>> I have absolutely no problem with giving people who cannot afford to pay for their own food, shelter, and medical care free food, shelter, or medical care.
We're back to the beginning (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1604886.html?thread=128942870#t128942870) so let's jump straight to the main question: how will your efforts to turn "poverty" into a relatively careless life (food, shelter etc. are free) encourage people to start working and maintaining themselves?
>> What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family?
By "not that effective" I mean that Jones family is making less job at a time and/or customers are less satisfied with their job. As for your "Maybe" - I specified, that "Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation". You disagree it usually brings more customers and better earnings which, in turn, may bring higher quality of life?
>>Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.
I wasn't saying a word about the "middle class". I gave you an example of two families in the same starting position, both below the standards you may assume. One family went above this line on its own while another family worked worse, yet made the same transition because you want them to.
>>My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes. What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way? It's not about you paying taxes. It's about you as a fictional state employee deciding whom to subsidize. State employees are, by definition, paid by taxes of those who do non-state jobs: build cars, make tacos, wash dishes. The problems for better-working Smith family are that they have to: 1) maintain you, who makes them pay for the worse-working Jones family. 2) actually, pay for worse-working Jones family.
>>This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"
What could happen indeed? Let me tell you the story about anti-discrimination law. I once worked for a really good guy from Mexico who didn't give a shit about all that racist crap, and neither did I, "- Hola whiteass! Hola wetback!". Once he didn't hire a really nice black guy for some project and, when I asked, he explained that he may have difficulties with laying this guy off after the project is done because of anti-discrimination laws. And his small business can't afford possible legal expenses, so it's easier not to hire this guy in the first place. I was very surprised but have encountered more cases like this later on. I'm afraid these laws don't prevent discrimination but do the opposite. Same is minimum wage law, for example - no one is going to pay $7/hr for concrete mixing or picking tomatoes which makes it impossible for the US citizen to get that job and speeds up illegal immigration.
Again, I like when people are well paid and live in good houses, I'm on your side - but you're not.
no subject
We're back to the beginning (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1604886.html?thread=128942870#t128942870) so let's jump straight to the main question: how will your efforts to turn "poverty" into a relatively careless life (food, shelter etc. are free) encourage people to start working and maintaining themselves?
>> What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family?
By "not that effective" I mean that Jones family is making less job at a time and/or customers are less satisfied with their job.
As for your "Maybe" - I specified, that "Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation". You disagree it usually brings more customers and better earnings which, in turn, may bring higher quality of life?
>>Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.
I wasn't saying a word about the "middle class". I gave you an example of two families in the same starting position, both below the standards you may assume. One family went above this line on its own while another family worked worse, yet made the same transition because you want them to.
>>My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes. What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way?
It's not about you paying taxes. It's about you as a fictional state employee deciding whom to subsidize.
State employees are, by definition, paid by taxes of those who do non-state jobs: build cars, make tacos, wash dishes.
The problems for better-working Smith family are that they have to:
1) maintain you, who makes them pay for the worse-working Jones family.
2) actually, pay for worse-working Jones family.
>>This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"
What could happen indeed?
Let me tell you the story about anti-discrimination law. I once worked for a really good guy from Mexico who didn't give a shit about all that racist crap, and neither did I, "- Hola whiteass! Hola wetback!". Once he didn't hire a really nice black guy for some project and, when I asked, he explained that he may have difficulties with laying this guy off after the project is done because of anti-discrimination laws. And his small business can't afford possible legal expenses, so it's easier not to hire this guy in the first place.
I was very surprised but have encountered more cases like this later on.
I'm afraid these laws don't prevent discrimination but do the opposite.
Same is minimum wage law, for example - no one is going to pay $7/hr for concrete mixing or picking tomatoes which makes it impossible for the US citizen to get that job and speeds up illegal immigration.
Again, I like when people are well paid and live in good houses, I'm on your side - but you're not.