Are deliberately unemployed people a drain on society?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:02:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Are deliberately unemployed people a drain on society?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: Only people who could easily work, but choose not to.
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 55

Author Topic: Are deliberately unemployed people a drain on society?  (Read 6266 times)
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 07, 2014, 03:22:32 AM »
« edited: September 07, 2014, 03:24:11 AM by Tik »

Inspired by dead0man's comments in FC. I don't think people who don't want any work should be forced to work. I don't find such people very inspiring or even good, but I think in their own way that they contribute by buying goods and services on whatever level. And if they're getting government payments I don't care because I like to live in a world where people aren't forced into squalor by collective spite. And in general anyone who looks at them and then cries about "their" tax dollars being wasted on someone else's basic well-being is an insufferable ninnyhammer. If they are surviving on a relative's generosity they're only a drain on said person, which is just unfortunate, but doesn't mean they're a drain on society.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2014, 03:53:05 AM »

Yes. The problem here is that if you have people who are, as you said, deliberately unemployed, and still entitled to receive welfare payments from the state, then that creates a massive disincentive on the part of many people to work. I mean, like it or not, we need people to do some of the hardest and nastiest jobs in society (street sweeping, cleaning sewers etcetera). Where's the incentive for people to do these (often low-paying) jobs, when they can simply choose to be deliberately employed and receive money from the state anyway. Whilst this wouldn't make everybody want to quit there job, you can bet that it would cause a large swathe of the populace to at least consider doing so. The government paying people for doing nothing when they could be doing something is not a sustainable or even 'fair' policy.

You talked of people being 'forced into squalor by collective spite'. Well, in the case of the deliberately unemployed (whom, by the nature of the term 'deliberately unemployed' I assume would have the ability to find employment), they would be forced into squalor by the fact that they didn't want to behave like the vast majority of society and try and find a job. It isn't callous to be somewhat reluctant to see the money that you pay in tax to the state (skimmed off the income of a job that you might not find very enjoyable or pleasant) possibly used to fund the lifestyle of someone who could work but doesn't work. I mean, the latter is the very definition of idleness.

Whilst, in my view, the sick and those who are unemployed through no fault of their own should receive some form of support, those who are simply to lazy to work should not receive any support, certainly not from the state. If they don't work deliberately, yet don't receive money from the state (which is far more likely) then they're simply a drain upon whomever is having to support them, unless said person or people are fully sympathetic towards them.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2014, 04:40:08 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2014, 04:45:22 AM by Tik »

To balance it out, you need to make welfare payments just low enough and increase the pay for those jobs no one wants dramatically. Living on the dole isn't a lifestyle most people thrive in, of course. It's incentive enough for most people to find work so that they're earning more. For those that choose it, a tiny fraction of the unemployed, I still don't think their existence is a net loss.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mind if their lifestyle is unpleasant, but squalor is inhumane and doesn't fit the "crime" of purposeful unemployment.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2014, 05:16:43 AM »

lolno
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2014, 05:43:01 AM »


Care to elaborate?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2014, 05:47:27 AM »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.
Logged
checkers
Not Great Bob
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 270
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2014, 05:50:45 AM »

I basically agree with everything the original poster said - I think society basically has the duty to support everyone at a reasonable standard of living, even if their behaviour is not necessarily the most admirable. They certainly shouldn't be forced into squalor.

Its also worth noting that some people who choose to go on the dole contribute to society in other ways - activism etc. I don't necessarily think that the value of someone's activities is determined by whether they can find a job in a capitalist economy or not.

And when it comes down to it, the numbers of deliberately unemployed are so tiny that they're hardly a significant drain on the average taxpayer.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2014, 07:37:38 AM »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration. I agree that every human being has the right to a minimum standard of living, but that doesn't change the fact that people who chose  not to work (or do anything else productive, such as caring for their family) are objectively a drain to society. If you consume resources without contributing, you are a drain.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2014, 07:54:40 AM »

Aren't people that are 'deliberately unemployed' stealing money from people who are legitimately unemployed?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2014, 08:34:44 AM »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration. I agree that every human being has the right to a minimum standard of living, but that doesn't change the fact that people who chose  not to work (or do anything else productive, such as caring for their family) are objectively a drain to society. If you consume resources without contributing, you are a drain.

Only if you consider such resources (and let's remember we are talking about nothing more than some meager unemployment benefits here) to be a reward for work or for the act of seeking work. However, if they are an entitlement (a word that is almost always used in disparaging terms but which the left should reclaim), then nobody can "drain" them from anybody, since everyone has access to them.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2014, 08:41:35 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2014, 08:44:36 AM by politicus »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration. I agree that every human being has the right to a minimum standard of living, but that doesn't change the fact that people who chose  not to work (or do anything else productive, such as caring for their family) are objectively a drain to society. If you consume resources without contributing, you are a drain.

Only if you consider such resources (and let's remember we are talking about nothing more than some meager unemployment benefits here) to be a reward for work or for the act of seeking work. However, if they are an entitlement (a word that is almost always used in disparaging terms but which the left should reclaim), then nobody can "drain" them from anybody, since everyone has access to them.

Society has a limited pool of resources, if you take resources without contributing (with labour or otherwise) you drain that pool. This can be legitimate if you cant contribute because of age, illness, handicap etc., but if you just choose not to contribute anything its both unethical and a drain of resources that somebody else could use.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2014, 10:15:45 AM »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration. I agree that every human being has the right to a minimum standard of living, but that doesn't change the fact that people who chose  not to work (or do anything else productive, such as caring for their family) are objectively a drain to society. If you consume resources without contributing, you are a drain.

Only if you consider such resources (and let's remember we are talking about nothing more than some meager unemployment benefits here) to be a reward for work or for the act of seeking work. However, if they are an entitlement (a word that is almost always used in disparaging terms but which the left should reclaim), then nobody can "drain" them from anybody, since everyone has access to them.

Society has a limited pool of resources, if you take resources without contributing (with labour or otherwise) you drain that pool. This can be legitimate if you cant contribute because of age, illness, handicap etc., but if you just choose not to contribute anything its both unethical and a drain of resources that somebody else could use.

Society has more than enough resources for everyone to live a more than comfortable life. The only problem is that these resources are improperly distributed.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2014, 10:38:08 AM »

Depends. If they are just deliberately unemployed, but they are still productive (eg housewife), they still contribute. Sedentary individuals who are deliberately unemployed are basically leeching money from the disabled and elderly.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2014, 11:30:57 AM »

Definitions are important here. Who counts as 'deliberately unemployed'? Stay-at-home parents? The disabled? The old? Students?
I don't think any of those would count.  We're mainly talking Trust Fund Kids (and other healthy, able adults living off of a wealthy relative) and those perpetually on the dole.  Not the sick.  Not the elderly.  Not the legitimately disabled.  Not the students (unless they are perpetual students not paying their own way).
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2014, 11:40:38 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2014, 11:43:08 AM by morays or demon »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration. I agree that every human being has the right to a minimum standard of living, but that doesn't change the fact that people who chose  not to work (or do anything else productive, such as caring for their family) are objectively a drain to society. If you consume resources without contributing, you are a drain.

Only if you consider such resources (and let's remember we are talking about nothing more than some meager unemployment benefits here) to be a reward for work or for the act of seeking work. However, if they are an entitlement (a word that is almost always used in disparaging terms but which the left should reclaim), then nobody can "drain" them from anybody, since everyone has access to them.

Society has a limited pool of resources, if you take resources without contributing (with labour or otherwise) you drain that pool. This can be legitimate if you cant contribute because of age, illness, handicap etc., but if you just choose not to contribute anything its both unethical and a drain of resources that somebody else could use.

Society has more than enough resources for everyone to live a more than comfortable life. The only problem is that these resources are improperly distributed.
that's true to an extent. but don't you also agree that if the developing world lived like americans or even just the average frenchman/german/whatever there wouldn't be enough resources for everyone? granted, it's absolutely true that a country like the us could give everyone who *currently* needs it food and basic shelter if it really wanted to. although that still leaves the old question of what would happen if all those people had more children 'in need' than they might otherwise have. and no that isn't intended to be some lame coded 'black baby mommas' type thing just more of a general statement
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2014, 12:08:42 PM »


Nah, not really. I believe that every human being has a universal right to a basic standard of living ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing and education, regardless of whether they choose to work or not. There isn't much more to say.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration. I agree that every human being has the right to a minimum standard of living, but that doesn't change the fact that people who chose  not to work (or do anything else productive, such as caring for their family) are objectively a drain to society. If you consume resources without contributing, you are a drain.

Only if you consider such resources (and let's remember we are talking about nothing more than some meager unemployment benefits here) to be a reward for work or for the act of seeking work. However, if they are an entitlement (a word that is almost always used in disparaging terms but which the left should reclaim), then nobody can "drain" them from anybody, since everyone has access to them.

Society has a limited pool of resources, if you take resources without contributing (with labour or otherwise) you drain that pool. This can be legitimate if you cant contribute because of age, illness, handicap etc., but if you just choose not to contribute anything its both unethical and a drain of resources that somebody else could use.

Society has more than enough resources for everyone to live a more than comfortable life. The only problem is that these resources are improperly distributed.
that's true to an extent. but don't you also agree that if the developing world lived like americans or even just the average frenchman/german/whatever there wouldn't be enough resources for everyone? granted, it's absolutely true that a country like the us could give everyone who *currently* needs it food and basic shelter if it really wanted to. although that still leaves the old question of what would happen if all those people had more children 'in need' than they might otherwise have. and no that isn't intended to be some lame coded 'black baby mommas' type thing just more of a general statement

Well, first of all, while not everyone on the planet might be able live at the standards of the average westerner, the situation might be a bit different if we think in terms of the median westerner. Since the distribution of wealth and income is naturally skewed to the right, GDP per capita and similar indicators tend to overstate the level of wealth of most people. I don't have precise figures right now to tell you how much difference it makes, but my guess is that it brings the numbers down by quite a bit.

Now of course that might still not be enough, so of course we will have to figure out a way to allow developing countries to reach our standards of living without consuming as much finite resources as we did in our time - but that opens up a whole new debate.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2014, 12:17:56 PM »

What about the Forbes 400 or whomever? Aren't they, in a sense, "deliberately unemployed"? /trollpost

But seriously...I agree with Antonio, to an extent.  Obviously not everyone can live like an upper-middle class Westerner, but I don't think that is what people really are demanding when they say they want basic access to food, health care, education, etc.-the things that go into a basically adequate (if not necessarily comfortable) standard of living.

And yes, the problem of unequal distribution must be addressed for this to happen.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2014, 01:15:13 PM »

I personal think that such people should have access to food and other basic necessities, at the same time they're not only a drain on society, they are also destroying their own life, and I as socialist think we do everything to force with all means them to become productive members of society for their own good.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2014, 01:50:40 PM »

I personal think that such people should have access to food and other basic necessities, at the same time they're not only a drain on society, they are also destroying their own life, and I as socialist think we do everything to force with all means them to become productive members of society for their own good.

This basically.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2014, 02:51:36 PM »

There's two different questions here; are people who refuse to work a drain on a society, and what should we do about them?

The first is a question of fact. People who refuse to contribute to their living either through paid labour, unpaid labour or capital even though they could are indisputably drains on society.

The other question is more interesting. What should we do about them? While I think we do have a moral obligation to look after those who cannot help themselves due to infirmity, age, lack of work etc, I don't feel morally obliged to asisst those who will not help themselves. It would be morally acceptable to leave those people to mercy of relatives, private charity and so on.

However, real life usually doesn't provide clear lines dividing those who can't and those who won't work. For that reason, even though it's not a moral obligation to assist loafers, it's practical to do so.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2014, 03:00:47 PM »

so the underlying assumption behind most every post here is that the only way to 'contribute to society' is to take part in the production-and-consumption market economy.

if my friends and family like me and I make their lives happier, is that a contribution to society?  

there is also the problem of unpaid household labor, which is not directed towards commodity production but yet forms the backbone of every society, even the soulless USA.  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_work
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2014, 03:16:21 PM »

so the underlying assumption behind most every post here is that the only way to 'contribute to society' is to take part in the production-and-consumption market economy.

if my friends and family like me and I make their lives happier, is that a contribution to society?  

there is also the problem of unpaid household labor, which is not directed towards commodity production but yet forms the backbone of every society, even the soulless USA.  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_work

Actually most of us included (some) other kinds of productive activities in our definition of contributing to society.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2014, 03:23:58 PM »

Perhaps they are, but I'm not going to support policies that make life even more difficult and degrading for the unwillingly unemployed (who are far greater in number) for sake of spiting the deliberately unemployed.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2014, 03:24:35 PM »

so the underlying assumption behind most every post here is that the only way to 'contribute to society' is to take part in the production-and-consumption market economy.
Nobody, until now, has mentioned consumption.  I'm not sure how you got that from "most every post here", but you seem to enjoy reading what you want to read.  
(don't worry, you're not alone, it's a popular characteristic around here)
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
meh, if it makes you (and they) feel better who am I to say otherwise?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If you're helping the people paying your way then you're not a drain.
Actually most of us included (some) other kinds of productive activities in our definition of contributing to society.
A bit defensive isn't he?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2014, 03:29:15 PM »

to force with all means them to become productive members of society for their own good.

This is disgusting.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 14 queries.