Have you every received some form government assistance?

waas said:

Do you think the only kind of workforce we need is one chocked full of plumbers?

Click to expand...

not at all - but I think that our workforce needs plumbers, as well as builders, mechanics, electricians, and customer service representatives; as well as a thousand other things. I think that even among college graduates, the odds of finding a job that require a degree are 50/50 and from that I conclude that across the entire base of job-entry, only a distinct minority of jobs require a college degree.

The problem here is that you're not looking at the big picture.

Click to expand...

on the contrary, that is precisely the error you are making, as we got into a bit above and will get into more below.

I'm sure anyone would agree that the kind of worker we need right now is an engineer, or someone that, like an engineer, can help the US adapt to a changing economy.

Click to expand...

Then you are assuredly incorrect. We need engineers, to be sure, but we need lots of things other than engineers.

You really think a plumber is going to develop an alternative energy economy when we run out of Oil? Develop more efficient shipping techniques? Treat patients?

Click to expand...

do you think a doctor is going to clean your septic tank? fix your stuck pipes? build you a house? repair your automobile? Do you suppose that an Exxon Mobile Engineer will be available to stock the shelves at Wal-Mart or perhaps get you your double-mocha-non-fat-frappicino-with-no-whip at Starbucks?

Your view on the world economy is incredibly narrow and you fail to see that a majority of jobs do require a college education

Click to expand...

that is incorrect by tautology. A majority of jobs do not require college degrees as demonstrated by the simple enough evidence that a majority of current workers do not hold them.

that these jobs are ones that allow for the creation of others

Click to expand...

that is also incorrect in two ways. Firstly, there are plenty of college-degree-requiring jobs that do not necessarily create others. Professor of English, for example, is a job that often requires a doctorate, but does not in and of itself create other jobs by moving resources to higher levels of production. Secondly, there are plenty of non-college-degree-requiring jobs that do create lots of others. My uncle, for example, has not seen the inside of a classroom since he graduated high school, and runs a construction contracting business where he currently hires about 50 people. It does not require a college degree to run a Starbucks or a Wal-Mart chain store, or open up a new business of your own.

The US is one of the world's microcosms of development, we are not a nation of plumbers - not one where we aim to halt development by refusing to educate ourselves.

Click to expand...

ooooh, microcosm. you must be in your junior year by now, what a big word . But still in your junior year, because A) you have used it incorrectly and B) you are reduced to arguing a strawman - no one is saying we shouldn't educate ourselves. I am saying that in many cases the decision to attend college is economically detrimental rather than beneficial to the person who makes it, and thus, in aggregate with the others like him, detrimental to society at large.




Look, if we could educate our entire workforce with college degrees at no cost, then certainly that would be a major economic benefit. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and the current scheme to reduce the price-at-purchase of an education has created bubble investment in a real-devaluing asset as assuredly as the scheme to reduce the price-at-purchase for homes did.

Somerville said:

I have enjoyed the benefits of government-funded health care but not in the US. In America, I have received no more than the standard benefits of living in the country - police, firefighters, safe travel on maintained streets roads and highways - you know the usual.

Click to expand...

It's such a shame that people seem to discount social services as government assistance. :doh

waas said:

It's such a shame that people seem to discount social services as government assistance. :doh

Click to expand...

The role of gov't is to provide common infrastructure and services, not to provide individual charity which are best left to private and voluntary giving. It boils down to simple redistribution of income, hardly a Libertarian goal. If one citizen is expected to work to pay food, clothing and shelter for themself (and their dependents) then all should be. The availability of SSDI for the permanently disabled is as far as I wish direct federal gov't individual assistance to go.

ttwtt78640 said:

The role of gov't is to provide common infrastructure and services, not to provide individual charity which are best left to private and voluntary giving. It boils down to simple redistribution of income, hardly a Libertarian goal. If one citizen is expected to work to pay food, clothing and shelter for themself (and their dependents) then all should be. The availability of SSDI for the permanently disabled is as far as I wish direct federal gov't individual assistance to go.

Click to expand...

Even the late Milton Friedman wrote that there were three basic groups beyond the ability to help themselves - children, the disabled (I think he was referring to the mentally disabled) and the elderly and destitute. Assistance when necessary was therefore an issue of the commons for all three.

cpwill said:

not at all - but I think that our workforce needs plumbers, as well as builders, mechanics, electricians, and customer service representatives; as well as a thousand other things. I think that even among college graduates, the odds of finding a job that require a degree are 50/50 and from that I conclude that across the entire base of job-entry, only a distinct minority of jobs require a college degree.



on the contrary, that is precisely the error you are making, as we got into a bit above and will get into more below.



Then you are assuredly incorrect. We need engineers, to be sure, but we need lots of things other than engineers.



do you think a doctor is going to clean your septic tank? fix your stuck pipes? build you a house? repair your automobile? Do you suppose that an Exxon Mobile Engineer will be available to stock the shelves at Wal-Mart or perhaps get you your double-mocha-non-fat-frappicino-with-no-whip at Starbucks?



that is incorrect by tautology. A majority of jobs do not require college degrees as demonstrated by the simple enough evidence that a majority of current workers do not hold them.



that is also incorrect in two ways. Firstly, there are plenty of college-degree-requiring jobs that do not necessarily create others. Professor of English, for example, is a job that often requires a doctorate, but does not in and of itself create other jobs by moving resources to higher levels of production. Secondly, there are plenty of non-college-degree-requiring jobs that do create lots of others. My uncle, for example, has not seen the inside of a classroom since he graduated high school, and runs a construction contracting business where he currently hires about 50 people. It does not require a college degree to run a Starbucks or a Wal-Mart chain store, or open up a new business of your own.



ooooh, microcosm. you must be in your junior year by now, what a big word . But still in your junior year, because A) you have used it incorrectly and B) you are reduced to arguing a strawman - no one is saying we shouldn't educate ourselves. I am saying that in many cases the decision to attend college is economically detrimental rather than beneficial to the person who makes it, and thus, in aggregate with the others like him, detrimental to society at large.




Look, if we could educate our entire workforce with college degrees at no cost, then certainly that would be a major economic benefit. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and the current scheme to reduce the price-at-purchase of an education has created bubble investment in a real-devaluing asset as assuredly as the scheme to reduce the price-at-purchase for homes did.

Click to expand...

That's all somewhat correct. We do need low complexity jobs done, but there's also another industry as well. One that requires doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers, scientists, programmers, pilots, etc. It seems to me that you fully understand the need for one of these two industries, but not the latter. Education is the great equalizer, one that allows a proletariat(as Marx referred to them) to bridge the gap between rich and poor and break free from the stagnant social structure that exists in the US.

I'll concede that it may often be difficult to pay for, but as you see on this thread, many people have found a way to get around that. So how about this: What is your solution to the problem? This discussion can't end well unless I become aware of your stance on the issue.

But really... microcosm? :2funny:

Lol @ "spiralling" university costs. As if universities had been economically available to the majority of people before the 20th century.

ttwtt78640 said:

The role of gov't is to provide common infrastructure and services, not to provide individual charity which are best left to private and voluntary giving. It boils down to simple redistribution of income, hardly a Libertarian goal. If one citizen is expected to work to pay food, clothing and shelter for themself (and their dependents) then all should be. The availability of SSDI for the permanently disabled is as far as I wish direct federal gov't individual assistance to go.

Click to expand...

Of course I agree with you, but I'm a libertarian in a different sense than you appear to be. I believe that this "charity" should be asked of the community, as opposed to hoping that by some off chance one of america's bourgeois upper class will go so far as to help another human being.

cpwill said:

Even the late Milton Friedman wrote that there were three basic groups beyond the ability to help themselves - children, the disabled (I think he was referring to the mentally disabled) and the elderly and destitute. Assistance when necessary was therefore an issue of the commons for all three.

Click to expand...

While being disabled and elderly (retired) are permanent conditions that are involuntary being "destitute" or being a child are not permanent. The original (1960's) federal 'welfare' was AFDC which essentially encouraged adding a child (or two) to create a "family" which then entitled the "destitute" parent (not the child) to all sorts of free gov't assistance. We now have an out of wedlock childbirth rate of 70% for blacks, 50% for hispanics and 30% for whites, as ever more realize that getting public assistance is very easy if you have a child (or two) yet that in no way helps the child (as intended). I would prefer bringing back the poor house concept where temporary food, clothing and shelter are provided coupled with some loss of freedom and insistance upon those (adults) getting public assitance to acquire job skills and their children getting a decent education. The current system of "help in place" simply amounts to a reward for failure, pumping millions of tax dollars directly into the hands of morons that take no action to get job skills or to ensure that their (our?) dependent children take advantage of a free public education. The intent of public assistance should be to break the "cycle of poverty" not to simply make it more comfortable to loaf along requiring that the taxpayer (productive?) forever support the non-productive.

For about two years in college, when I was only working part time with no benefits, I had CMSP (California Medical Services Program) government health insurance. That's all, though. I got off it as quick as I could.

Yes, my husband was unemployed in the late 70's and we had 3 children under the age of 13. We qualified for food stamps. I don't know how it is now, but the only thing you could by then was food. I remember having a discussion with one of my friends who made the comment that I was eating better than her. Yes, we had plenty of food, but had to buy necessities like toilet paper, soap, etc. anything that was not food.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060858768 said:

It's not Government assistance if you paid into it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but he's got unemployment, which is something you and your former employer pay for, on the list.

Dittohead not! said:

None of the above, but I did get 12 years of tuition free education and now am getting Medicare. I'd be willing to bet that very few of us can say we've never had any sort of government assistance.

Click to expand...

I've never gotten any of the things legitimately on the list. Went to private schools all my life up to college and have never taken a penny of government money in any of those programs.

But damn, I've paid into it all.

megaprogman said:

A lot of people aren't willing to admit they have received these kinds of benefits, but typically, they are lying if they say they did not.

Click to expand...

Except if they haven't, which I haven't.

waas said:

It's such a shame that people seem to discount social services as government assistance. :doh

Click to expand...

Because we all collectively pay for it through our taxes. It's not something the government gives to us, it's something we buy.

Cephus said:

Except if they haven't, which I haven't.

Click to expand...

Its possible, I am skeptical, but it is possible. You are likely rare though.

megaprogman said:

Its possible, I am skeptical, but it is possible. You are likely rare though.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's as rare as you want to think that it is. Lots of people work their entire lives and never have to rely on the government for any freebies.

Cephus said:

I don't think it's as rare as you want to think that it is. Lots of people work their entire lives and never have to rely on the government for any freebies.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I don't think either of us have evidence to support our views.

megaprogman said:

Fair enough, I don't think either of us have evidence to support our views.

Click to expand...

I always think it's funny that when liberals start to feel self-conscious about all the government freebies they take, they start to pretend that everyone else takes them too and the suggestion that they are largely alone in doing so seems to bother them.

Most people are self-sufficient and have no need of free government cheese.

Cephus said:

I always think it's funny that when liberals start to feel self-conscious about all the government freebies they take, they start to pretend that everyone else takes them too and the suggestion that they are largely alone in doing so seems to bother them.

Most people are self-sufficient and have no need of free government cheese.

Click to expand...

Why would you think I feel self conscious about it? Its part of the social contract. I am actually proud to live in a country to helps those who needs it. However, my personal view is that social spending needs to be a hand up more than a hand out, as that is the most efficient way to do such spending.

If some don't need it, more power to them and I hope as I get older, I am more and more in that position.

megaprogman said:

Why would you think I feel self conscious about it? Its part of the social contract.

Click to expand...

Having your hand out for freebies from the government is part of the social contract? Are you out of your mind?

If some don't need it, more power to them and I hope as I get older, I am more and more in that position.

Click to expand...

Nobody "needs" it. Lots of people were just responsible and never held out their hand.

Too bad you weren't one of them.

Cephus said:

Nobody "needs" it. Lots of people were just responsible and never held out their hand.

Click to expand...

Pie in the sky nonsense, I suppose the few million individuals who lost their jobs seemingly overnight were simply irresponsible?

Cephus said:

Having your hand out for freebies from the government is part of the social contract? Are you out of your mind?

Click to expand...

My wife tells me I am all the time. Especially when I make a bad pun :mrgreen: But yes I am serious.

Cephus said:

Nobody "needs" it. Lots of people were just responsible and never held out their hand.

Too bad you weren't one of them.

Click to expand...

That would be where you are wrong. Any advanced economy is always going to end up with people who fall through the cracks or don't have a range of options available to them to help themselves and not be stuck in poverty. You don't acknowledge this obvious fact, no big deal, but it is what it is. And it is certainly not the moral issue you want to portray to feel self righteous.

Hare said:

Pie in the sky nonsense, I suppose the few million individuals who lost their jobs seemingly overnight were simply irresponsible?

Click to expand...

Nope, that's where unemployment comes in, which is not government assistance, it's something you paid for while you were working.

megaprogman said:

My wife tells me I am all the time. Especially when I make a bad pun :mrgreen: But yes I am serious.

Click to expand...

No matter liberalism is so screwed up.

That would be where you are wrong. Any advanced economy is always going to end up with people who fall through the cracks or don't have a range of options available to them to help themselves and not be stuck in poverty. You don't acknowledge this obvious fact, no big deal, but it is what it is. And it is certainly not the moral issue you want to portray to feel self righteous.

Click to expand...

No, I just expect people to be responsible. You don't.

Cephus said:

Nope, that's where unemployment comes in, which is not government assistance, it's something you paid for while you were working.

Click to expand...

Food stamps, housing assistance, pell grants and other programs of the sort are readily available and utilized by many who are neither irresponsible nor lazy, simply mired in circumstances that require a helping hand in order to better their living conditions. To insist that all those who receive such benefits are irresponsible by default is simply brazen naivety.