So four out of every 10 people you pass in the mall or see walking down the street don't work, for whatever reason, and do not personally generate an income, other than social security or welfare.
And of those who actually want a job, 13.5% of them are unemployed.
So what?
Perhaps I should first address the true intention of this thread: that you desire to paint the American populace as a bunch of lazy imbeciles who decline work in favor of leeching from the government, and that this mass of people are the result of the Obama administration, thus Obama is bad and your conservative beliefs are of more moral worth because the encourage personal responsibility / end welfare. No?
But the idea of many people not working is not actually a problem for me, rather I think it almost a blessing. First let's address the basic logistics of why unemployed people can prove beneficial and productive. Firstly there's the matter of total amount of jobs compared to the number of people who have or are in need of work, but it can at least be assumed that all the people within these two categories value any (or at least some) line of work to make a living. Ideally, the greatest amount of jobs shouldn't be less than the population that values that work, else you get a remainder of people who can't work but want to. I should mention that I understand that job growth can increase; it isn't a static amount. However, under current economic conditions, it can slow done considerably, which results in stagnation that sever limits for a certain period of time. So in this slow condition, every possible job is of value for the populace that needs them, and the demand for more labor won't necessarily lead to an increase in job growth. Therefore it would be better for those that need jobs the most to actually get them, and that those that don't really need to work probably shouldn't. If we expected all those who don't work (and don't desire to), then there would be a severe increase of people desiring work, of which would be far greater than the amount of available jobs. This would result is a base number of people never being able to find work due to its scarcity, leaving them in troubled economic security, but meanwhile we'd have people already well off working for pay they don't need. This would result in a greater split of economic devastation for some, and overabundant wealth for others, which in of itself isn't exactly an ideal method for society. Now, if those that don't need to work don't do so then the job pool opens up opportunity for those in need, which itself carries a greater benefit for all.
Since I mention those who don't need to work, I suppose I should focus a bit more on this point. The primary question is "who exactly doesn't need to work (and doesn't desire to work)"? Well the first answer I would give is those who are dependent on another thing for living. And no, I'm not talking about the welfare system (which by the way, is impossible to live off alone). I'm referring to such people; those serving in the military, stay at home parents who raise their children, students in college, the disabled, the elderly, people who live with friends/family but assist with upkeep of the home, prisoners, etc. All these kinds of people have legitimate reasons for not working, one of which is that their services are provided elsewhere, for the benefit of others. The stay at home mom not only keeps the house tidy and kids taken care of, but she does this so that her husband can concentrate on making an income.
Another point I should add, is that jobs don't exist in a vacuum. People who do desire work but can't find it may be in that predicament for a variety of reasons: local job market is bad, businesses won't hire, available jobs are too far away or not within feasible transportation means, that don't have the natural skills for the job, and other extenuating circumstances.
