For Those Who Want to Impose Limits on the Use of Federal Benefits

[MobBoss]

Where does the "job you think is beneath you" bit come from? And what makes you think that when I say people should have basic subsistence provided that they would thus be getting "everything they ever wanted in life"?

My "fairy tale" civilization would have people work for what they want, not what they need.

It comes from the last decade of talking with young out of work people and them actually saying that. Some here on this forum even.

And for some people, all they want in life is to not work, so any subsistence they get is pretty much fine with them.

And fwiw, I think most people do work for want they want in life. How else are they supposed to get it? Depend on the government to give it to them?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It comes from the last decade of talking with young out of work people and them actually saying that. Some here on this forum even.

And for some people, all they want in life is to not work, so any subsistence they get is pretty much fine with them.

And fwiw, I think most people do work for want they want in life. How else are they supposed to get it? Depend on the government to give it to them?

Okay, so if subsistence is fine with them, let them subsist. We have the greatest accumulation of wealth the planet has ever seen, I think we can spare it. As to the ones who actually do want more, as you say they are most likely going to work to get it...as they should. And I think that that is going to include pretty much everybody. The willingness to just subsist, even if it is accomplished without working, is not common.

 

[MobBoss]

Okay, so if subsistence is fine with them, let them subsist. We have the greatest accumulation of wealth the planet has ever seen, I think we can spare it. As to the ones who actually do want more, as you say they are most likely going to work to get it...as they should. And I think that that is going to include pretty much everybody. The willingness to just subsist, even if it is accomplished without working, is not common.

No.....if you are perfectly able to work, then subsistence certainly needs to have a limit. At some point, if you don't have a reason to not work, you should be a contributing member of society, not a continual parasite.

If we allow people that should be productive to simply feed off the rest of us, soon we wont have that 'great accumulation of wealth'.

 

[Borachio]

Bottom line: if you're breathing, you can work.

Put all these fit and idle pensioners back to work. A lot of them are living unproductively off the fat of the land, don't you think?

 

[MobBoss]

Bottom line: if you're breathing, you can work.

Not really, no. I did mention that disabled people, among others, should indeed receive assistance.

Put all these pensioners back to work. A lot of them are living unproductively off the fat of the land, don't you think?

The difference being pensioners actually worked to earn their pension, which is entirely different that someone able to work and choosing not to.

But then, you knew that.

 

[Borachio]

I did. But there's a big demographic problem with so many old people taking their "deserved" retirement, you know. I'm not saying that the figures don't indicate they've contributed their share of service. I'm saying the figures are misleading us.

As for the disabled, we're all disabled one way or another, including the work-shy.

I'd describe myself as work-shy, btw. I've really had enough of it, and I understand all too well people being reluctant to do it. But I'm thinking of the mind-numbing tedium of paid employment here. Yet I recommend people keep active as much as and for as long as they can whatever their circumstances. And that is work, too.

 

[Sonereal]

Lets view your 1.3 % another way:

Trafficking diverted an estimated $858 million annually from SNAP benefits

Yeah. That.

Oh..and also this:

Approximately 10.5 percent of all authorized SNAP stores engaged in trafficking

And the trend (percent trafficked, cost and stores engaging in fraud) has been rising since 2002.

I don't disagree that nearly a billion dollars is a lot of money, but I don't think 1.3% represents a level of systematic fraud that "horrifying" would imply, but that threatens to turn into a discussion of what adjectives mean what in what context, so I'll pass.

However, the 10.5% authorized SNAP stores figure is misleading because the vast majority of the stores participating in fraud are small, privately-owned stores. Large, publicly held stores have more to lose if caught I guess.

The number of stores engaged in fraud would grow if the number of stores in the program grow, especially if many of the stores joining the program are aforementioned small and medium sized stores and chains.

Put all these fit and idle pensioners back to work. A lot of them are living unproductively off the fat of the land, don't you think?

No, not really. The employee allowed him or herself to have a lower salary in exchange for the promise of a pension. The employer and employee agreed on this when the employee signed up. If somebody is able to go into a long retirement because of their pensions, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The difference being pensioners actually worked to earn their pension, which is entirely different that someone able to work and choosing not to.

But then, you knew that.

He knew that, but he may have been baiting me.

The issue there is that the concept of "the pensioner" is exactly what I come down on in the discussion about longevity. If people have "become unproductive" as the goal, we can't really afford to achieve any more breakthroughs in longevity so they can be unproductive longer. We also can't really complain when smart people game the system to become unproductive sooner rather than later.

Ask a smart kid "what do you want to be when you grow up?" and if the kid has really paid attention to the adult influences in his life his answer will be "retired". That's what his parents want. That's what his friends' parents want. That's the holy grail of adulthood. Can't blame the kid if they figure out how to skip right to it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I believe in personal freedom, so I reject paternalistic welfare programs on principle. In my opinion food stamps should not even exist.

It's a mistake. Some people NEED paternalism in order to benefit from welfare services. It's a function of the fact that there are many types of people. Giving them straight cash won't help, because they'll not have the life skills or the IQ to manage their lives.

It's okay to reject it on principle, but we have to remember that there's a bell-curve of people. Even if there are tens of millions of people who don't need paternalism, you'll then have hundreds of thousands of people who do need it.

 

[MobBoss]

He knew that, but he may have been baiting me.

The issue there is that the concept of "the pensioner" is exactly what I come down on in the discussion about longevity. If people have "become unproductive" as the goal, we can't really afford to achieve any more breakthroughs in longevity so they can be unproductive longer. We also can't really complain when smart people game the system to become unproductive sooner rather than later.

Ask a smart kid "what do you want to be when you grow up?" and if the kid has really paid attention to the adult influences in his life his answer will be "retired". That's what his parents want. That's what his friends' parents want. That's the holy grail of adulthood. Can't blame the kid if they figure out how to skip right to it.

I think you are confusing smart with simply being lazy.

And I would disagree that being on assistance is the same as being retired. Being retired generally implies you actually worked towards that goal to achieve it or that you are too ill to continue working.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think you are confusing smart with simply being lazy.

And I would disagree that being on assistance is the same as being retired. Being retired generally implies you actually worked towards that goal to achieve it or that you are too ill to continue working.

If the goal is "arrive at the point where I no longer have to work" then the early achievement of that goal is a win. I'm not the one who made that a widely desired goal. Neither are "lazy people". Heck, the military practically drills it into you. "Yes, this is absolutely f'ing miserable, but you only have to do it for twenty years to retire where most people have to be miserable for forty or more! Military for the win!!!"

 

[MobBoss]

If the goal is "arrive at the point where I no longer have to work" then the early achievement of that goal is a win. I'm not the one who made that a widely desired goal. Neither are "lazy people". Heck, the military practically drills it into you. "Yes, this is absolutely f'ing miserable, but you only have to do it for twenty years to retire where most people have to be miserable for forty or more! Military for the win!!!"

Yeah, but the military also shows you that you have to work your ass off to get there.

I don't think 'not working anymore' is the actual goal. There is certainly more to it than that, mostly dealing with your desired level of quality of life. I guess it is about what is important to you. If being a lazy ass parasite is what you want out of life, then I suppose you have a point. Most other people, however, want a little more.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think the military really does have a 'suck it up and enjoy retirement' ethos, except when it's all gone wrong - that's the sort of attitude that you get among soldiers who have effectively given up on it and feel - rightly or wrongly - that working hard and chasing the benefits of a full career aren't worth it. For me it was always working hard to do things or be things that I wanted - you put in the extra effort in PT because you want to be a better infanteer (and be as fit or fitter than the other blokes in your platoon), then you work at things because you want to be a JNCO and have a chance at leadership, then because you want to make sergeant, or you want to be in special forces, and so on. The 'pain is temporary' ethos does absolutely exist, but in the context of 'suffer through morning runs so that you'll suffer less on long tabs': it isn't applied as a 'do the bare minimum until you can retire' at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, but the military also shows you that you have to work your ass off to get there.

I don't think 'not working anymore' is the actual goal. There is certainly more to it than that, mostly dealing with your desired level of quality of life. I guess it is about what is important to you. If being a lazy ass parasite is what you want out of life, then I suppose you have a point. Most other people, however, want a little more.

Parasites damage their hosts.

So a guy is working two minimum wage jobs, and after his FICA taxes are deducted automatically he can't feed his family, much less buy himself some job training. Those FICA taxes are used to pay off the "justly earned" retirement benefits of someone who could be productive, but certainly has no intention of doing so.

Who is the parasite?

If someone says "screw that, I want no part of this scheme" how does that make them a parasite?

 

[classical_hero]

Fon't forget that any government handouts, it is really not your money, but the Government's via the people, so they can have a say on what you can and cannot do with their money.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think the military really does have a 'suck it up and enjoy retirement' ethos, except when it's all gone wrong - that's the sort of attitude that you get among soldiers who have effectively given up on it and feel - rightly or wrongly - that working hard and chasing the benefits of a full career aren't worth it. For me it was always working hard to do things or be things that I wanted - you put in the extra effort in PT because you want to be a better infanteer (and be as fit or fitter than the other blokes in your platoon), then you work at things because you want to be a JNCO and have a chance at leadership, then because you want to make sergeant, or you want to be in special forces, and so on. The 'pain is temporary' ethos does absolutely exist, but in the context of 'suffer through morning runs so that you'll suffer less on long tabs': it isn't applied as a 'do the bare minimum until you can retire' at all.

I agree with you a hundred percent. Early on the desire to "be a better sailor and expand my abilities" is the motivation. I was an engineering watch supervisor qualified reactor operator when I got out of the navy. Had I stayed in another twelve years I could have retired...as an engineering watch supervisor qualified reactor operator. With another five thousand watches I would have been a little better at the job, no doubt, but it would hardly have "expanded my horizons".

So yes, my experience is that beyond a certain point the only things the military has to offer are job security and early retirement.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think the military really does have a 'suck it up and enjoy retirement' ethos, except when it's all gone wrong - that's the sort of attitude that you get among soldiers who have effectively given up on it and feel - rightly or wrongly - that working hard and chasing the benefits of a full career aren't worth it. For me it was always working hard to do things or be things that I wanted - you put in the extra effort in PT because you want to be a better infanteer (and be as fit or fitter than the other blokes in your platoon), then you work at things because you want to be a JNCO and have a chance at leadership, then because you want to make sergeant, or you want to be in special forces, and so on. The 'pain is temporary' ethos does absolutely exist, but in the context of 'suffer through morning runs so that you'll suffer less on long tabs': it isn't applied as a 'do the bare minimum until you can retire' at all.

Absolutely right FP. Most of the 'bare minimum' guys don't last past their first 8-10 years.

Parasites damage their hosts.

Yes, they do.

So a guy is working two minimum wage jobs, and after his FICA taxes are deducted automatically he can't feed his family, much less buy himself some job training. Those FICA taxes are used to pay off the "justly earned" retirement benefits of someone who could be productive, but certainly has no intention of doing so.

So you absolve him of any of his personal choices that got him in that predicament in the first place? Let's assume you do. When people find themselves in bad situations like this (of their own making or not) then it takes equally hard choices to get out of it.

Myself, if life had dealt me this kind of hand, I'd make the hard choice to have my kids live with someone else or even place them in foster care until I could take care of them adequately. Or else I wouldn't about having to work as hard as this guy is to feed and cloth them appropriately - because that's what you sign up for when you have kids.

Second, I'd get even another job now that I don't have to pay for childcare/food/clothing/etc. (or if not me, then the spouse works too since she's not taking care of kids anymore) and put myself on a budget and make a plan so that I COULD get that job training that will break me out of this cycle. It actually doesn't take that much honestly.....for example, you can pay a few grand and get a paralegal certificate which can eventually lead to jobs in the 50k to 70k range or even more for those with experience.

People CAN work themselves out of such situations, but it requires harsh decisions on their part and some measure of discipline. Some will indeed do what it takes to make that happen...some won't.

Who is the parasite?

The person who demands something for nothing. That hasn't changed.

If someone says "screw that, I want no part of this scheme" how does that make them a parasite?

They invest nothing into the social contract and withdraw everything. That's a parasite.

I agree with you a hundred percent. Early on the desire to "be a better sailor and expand my abilities" is the motivation. I was an engineering watch supervisor qualified reactor operator when I got out of the navy. Had I stayed in another twelve years I could have retired...as an engineering watch supervisor qualified reactor operator. With another five thousand watches I would have been a little better at the job, no doubt, but it would hardly have "expanded my horizons".

So yes, my experience is that beyond a certain point the only things the military has to offer are job security and early retirement.

You know you could have switched MOS's and gotten a different job when enlistment time rolled around. If you didn't like what you were doing, you can always try to do something else. Kind of the entire point of an enlistment contract.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you absolve him of any of his personal choices that got him in that predicament in the first place? Let's assume you do. When people find themselves in bad situations like this (of their own making or not) then it takes equally hard choices to get out of it.

Myself, if life had dealt me this kind of hand, I'd make the hard choice to have my kids live with someone else or even place them in foster care until I could take care of them adequately. Or else I wouldn't about having to work as hard as this guy is to feed and cloth them appropriately - because that's what you sign up for when you have kids.

Second, I'd get even another job now that I don't have to pay for childcare/food/clothing/etc. (or if not me, then the spouse works too since she's not taking care of kids anymore) and put myself on a budget and make a plan so that I COULD get that job training that will break me out of this cycle. It actually doesn't take that much honestly.....for example, you can pay a few grand and get a paralegal certificate which can eventually lead to jobs in the 50k to 70k range or even more for those with experience.

People CAN work themselves out of such situations, but it requires harsh decisions on their part and some measure of discipline. Some will indeed do what it takes to make that happen...some won't.

You know you could have switched MOS's and gotten a different job when enlistment time rolled around. If you didn't like what you were doing, you can always try to do something else. Kind of the entire point of an enlistment contract.

Well, the navy offers opportunities to change NES, but only based upon the needs of the navy. They provide a list, and you can switch to and receive training in any rate more critical than your own. You give up any extra pay based on your current NES immediately (obviously fair), but since you switch to a more critical rate you have the opportunity to complete training that will put you in a position to get more extra pay for the more critical NES, so that's not a long term loss.

Only one problem for yours truly. Care to guess where the NES for submarine reactor operator with supervisory qualification falls on the navy's list of critical rates? FWIW I didn't even really dislike what I was doing.

Now, back at people can work their way out of the 'consequences of their bad choices'. I have no doubt that you could, and I don't doubt for a second that you would. But here's the thing. Even if it isn't you, our society is absolutely structured such that we, including you, need those people...a whole freaking lot of them. We literally cannot allow them all, or even a significant fraction of them, to "work their way out of it". Which calls into question whether their condition really results from "their bad choices", or just the general need.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, the navy offers opportunities to change NES, but only based upon the needs of the navy. They provide a list, and you can switch to and receive training in any rate more critical than your own. You give up any extra pay based on your current NES immediately (obviously fair), but since you switch to a more critical rate you have the opportunity to complete training that will put you in a position to get more extra pay for the more critical NES, so that's not a long term loss.

Only one problem for yours truly. Care to guess where the NES for submarine reactor operator with supervisory qualification falls on the navy's list of critical rates? FWIW I didn't even really dislike what I was doing.

Now, back at people can work their way out of the 'consequences of their bad choices'. I have no doubt that you could, and I don't doubt for a second that you would. But here's the thing. Even if it isn't you, our society is absolutely structured such that we, including you, need those people...a whole freaking lot of them. We literally cannot allow them all, or even a significant fraction of them, to "work their way out of it". Which calls into question whether their condition really results from "their bad choices", or just the general need.

Reminds me of a quote from Caddyshack. 'The world needs ditch diggers too!' - Judge Smials.

 

[Flying Pig]

I agree with you a hundred percent. Early on the desire to "be a better sailor and expand my abilities" is the motivation. I was an engineering watch supervisor qualified reactor operator when I got out of the navy. Had I stayed in another twelve years I could have retired...as an engineering watch supervisor qualified reactor operator. With another five thousand watches I would have been a little better at the job, no doubt, but it would hardly have "expanded my horizons".

So yes, my experience is that beyond a certain point the only things the military has to offer are job security and early retirement.

Absolutely right FP. Most of the 'bare minimum' guys don't last past their first 8-10 years.

When I was a sergeant-major, I was inclined to think of the 'bare minimum' people, the 22-year lance-corporals and such like as interminable wasters. Now I'm still convinced that a fair subset of them were just that, but at least some of them were also people that the system lets slip through - people like Tim whom the military doesn't give enough opportunities for challenge and development or good reasons to stay in beyond 'civvy street is awful'. If you want to leave the Army. you have an interview with your platoon commander, then the CSM, then the company OC - and, almost finally, the RSM. That conversation nearly always took the form of the RSM - who is practically at the top of the military tree and has been able to take advantage of all the positive things that the army offers - telling the soldier (usually young, generally married, not rarely with a stripe or two on his shoulder and often quite bright) that civilian life is awful. These are, by and large, people who are leaving precisely because they've realised that they fit rather well in civilian life and could - with the right systems and man-management in place - do well in military life, and we were (and no doubt still are) quite arrogant about telling them to like it or lump it in the Army.