What does society owe those who are “unwilling to work”

[Reaper0329]

I've never heard of this, and I have no idea what the "GND" even is.

Sure ya do. You probably just didn't catch the acronym. PrettySweet is talking about the Green New Deal.

(I suck with acronyms too, not calling you out)

[Awsumpossum]

In order for capitalism and "free market" ideas to work, you have to have an unemployed population. It is what determines the ability for the "marketplace" to settle on an appropriate wage due to competition. Given that the current marketplace is structured in such a way that there will always be a population of people fighting for low wages, I think it is reasonable that the rest of society helps support them. People act like living on welfare is fun or something people choose, but the majority of research demonstrates quite the opposite. People want, and actually need (psychologically), to live a meaningful life and contribute. Anecdotes about leaches, while powerful for shitty argumentation, don't trump the rest of the data.

[GreenJesus]

I feel like this ought to be /thread right here, but I look so forward to twenty pages of inane drivel following this.

I really hope democrats don't run on this idiocy. I want the republicans to have a good opponent that will force them to be better. The democrats are making it easy for them to compare to. "Do you want your tax dollars to go to people "unwilling to work?" "No? Then vote for me". Boom. Red wave.

[SoundOfGuns]

People that are perfectly fit and able to work but just choose not to need to sort them selves out, tax payers don't pay for people to be lazy.

Those who want to work but struggle to find it should be given every opportunity and support to enable them back into work.

Simples really.

Apparently its not simple enough for... certain... folks.

...jesus, your signature is way to real.

[GreenJesus]

Are you the owner of a big company that has a fuckton of automation giving you incredibly cheap labor with a minimal human workforce? No? Then you don't have to worry.

What do you mean I don't have to worry? You are talking about people that could get a job but don't want to because "reasons". I'm just an entry level financial analyst right now making middle class income.

[The Stormbringer]

Sure ya do. You just probably didn't catch the acronym. PrettySweet is talking about the Green New Deal.

(I suck with acronyms too, not calling you out)

I'm reading about this and it's all about climate change, increasing renewable energy (and jobs for them), and de-carbonization. What is @PrettySweet talking about it 'replacing UBI by giving everyon a federal job'? Seems like it's all about climate change.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean I don't have to worry? You are talking about people that could get a job but don't want to because "reasons". I'm just an entry level financial analyst right now making middle class income.

No, I was talking about reasons why people would work even if they had UBI. You don't have to worry about your tax money going to UBI because it would primarily come from massive corporations and companies who use fuckloads of automation to replace humans. Also, fun fact, even if you have a job and are working, you would still get UBI. It's 'Universal' for a reason.

[Endus]

Why the heck would someone work at Mcdonalds if they could just sit at home and get free money paid for by "people who were willing to work"

Because working at McDonalds would be more income.
Because they like McDonalds and want something to do.
Because they want free food/a discount/whatever.

And so on.

If people needed a financial incentive to work, exclusively, volunteerism wouldn't exist. It does, meaning this whole "nobody would work" argument is obvious bullshit.

And heck; it might mean McDonalds has to pay enough to make working there seem attractive. That's what a free labor market looks like. Where people aren't coerced by hardship into accepting shitty jobs for too-little pay. Why is a free labor market a bad thing, again?

[GreenJesus]

I'm reading about this and it's all about climate change, increasing renewable energy (and jobs for them), and de-carbonization. What is @PrettySweet talking about it 'replacing UBI by giving everyon a federal job'?

It also says no more airplanes, no more farting cows (so no cheeseburgers), and "anyone that is unwilling to work" will get welfare.

[Sevyvia]

People who are unwilling to work should not harvest the gains of other people's work, which is what they'd be doing if they received benefits. Zero sympathy for people who can work, but won't.

Of course, you aren't necessarily unwilling to work if you don't have a job. But that's a whole different can of worms.

[The Stormbringer]

It also says no more airplanes, no more farting cows (so no cheeseburgers), and "anyone that is unwilling to work" will get welfare.

You'll have to point that out to me, because I sure as hell am not finding it.

[Endus]

Why the fuck should anyone work at McDonalds? They dont exactly treat people well.

And how do we change that?

By ensuring nobody has to work at McDonalds. Which would push McDonalds to offer enough to make people want to work there.

[I Push Buttons]

You'll have to point that out to me, because I sure as hell am not finding it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...n-new-deal-faq

[Coconut]

People tend to entertain the antiquated idea that work always produces added value. It does not. In a world with limited resources, more work can easily translate in over-consumption and long term loss.

Imagine that the worker is a lumberjack on a tropical island. Every day he goes into the mangrove forest and cuts wood and sells it to the locals for building and fire material. In a protestant sense, this man is an honest worker worthy of a good life. But the long term opportunity cost of his work is that the forest will eventually be depleted, the island will become prone to erosion and the atmosphere will have ever so slightly more CO2 in it.

The problem with work being mandatory for survival is that it makes people consume more - because work is stressful and exhausting, of course, but especially because if you want to be on the market you have to directly or indirectly encourage consumers to buy your product - and it prevents them from making progressive, future-conscious political decisions for fear of losing their jobs. If you could make people who don't work consume a little less, and leave behind a smaller carbon footprint (by not using a car, not ordering take-out, etc.), it may well be worth it on the long term. Keep in mind that the most basic thing people need is food, and 40% of food is currently wasted in developed countries.

What @Najnaj said is also correct. A basic income would lower crime rates as well.

[Varitok]

Something something bootstraps. Something something Millenials. Something something kids these days. Something something proud to work two jobs.

There, I summarized the thread.

[Rustedsaint]

I can think of one idiot whos unwilling to work despite being physical fit, guy is a piece of shit who refuses to even cook food for his kids since it’s too hard to work a stove.
Sleeps all day and plays video games all night(not a streamer since he’s terrible at gaming too)
We owe people like him nothing. He’s a waste on society and my sisters resources.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Disability is a more interesting an nuanced issue.

Fundementaly I belive in a scale of support based on how disadvantaged you disability makes you scaling from those Completly unable and state dependant like quadraplegics to to those who still have professions they could be fully able in like office work if given the right help and re training/ qualifications.

I would have teams of disability officers trained and empowered to work with the disabled person to tailor the support directly to there particular situation.

So for example. A guy breaks his back at work, loses the ability to walk, I would provide him an income during recovery, money to outfit his house and car for a paraplegic, and free college and uni to train and be qualified for desk job, with an income during that period and until he's back employed.

Because you have to consider enabling there achievement and also there family and kids.

Yeah this is the wrong approach completely. These people who can't or wont work are much better being out of the way, than being forced to work or expected to work for basic life needs.

We don't live on a planet of unlimited resources anymore, all land for the most part is spoken for, hell even if you wished to live and run with the wolves, you couldn't do that without paying for it.

The point is whether people want to work or not for whatever reason, we have to DEAL with that, chalking it up to them being unworthy, or whatever meaningless judgement.

They are people, we have to afford them the basic human rights regardless to the value you or anyone else sees in them.

Ignore this, and the problem will get bigger, deal with it, and this can be managed and poverty eliminated.

[Thelxi]

To me it is more a philosophical question than a political one. I think that ultimately no country can force or coerce motivation on their citizens, and no nation should discard those "unwilling to work" to destitution. Humans will always be motivated to stand out from the crowd and be as productive as they can, just not all. If you can't have good faith in our own nature you don't quite understand how we have come to have smartphones, showers and beef in our freezer today.

To put it another way I think welfare in the form of decent minimum wage and guaranteeing a poor but decent life to the the citizens with the least would be an admirable accomplishment and milestone for any advanced nation, and wealthy nations like the US should make their way to this milestone. And they will I'm sure of it, it's just a matter of how long will it take, and in the US it looks like it might take a while since the fear mongering with the concept of socialism is still effective lol.

[Acidbaron]

So you agree that kids take after their parents while simultaneously advocating that we enable their parents to willfully contribute nothing to society and live off of other people's money?

How exactly does that benefit the child? Clearly the parent in this hypothetical doesn't have the child's best interest in mind since they had kids, both with no means of providing for them AND with no intention of obtaining those means to provide for them.

If anything the state should be taking kids away from those people.

I'm not authoritarian so i don't follow that political line of thinking that kids should be taken away. They do look at their parents and chances are high behaviour is copied however you can increase the chances they don't by investing in them. Simply letting people sit in their situation does nothing. You believe i'm being contradictory, i am not.

Also if you read my entire post for, i state clearly twice that i am also linking that support to a system that requires them to put in effort, however we also don't need to make it absurdly hard to obtain and maintain since that would also defeat the entire point of such a system and we should not always assume that all those in need are simply seeking to exploit society, we are speaking of humans not ants, so attempting a generalization here is as pointless as it is incorrect. I also literally state it in the last sentence of the part you quoted about and checks and balance system in place.

I also think more of my fellow countrymen and i don't share your believe that everyone on welfare doesn't have their kids best interest at heart. There are several reasons why a person may be unemployed. How would you say single moms should do it if they can't find an affordable babysitter? To name one.


Perhaps we differ from opinion due to how different in quality public services are, from education to welfare the US ranks pretty badly on both. Not a stab but simply a reason our perception might differ.

[Reaper0329]

I'm reading about this and it's all about climate change, increasing renewable energy (and jobs for them), and de-carbonization. What is @PrettySweet talking about it 'replacing UBI by giving everyon a federal job'?

Oh boy. Lemme preface this by saying that I was studying for the Bar exam while the GND bit was going on, and I'm more or less coming out of self imposed study seclusion as of this past Wednesday, so...someone correct me if I'm mistaken as to my facts or timing. I'm playing some catch up myself.

But, I **believe** it was on AOC's page, there was a write up of her big ticket items on the GND. Among those, which conservative news outlets had a field day with (along with cow farts...no I'm not kidding), there was a provision for "jobs for all those unable or unwilling to work." That's what they're talking about; not federal jobs in the sense of "let's make Homeless Harry a magistrate" and more "let Uncle Sam put Homeless Harry to work." I think that page has since been taken down.

I really hope democrats don't run on this idiocy. I want the republicans to have a good opponent that will force them to be better. The democrats are making it easy for them to compare to. "Do you want your tax dollars to go to people "unwilling to work?" "No? Then vote for me". Boom. Red wave.

I agree entirely. I think the major failing of the 2016 election is that we, essentially, had the choice between party caricatures; the exemplification of what people dislike the most about each party in each candidate. I have serious concerns about how tenable that sort of scenario is if repeated ad nauseum in the long run.

[Endus]

Sorry, what? They're pretty well paid in sweden but nobody wants to work there.

And if McDonalds was struggling to find anyone willing to take a job there in Sweden, they'd have to offer better pay or working conditions to attract potential workers.

That's how a free labor market works. Without the option to just say "nah", minimum-wage employers rely on the coercion of poverty to force workers into accepting shitty pay and work conditions.