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

[MobBoss]

FP - actually, I ran into a several that weren't really 'bare minimum' 20 year Specialists/Corporals, but rather they simply didn't want the responsibility of leading others and felt comfortable with what they did at that level and were very good at it. They didn't shirk their responsibility, but just recognized they weren't the types to bark orders at folks when needed.

I can appreciate someone like that to a degree that finds their niche and wants to stay with it. And they are certainly a different kind of soldier than the ones you are referring to.

 

[El_Machinae]

The huge advantage of having military spending available is that it's a very excellent way of creating workfare programs in 'Conservative' states, in that it tends to be much more politically palatable.

The fiscal conservative recognizes the benefits of workfare programs, and then agitates to get more social benefit from that spending. So, having the recruits leave with marketable skills (or at least general education) or having them produce goods and services that are not normally served by regular market forces, etc.

There's obviously the Public Good (using the economic term) of defensive spending leading to asset protection, but it's hard to properly calculate where the threshold is where you get diminishing returns on spending (the first 100 ICBMs have incredible deterrence value, the first 1000 move into 'marginal' value, whereas the ten thousandth ICBM is probably being generated at a net loss and there's better ways to spend that money, despite its workfare value)

 

[Flying Pig]

Indeed, and I think one of the big problems with the military system is that there aren't a lot of avenues to advance 'up the ladder' without taking on a leadership role. I think the American 'Specialist' ranks (and Warrant Officers?) used to work like that, and we could do with it over here - there's no excuse for a talented infanteer to make corporal in five years and then stay there for the next fifteen because he wants to carry on plying his trade directly. The closest thing that we could currently offer him would be a transfer to a cap badge like the Small Arms School Corps - or perhaps the SAS.

EDIT: That was directed at Mobby's post.

 

[uppi]

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.

Offer them the help they need independent of the welfare system instead of forcing it down their throat.

I do not think it is anyone's job to tell someone else how to live their life, unless being asked. There need to be rules to avoid harm to others, but those need to apply to all people equally, irrespectively of their financial status.

That probably means that the system is not as effective as it could be, but that is the price of freedom.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, if you're offering them help, how is that not part of the welfare system? And then the help that you're offering will be organized and run by professional bureaucrats, and thus they'll have both a budget a mandate for what types of goods and services they offer.

 

[uppi]

Er, if you're offering them help, how is that not part of the welfare system? And then the help that you're offering will be organized and run by professional bureaucrats, and thus they'll have both a budget a mandate for what types of goods and services they offer.

Hmm, that was probably not the best way to put it. What I meant was that financial welfare should be independent of whether or not you rely on advisorial help. That would mean you get money to buy food and you cab get help learning how to eat healthy, but there is no requirement to partake in one program when you partake in the other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

It should be noted that had I stayed the extra twelve years I would have "advanced" through the ranks. My billet on my boat was designated for E-7 to E-9, despite being filled by an E-6 (me). I was up for E-7 and by all indications a "shoe-in" for promotion...to the lowest rank designated for the job I was doing. But that wouldn't have given me a new job to do or made it in any way less repetitious.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

The thing is, if you look a who the welfare recipients are, it's a small minority which are actually incapable of living their lives without that paternalism. For all the rest, straight money transfers are both more effective, but also much more humane and decent treatment. The reason we have food stamps and other welfare programs with restrictions and paternalism intertwined with them is not because they improve the outcomes for the poor, but because they worsen the outcomes for the poor. The worsening of the outcomes is deliberate. Where it comes from is the belief that the poor cannot, or will not, or does not deserve the right to, live their own lives. That is, the motives are to think the worst of those people who need help, and also to shame them. And to try to drive them off welfare and make them 'take responsibility and get a job.' But in reality we'd all be better off not doing things that way. And only have special extra programs for that minority of people who actually can't live on their own.

 

[Flying Pig]

We used to have a constant problem with that, such that for a while your rank and job barely corresponded at all - it all depends on who's around to do which job and how much ability and experience they have. I think it's become better now, but there used to be some quite ridiculous situations where 'junior' soldiers would be doing the work of sergeants and above. E7 is Colour Sergeant to us, and those are almost designed to be 'odd job men' who can fill in a lot of quite varied jobs - often including working 'above their grade' if there's a shortage of WOs.

 

[Cutlass]

As I recall, the repeated problems the USAF and USN have had with nuclear weapons watch standers cheating on certifications and other problems has been related to what Tim is saying. There may be some slow promotions in grade, but there's little to no room for career advancement to do any different job from what they are currently doing.

 

[El_Machinae]

The thing is, if you look a who the welfare recipients are, it's a small minority which are actually incapable of living their lives without that paternalism. For all the rest, straight money transfers are both more effective, but also much more humane and decent treatment. The reason we have food stamps and other welfare programs with restrictions and paternalism intertwined with them is not because they improve the outcomes for the poor, but because they worsen the outcomes for the poor. The worsening of the outcomes is deliberate. Where it comes from is the belief that the poor cannot, or will not, or does not deserve the right to, live their own lives. That is, the motives are to think the worst of those people who need help, and also to shame them. And to try to drive them off welfare and make them 'take responsibility and get a job.' But in reality we'd all be better off not doing things that way. And only have special extra programs for that minority of people who actually can't live on their own.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I'm talking about the 1% that actually need paternalistic help. There's probably about 20% of those needing assistance who do better with goods and services rather than cash. An incredible portion of people on welfare merely need cash, and are vastly benefited by giving them the ability to invest it as they see fit.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We used to have a constant problem with that, such that for a while your rank and job barely corresponded at all - it all depends on who's around to do which job and how much ability and experience they have. I think it's become better now, but there used to be some quite ridiculous situations where 'junior' soldiers would be doing the work of sergeants and above. E7 is Colour Sergeant to us, and those are almost designed to be 'odd job men' who can fill in a lot of quite varied jobs - often including working 'above their grade' if there's a shortage of WOs.

Our problem was more a function of specialization. We had three nuclear divisions, each of which was expected to have a 'chief' (E7-9) and a 'leading first' (E6) plus some number of E4-6 minions. The engineering watch supervisor watchbill was supposed to be filled by the division chiefs, with leading firsts expected to be pursuing that qualification...but ultimately that was the end of the line. The other two divisions had one juniormost watchstation each that didn't have a specific NES requirement, and I qualified on those just for something to do, but their more interesting watchstations required a NES that could only be granted by a school.

I could have (and would have) gone to another ship, where I would have had to learn some new stuff to requalify. Somehow twelve years punctuated by occasional "Wow! Your steam line runs down the port side instead of starboard! That's certainly different!" didn't seem to offer a lot of stimulation.

 

[Future PM]

Only if you deep fry them. There are recipes for them that only use a teaspoon of oil.



Meeting the requirements to receive aid doesn't mean you earned it. It means you qualify for it. This is simply entitlement thinking....thinking that you have somehow earned something that you did nothing for.

Yes, those young people nowadays. There have never before been lazy people in the history of humankind. It's all the next generation's fault. You know, fifty years ago your dad was saying the same thing about your generation.

I have literally shovelled crap to earn money, but I certainly didn't want to. I have a university degree, and I think it would be wonderful if I could get a job in that field. Due to a combination of bad luck, bad timing, and my own stupidity in choosing a field that doesn't get you a job these days, I have been forced to work in other fields. But how many people are "too lazy to work" as compared to "unable to find work?" I think you'll find the latter is a far greater number than the former.

 

[Flying Pig]

Actually, I do think that people are entitled, simply by virtue of being born a human being, to a certain degree of comfort and dignity, which entails not living in total poverty. To have 'liberty' and any chance at 'happiness' you need a degree of money: 'be miserable or starve' is not a free choice, and one way that we get around employers being able to force people into that choice is by making sure that 'starve' never comes into the calculation. Moreover, I do not believe that the child of even the most work-shy parents deserves to be stuck in a cycle of poverty - and literally giving the parents money is (one) way to help them out of that.

 

[Borachio]

I have literally shovelled crap to earn money

Luxury! Shovelling crap used to be my dream job.

Spoiler :

When I worked at the pet crematorium.

No. Honestly there's nothing much worse than shovelling crap. Apart from eating it. But that's more of a hobby than a job.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, those young people nowadays. There have never before been lazy people in the history of humankind. It's all the next generation's fault. You know, fifty years ago your dad was saying the same thing about your generation.

I have literally shovelled crap to earn money, but I certainly didn't want to. I have a university degree, and I think it would be wonderful if I could get a job in that field. Due to a combination of bad luck, bad timing, and my own stupidity in choosing a field that doesn't get you a job these days, I have been forced to work in other fields. But how many people are "too lazy to work" as compared to "unable to find work?" I think you'll find the latter is a far greater number than the former.

I am obviously to those that refuse to work when jobs are indeed available. No need to get your knickers up.

 

[GenMarshall]

But many of todays young job seekers often will turn their noses up at menial jobs as if they are too good to get their hands dirty.

I would say that part of the problem would have been on the public education (excepting trade and tech high schools) of the 1980s and 90s where educators touted that idea that it's better to go to college and become rich instead of not going and being poor. Heck, they didn't even bothered informing students in my time about possible well paying trades and apprenticeship programs.

At each and every event I went to there were manufacturers literally begging for people to take 20 to 30 dollar an hour starting jobs. The HR reps told us that they have a hard time filling positions that pay well for the simple reason that young people today hold a stigma to blue collar jobs. That people that work them are uneducated and filthy.

I would be asking "what's the catch?" if they told me that they're offering me $20-30 for a manufacturing job. Since to me, that's something they would offer to someone who has experience within that field or trade, or just finished an apprenticeship program.

To be honest, if they provide the training and an apprentiship program. I'd jump on that offer in a heart beat.....so long as they don't tout the "You're too overqualified" excuse.

Eventually they might figure out why the biggest house on the street is owned by the garbage man.

More like tired of not seeing their goals going anywhere and have to make a drastic change in their plans or be stuck in eternal underemployment with little pay.

 

[MobBoss]

I would be asking "what's the catch?" if they told me that they're offering me $20-30 for a manufacturing job. Since to me, that's something they would offer to someone who has experience within that field or trade, or just finished an apprenticeship program.

To be honest, if they provide the training and an apprentiship program. I'd jump on that offer in a heart beat.....so long as they don't tout the "You're too overqualified" excuse.

You've changed CivGeneral......there was a time you would have said such a job were beneath you.

More like tired of not seeing their goals going anywhere and have to make a drastic change in their plans or be stuck in eternal underemployment with little pay.

Change is often a very good thing. It's how we grow.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Change is often a very good thing. It's how we grow.

I find that the biggest contributor to my growth is pizza.

 

[Future PM]

I find that the biggest contributor to my growth is pizza.

Which is why you shouldn't be allowed to buy it with your food stamps, parasite. This is for your own health and well-being.

@MobBoss: As I stated, the people who refuse to work are a far smaller number than those who will take a job when it is available. This characterisation of Gen Y as lazy and unwilling to work is disturbingly common, has no basis whatsoever in fact, and was commonly applied to your own generation once upon a time.