Most innovative countries in the world - Business Insider

Yes USA both beats Sweden and Finland then it comes to most competitive economies. But still Finland with place 8 and Sweden place 9 is still amongst the most competitive economies of the world.

These Are the 10 Most Competitive Countries in the World - Bloomberg Business

That at the same time countries with welfare state like Sweden do better than USA in some areas like for example infant mortality rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Bergslagstroll · Jan 14, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
Yes, but I don't even agree that social safety nets should disappear for adults. The point of society is have it be productive and free. Continuing to perpetuation systems of wage slavery does absolutely nothing to further those goals, unless our definition of productivity is so myopic as to only mean "increased concentration of wealth for the private owners."

I agree with you about the benefit for both the individual and society with social safety net for adults and a welfare state for both children and adults. Just that I think it a bit strange that people that believe in rewarding hard work and that people should take responsibility for their own life, don't want to give every child a fair and good start in life by atleast having a welfare state for children.

FieldTheorist · Jan 14, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I agree with you about the benefit for both the individual and society with social safety net for adults and a welfare state for both children and adults. Just that I think it a bit strange that people that believe in rewarding hard work and that people should take responsibility for their own life, don't want to give every child a fair and good start in life by atleast having a welfare state for children.

As I said, it's not a rational commitment. It's an irrational commitment that you believe only after you hear a lot of propaganda (propaganda that explicitly designed to be class warfare and explicitly designed to misinform and confuse people into voting against their own interests). It's not like voting against your own interests was an unfortunate side affect of the kind of PR that Fox News runs. It's the whole point. From Ailes/Koch/Murdoch's standpoint, I'm sure that racism, xenophobia, and homophobia are the unfortunate side effects. But if they make a few extra billion a piece every year, so be it, it's a side effect that they can live with.

Again, if you want to understand why, this is why:

It's not that hard to convince people of irrational things, you just need money and influence. Just use cultural preconceptions ("Muslims are violent," "Jews love money," "Blacks are lazy," "Mexicans are stealing your jobs," "China/Russia is coming to get you!", etc), twist them into the message that you want, and pay people to repeat on the radio, on the news, and on the internet. So paint all of the people on welfare as being black. If you're from a community of all white people (which is a significant amount of America), then you already have your own justifications for why your cousin Bob should be on welfare --he hurt his back working through no fault of his own, so he "earned" it. N.B. The term "earned" here is ideological. The ideology being spread by Fox News is that we split the world up into people who've "earned" their way and people who haven't "earned" their way. Then we tell people that all Latinos are illegitimate because they haven't "earned" their way to being an American, so when they get a job (Note that these people are literally working) they haven't "earned" anything --they don't belong here. We talk not about how blacks are lazy (that's too overt), we just constantly show minorities taking "their welfare" (Again, an ideological term), we talk about all of the problems with "black culture" (Again, an ideological term), and how it leads to "black violence" (Another ideological term) and stoke up the fear of black people who want to take your money by force. Then try to equate welfare as much as you can with "theft" (Same) and you have a bunch of people who view welfare as a form of class warfare against "hard-working" people who've "earned" what they own. Then you slip in a few times that these poor blacks and minorities are also taxing the rich unfairly in order to get "their welfare" --so rich people are in the same boat as you, my poor hard-working white comrade! Then the idea that "The poor whites and rich should join together, and form a political alliance to stop the people who're hurting America." becomes a totally rational, totally obvious worldview, once you instill those foundationally irrational beliefs.

Poor and middle-class whites aren't stupid. They know class warfare is real and out there (Although they'd use a different term for it), they've just been convinced by serious propaganda efforts to believe that the reason we can't have any form of social safety net is because it'll get abused by the "lazy" (That's an ideological term for black people in the South, and that's an ideological term for "lazy poor people" in the North). So their class warfare efforts get re-directed at each other, and never the rich.

Bergslagstroll · Jan 15, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
As I said, it's not a rational commitment. It's an irrational commitment that you believe only after you hear a lot of propaganda (propaganda that explicitly designed to be class warfare and explicitly designed to misinform and confuse people into voting against their own interests). It's not like voting against your own interests was an unfortunate side affect of the kind of PR that Fox News runs. It's the whole point. From Ailes/Koch/Murdoch's standpoint, I'm sure that racism, xenophobia, and homophobia are the unfortunate side effects. But if they make a few extra billion a piece every year, so be it, it's a side effect that they can live with.

Again, if you want to understand why, this is why:

It's not that hard to convince people of irrational things, you just need money and influence. Just use cultural preconceptions ("Muslims are violent," "Jews love money," "Blacks are lazy," "Mexicans are stealing your jobs," "China/Russia is coming to get you!", etc), twist them into the message that you want, and pay people to repeat on the radio, on the news, and on the internet. So paint all of the people on welfare as being black. If you're from a community of all white people (which is a significant amount of America), then you already have your own justifications for why your cousin Bob should be on welfare --he hurt his back working through no fault of his own, so he "earned" it. N.B. The term "earned" here is ideological. The ideology being spread by Fox News is that we split the world up into people who've "earned" their way and people who haven't "earned" their way. Then we tell people that all Latinos are illegitimate because they haven't "earned" their way to being an American, so when they get a job (Note that these people are literally working) they haven't "earned" anything --they don't belong here. We talk not about how blacks are lazy (that's too overt), we just constantly show minorities taking "their welfare" (Again, an ideological term), we talk about all of the problems with "black culture" (Again, an ideological term), and how it leads to "black violence" (Another ideological term) and stoke up the fear of black people who want to take your money by force. Then try to equate welfare as much as you can with "theft" (Same) and you have a bunch of people who view welfare as a form of class warfare against "hard-working" people who've "earned" what they own. Then you slip in a few times that these poor blacks and minorities are also taxing the rich unfairly in order to get "their welfare" --so rich people are in the same boat as you, my poor hard-working white comrade! Then the idea that "The poor whites and rich should join together, and form a political alliance to stop the people who're hurting America." becomes a totally rational, totally obvious worldview, once you instill those foundationally irrational beliefs.

Poor and middle-class whites aren't stupid. They know class warfare is real and out there (Although they'd use a different term for it), they've just been convinced by serious propaganda efforts to believe that the reason we can't have any form of social safety net is because it'll get abused by the "lazy" (That's an ideological term for black people in the South, and that's an ideological term for "lazy poor people" in the North). So their class warfare efforts get re-directed at each other, and never the rich.

I think it can not only be propaganda but also that neoliberal policies can make it easier to believe in rightwing propaganda. Not because neoliberal policies have led to a better life for avarage citizen but because it have made people more insecure. That for example people worrying about what will happen to them and their familly if they get sick and unemployed because there are no safety net, can think less of their fellow man and instead believe the propaganda about that you should only think about yourself.

Also propaganda can make people believe that other people deserve lousy jobs with meager salaries, but it can be harder for parents to accept that their children deserves those lousy jobs. So therefor people in countries with greater inequality can probably more easy accept a rigged system. For example middleclass parents can accept costly tuition to universities because the demand for paying tuition gives their children a upper hand to children with poor parents. Also it becomes even more important for rich parents that their children also get high payed and prestigious jobs so they send send their kids to private schools and also give donation to universities so the kids can get in easier.

FieldTheorist · Jan 15, 2016

Bergslagstroll said:
I think it can not only be propaganda but also that neoliberal policies can make it easier to believe in rightwing propaganda. Not because neoliberal policies have led to a better life for avarage citizen but because it have made people more insecure. That for example people worrying about what will happen to them and their familly if they get sick and unemployed because there are no safety net, can think less of their fellow man and instead believe the propaganda about that you should only think about yourself.

I absolutely agree, but I might consider this propaganda. I think that Fox News understands the effect of their propaganda, and I think this is pretty intentional on their part. Again, I don't think they're main desire is to make people hate immigrants, incite racism (as well as transphobia and homophobia), increase religiosity, etc, but if creating those things also creates a situation that furthers and enhances their power, it's not merely totally justifiable, I think that they view it as necessary and just.

Also propaganda can make people believe that other people deserve lousy jobs with meager salaries, but it can be harder for parents to accept that their children deserves those lousy jobs. So therefor people in countries with greater inequality can probably more easy accept a rigged system. For example middleclass parents can accept costly tuition to universities because the demand for paying tuition gives their children a upper hand to children with poor parents. Also it becomes even more important for rich parents that their children also get high payed and prestigious jobs so they send send their kids to private schools and also give donation to universities so the kids can get in easier.

This is all true. It's also in this way that I think the aforementioned things are propaganda, and in a twofold way. If you take away/reduce people's livelihoods and increase their burdens, it's not terribly shocking that they are very angry and annoyed. And that means that they need a place to direct their anger. This is why hate language is so important for Fox News (even if it's veiled, they aren't cursing but they are displaying utter contempt and anger), it allows pre-existing cultural animosities (socialists, gays, blacks, transgenders, feminists, etc) and re-purposes that anger as a scapegoat for all of the horrible things that are happening in their own lives.

The South contains some of the most (overt) racism and religiosity in the whole Union, and the Midwest displays some of the most overt religiosity in the Union. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that these are the two areas of the US that have been utterly devastating by neoliberalism and global capitalism.

The rest of America plays a different role, which is to consider the South (and to a lesser extent the Midwest) as cultural backwaters filled to the brim with white trast, dumb hicks, cousin-****ing hillbillies, religious nuts, and general morons. So they, the sophisticated city folk or enlightened West- and East-coasters, get to focus their hate on all of the those people, because it's those people who are ****ing up the country by refusing to not adapt culturally become more metropolitan. And that's part of the job that MSNBC plays. Because it's really, really crucial that poor people get together.

Welfare state for children?

Welfare state for children?

Yes

No

Other, please explain

More options

Bergslagstroll

joG

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Bergslagstroll

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

FieldTheorist

SocialD

Paleocon

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

FieldTheorist

FieldTheorist

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

FieldTheorist

Bergslagstroll

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

JayDubya

Struggler

FieldTheorist

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

FieldTheorist

Bergslagstroll

FieldTheorist