Are deliberately unemployed people a drain on society?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If they can afford their lifestyle, no. If they can't, and live off of the work of others, than they are parasites of the lowest order.

Of course, 99% of those on public assistance are not deliberately unemployed.

[tik 🪀✨]

Actually, dead0man, I mentioned consumption in the OP as a benefit.

And to clarify, yes, the only people we're discussing are those with no legitimate excuse not to work. Housewives don't count, nor do students, the disabled, etc.

Part of my argument for them not being a drain is their consumption. We often overproduce and so waste resources anyway.

And of course I believe it's ethical to make sure everyone is able to survive. So I don't mind if they receive payments.

Bear in mind I still don't really think what they're doing is good.

[H. Ross Peron]

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

This is disgusting.

I don't think ingemann meant forcing people to work at the point of a gun but rather recognizing that its psychologically unhealthy to lead a dissipated life. Ideally guaranteeing the basic necessities of life should encourage more volunteer/humanitarian work now then material concerns are far less pressing.

[Hamster]

but I think in their own way that they contribute by buying goods and services on whatever level.

What if they survive without using money?

[tik 🪀✨]

Then they aren't of any concern and, come to think of it, they should probably write a book about it. Unless they're nutcases.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There are lots of ways to contribute. I don't know how one would measure if someone is being a drain on society. Maybe most people are net drains on society and its just a few people carrying the weight - but then society wouldn't even exist without everyone else.  If someone isn't working, does that mean there is a position available for someone else that wouldn't be otherwise?  I guess that depends on what sort of value would be created by the work that the person would be doing. --And then, if someone works enough to get Social Security, the likelihood is they will be getting more than they paid in, so maybe that is a greater drain on the next generation than if a person works not quite enough to qualify.

What I do think is that defining folks primarily by their livelihood or lack thereof is itself a drain on society. It certainly doesn't seem healthy psychologically.

[ingemann]

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

This is disgusting.

Yes because it's much better to active help people destroying their own life.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Remarkably few people are 'deliberately unemployed', but whatever.

[Velasco]

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

This is disgusting.

I believe he didn't realise of the full implications of that sentence.

On the other hand, I fully agree on this:

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.

It's fully understandable that nobody wants to work as street sweeper if -aside negative social recognition- the payment is miserable. Pay them the same as dockers and you will see a long queue of seekers.

People who choose doing nothing -'productive' or not- must be a negligible and harmless fraction of the unemployed. For sure they would need some help or guidance, but I see no need for punitive actions. The notion of "labour dignifies" is deeply rooted in our society. And I think that's true in all cases in which you have decent working conditions. I hear often that people who doesn't work is people who doesn't really want to work. It's highly ironic, since I live in a place with sky-high unemployment rates, but that's a commonplace which is deeply rooted too.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

How big a % of unemployed people is this really? Please give data (pronounced Day-tah not Dah-tah).

[Linus Van Pelt]

It's fine to use metaphors, but (outside some literary purposes, at least) it should be reasonably clear what they actually stand for. In what way is society like a sink, from which (presumably) water could flow out through a "drain"? What is playing the role of the water? Wealth? Happiness? Moral rectitude?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The latter. Obviously.

[angus]

Are deliberately unemployed people a drain on society?

Intriguing question.  I suppose it depends upon the economic structure of the society.  In a socialist enterprise, I think that they would be.  In a completely laissez-faire economy, I do not think they would be.  You must also define employment.  You must also consider the consequences.

Thoreau in his Walden Pond years may have been unemployed by the standards of some, but he performed a great deal of work in the physical sense in order to keep himself alive, and he wrote, and many people read what he wrote, and their lives were richer for reading.  The Buddha, before he became the Buddha, left his palace and began his ascetic life by begging for alms in the street.  After that, he spent some time meditating and starving himself.  Certainly by the standards of many people, he was deliberately unemployed, but it was his deliberate unemployment that inspired his "awakening" and it was from this awakening that the religion of the Middle Way was born.  This religion and its philosophy has made the lives of many people richer.

One must consider all aspects of the question you ask, grasshopper, before answering it.  

[tik 🪀✨]

Linus, the sink is society, and there are pipes (the economy) that bring water (resources) to and from the sink in a cycle. From this a deliberately unemployed person would be more like a leak in the pipes (if you think they are draining resources out of the economy).

Or, you could take one of the literal definitions of "drain": something that uses up resources (up being the key word). This was my (and dead0man's, I presume) intention. He also called them leaches I believe. That's excellent imagery.

And yet another alternative one could stop being so goddamn pedantic.

[tik 🪀✨]

Angus, my intention is to talk only about those who are not engaged in behaviour that would likely result in present or future gains for more than oneself. Think of an able bodied 25 year old with no physical or mental ailments and no pressing responsibilities or goals who survives by government payment or constant mooching off of monied relatives or friends. They aren't earning their keep, and their free time is spent purely in leisure and selfishness.

[angus]

Think of an able bodied 25 year old with no physical or mental ailments and no pressing responsibilities or goals who survives by government payment or constant mooching off of monied relatives or friends. They aren't earning their keep, and their free time is spent purely in leisure and selfishness.

ah,

For example, opebo, before his folks cut him off circa 2005 and he entered a life of "toil" with the teaching gig in Thailand.  Though it is only one example, many of the posters here would not consider the pre-toil life of opebo to have been a drain.  In fact, at least one poster seemed to regard him rather as a spiritual advisor, not unlike the Buddha.  In some sense we all drain the resources of society, and it can be difficult to quantify the value we add to our society relative to the resources we use, but in opebo's condition we find evidence that the lifestyle you describe can yield perceived benefits to at least some members of the society. 

[ingemann]

Remarkably few people are 'deliberately unemployed', but whatever.

That depend on how we define "deliberately unemployed", if we define it as someone, who will work very hard to stay on unemployment benefits, yes in that case it's relative few people, and honestly there are not a lot which can be done about these people, but in general you need to find ways to punish these people, so that the general population don't stop supporting the existence of help to unemployed people.

But there are a lot of people, who don't want to take jobs which are "beneath" them, others are not willing to learn the skills necessary to get even a basic job or even people whose selfworth are so destroyed that they are terrified to fail one more time. These people need to be pushed in different ways back into the work force.

[DS0816]

"Deliberately unemployed people" are either not needing and wanting employment or they are ones who are living off the extraordinary generosity of a relative.

It should be obvious to people that retired and disabled persons do not apply. (It is not easy for the disabled people to fraudulently pull one over on government. So I don't buy into that as Republicans would want us to do so; just as they like to push the meme about voter fraud.)

As for the "drain on society," that is truly coming from piggish greed (including white collar criminals from numerous circles), unnecessary wars, Washington D.C. lobbyists for special interests (corporations and industry), along ith their politicians, and overall poor policies badly affecting American lives.

[Marnetmar]

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.

[ElectionsGuy]

If someone is not working just because they don't want to (house mothers and fathers, and the like excused) and their living based off of other people's tax dollars, then yes, I would say so.

[Foucaulf]

Angus, my intention is to talk only about those who are not engaged in behaviour that would likely result in present or future gains for more than oneself. Think of an able bodied 25 year old with no physical or mental ailments and no pressing responsibilities or goals who survives by government payment or constant mooching off of monied relatives or friends. They aren't earning their keep, and their free time is spent purely in leisure and selfishness.

They may be disrespecting their relatives and friends by doing so, and do not earn their keep relative to them. Doing so may be wrong in itself. Why drag "society" into this?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No.  The capitalistic mindset may be deeply ingrained in modern Western society, but that doesn't change the fact that some people will just never be happy or fulfilled seeking employment in today's jobs market.  I deeply disagree with the idea that paid employment should be forced onto people who do not want it at the threat of starvation, homelessness, and despair.  We are human beings.  Not a job title or a position in a company.   Refusing the opportunity to work; I would say that lavish amenities should not be provided for.  However, basic needs like food, shelter, education, and tools for communication are easily feasible with the vast resources we have in most countries. 

[dead0man]

Most of us aren't saying we should take away the dole.  I can believe somebody is a leach and still think that they should be provided for.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's absurd that the idea of trading labor for currency, which in turn can be traded for goods and services, is so alien to this forum.

No, and a vast majority of us have no issue living life in this context.  I just understand that paid employment is akin to misery for many out there, and I do not believe that they should be thrust into this world and be expected to conform to what people before them have established as "the norm". 

[dead0man]

One family takes almost a third of a town's monthly expenses, town forced to raise taxes on everybody else.  "everybody else" is pissed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a leach.  If "paid employment is akin to misery", how's about you don't have 7 kids.