- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Your axioms were invalid.
Why exactly?
Your axioms were invalid.
It helps reduce unemployment:mrgreen:
This one isn't necessarily true. It just depends on your definition of poverty. There aren't really any people in this country that are in poverty. People in poverty aren't getting the things that they need to live. Are there poor people though? Of course.
I know how it can ALLEVIATE underemployment (though is it really worth the cost?), but how does it eliminate unemployment?
I am happy to see you picked up it's effects on underemployment!
Capitalism creates a natural occurrence of involuntary unemployment, of which social safety nets help alleviate its symptoms. By alleviating some of the symptoms, human capital degradation is reduced. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard for a homeless person to obtain employment?
Why exactly?
Your n equalities are based on opinion. Poverty would be much more severe if a major income source for the poor was eliminated. Therefore it is invalid to state that the poor aggregate is greater without social safety nets.
But are the resources that we put into welfare offset by the positives produced by reducing undermployment?
Wait whaaa? Poverty more severe without welfare? Yes. I don't think I understand what you said after. There will be more poor people with welfare because welfare incentivizes being poor.
You forgot involuntary unemployment.
Would you agree that social safety nets
prevent successful marxist revolutions?
At a certain point yes as evident by parts of Europe. But welfare at certain limits does not. Especially when the amounts are barely enough to keep you fed, clothed and housed. And especially when your neighbor is getting money from the government as incentive for him making money.
Wait whaaa? Poverty more severe without welfare? Yes. I don't think I understand what you said after. There will be more poor people with welfare because welfare incentivizes being poor.
How does welfare fix that?
There isn't really anybody in this country who isn't getting the the things that they need.
There isn't really anybody in this country who isn't getting the the things that they need.
You mean like the hundreds of vets who die from lack of health care insurance?
How about the insane amount of malnutritioned children in the US?
The millions of homeless?
We got problems. No question on that.
The problem of childhood obesity in the United States has grown considerably in recent years. Between 16 and 33 percent of children and adolescents are obese. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize but most difficult to treat. Unhealthy weight gain due to poor diet and lack of exercise is responsible for over 300,000 deaths each year. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Overweight children are much more likely to become overweight adults unless they adopt and maintain healthier patterns of eating and exercise.
Lets keep it simple.
If you do not have food to eat, clean clothes to wear, and a place to stay; where does looking for a job rank on that list?
And why is that? Should there be someone handing it to them?
We are not dealing in absolutes. You have yet to consider why the "American Dream" of high wages/wealth is not a good enough incentive for chronic welfare recipients to enter the labor force. Are you aware that not all people who receive government aid do so indefinitely? If not, that might be your error.
Essentially, you are stating that poverty is a choice. Given that our capitalistic system requires involuntary unemployment, i cannot agree and you will find little evidence to support such a notion.
Epic,
Areas that are impoverished have far higher crime rates (along with more police presence) than higher income areas. Your questions are a red herring, as they do nothing to strengthen your premise; they only shift the debate.
The fact remains: poverty induces crime, and poverty is determined primarily by income.
Both you and Tony have argued that it is "optimal" to eliminate our social welfare system, of which i have responded that in doing so, we will increase the crime burden (although it is not felt in proportion). The impoverished face a greater burden than the rich actually.
Have i argued that welfare traps do not exist? Of course not.
Ever been to a skid row? There are a lot of people just handing them the things that they need.
Plenty. And history has seen many more rows of skid. Give a man a fish, he eats for the day. Teach him to fish and he eats for eternity....unless someone else is willing to give it to him and then...why learn?
Plenty. And history has seen many more rows of skid. Give a man a fish, he eats for the day. Teach him to fish and he eats for eternity....unless someone else is willing to give it to him and then...why learn?
Pretty damn high on my list since I want to be able to eat, clean my clothes and acquire some shelter. these things require an income.
I know that all don't stay there. However, it's an incentive. Not working and getting money from welfare sounds a lot better working hard and only getting minimum wage. Wasn't it you who said that time is scarce so we can't ignore that? Hmm, maybe people factor that into their decisions.
As you said, welfare alleviates underemployment, so people may eventually find a job that is better than not working at all and only getting a small amount of money. Until then, they'll probably stay on welfare.
Involuntary unemployment? Isn't that what unemployment insurance is for?