• Isaac
    13
    I think that, rather than stop benefits, those receiving benefits should be put to work and receive additional, functional training in order to secure a better, more suitable wage for themselves.Book273

    I agree entirely. We should start with Jeff Bezos, I think, might as well start with the biggest drain first. The benefits he receives in terms of all the infrastructure the government have built on which he bases his business, plus the legal protection he benefits from, the interest payments, government incentives and lobbied deals... If someone on a few hundred a week in benefits has to work 35hrs to earn it, poor Jeff's going to have to work 24/7 for the government to pay off even a fraction of his benefits. Still...fair's fair.
  • Book273
    2
    I was thinking more the "I'm too good to sweep a sidewalk, and I deserve a much higher wage than that." while having no education and no motivation while getting welfare type. You have a different tangent than I.
  • Book273
    2
    non-emotional sufferingDown The Rabbit Hole

    Please explain non-emotional suffering. Is that like...physical pain? Otherwise, it's all emotional.
  • Isaac
    13
    I was thinking more the "I'm too good to sweep a sidewalk, and I deserve a much higher wage than that." while having no education and no motivation while getting welfare type.Book273

    I know. Hence my corrective. Those who refuse to sweep the sidewalk are of no different a type. Everyone tries to do as little unpleasant work as possible for the maximum return the current legal system will allow. All the way from your broom-averse benefit scrounger to Jeff Bezos. Maximum return legally possible, minimum investment of undesirable work.

    Why focus on the small fry?
  • Book273
    2
    Jeff does stuff for his money. It might not be sweeping the sidewalk, but it still amounts to doing something. I don't pretend to know what he does. Hell he could have inherited all of it and simply been smart enough to not lose it. Point is, he still needs to have skills to run the company, shmooze the politicians, etc to get the results he wants.

    I am talking the willful dead weight. Those that feel the world owes them "their piece of the pie" but are too entitled to work for it. Be it physical work or intellectual investment. The ones that love the line "you're so lucky to have that good job."

    Yeah right, because I pulled my education and training out of a cracker jacket box while I was high on meth. And I still have a job because I am lucky. Actually going to work, working, and being moderately good at my job have nothing to do with continued employment. It's all just luck.
  • Isaac
    13
    Jeff does stuff for his money. It might not be sweeping the sidewalk, but it still amounts to doing something.Book273

    So do benefit recipients. The government pays them to keep themselves alive and available for work. They do so.

    Point is, he still needs to have skills to run the company, shmooze the politicians, etc to get the results he wants.Book273

    So do benefit recipients. They successfully lobby (and vote for) governments who pay them to keep themselves alive and available for work.
  • Book273
    2
    I grant you they breathe, they take up space, and they provide a great number of social workers employment. Hard to support that kind of apathy, hence my position that stopping benefits to those who refuse self improvement. Dead weight is better as simply dead. Compost has a purpose.
  • Isaac
    13
    Hard to support that kind of apathy, hence my position that stopping benefits to those who refuse self improvement.Book273

    What level of apathy? Are you suggesting that there's some objective relationship between work and remuneration? If Jeff Bezos works, lets be generous, a 40hr week to earn his $1.7milion at $800/hr your average benefit recipient would have to work for just 5 minutes a day. Are you suggesting they don't even do five minutes of work? If you're happy for Jeff Bezos to get $800/hr for the work he does, why not benefit recipients? Why shouldn't they earn $800/hr for the five minutes of work they do (attending the Job Centre, for example)?

    Dead weight is better as simply dead. Compost has a purpose.Book273

    The government consider that a healthy workforce available for work have a purpose. Are you sufficiently qualified in economics to override their judgement?
  • Book273
    2
    I am suggesting that I don't actually care what Jeff makes, annually or otherwise. It is irrelevant to me. Benefits recipients should not be receiving benefits at all. Get a job. Find work, make money. If Jeff makes 1.5 million a year, he can have that lifestyle. If bob makes 25k a year he can have that lifestyle. If Trevor doesn't want to work he can bloody starve a while, or die. I could not care less. But I don't want to pay for Trevor to be an entitled ass. If he is willing to die rather than work or develop skills I fully support him in that position. Go personal autonomy!
  • Isaac
    13


    Ah, bullshit then. Thought so.
  • Book273
    2
    you have a problem with personal autonomy?

    Funny thing eh, it isn't a single direction thing. I support people's right to be self determining, for better and for worse. Somebody wants to work hard, get educated, develop a skill, and make a little money. Cool. I'll support that. Someone else wants to not work, do drugs and maybe die in the street. Not my personal choice, but I recognize that it's theirs and I support their right to do that too. Notice I won't stop either one eh. That's actual non-biased support.

    Not that "I'll only support you if you do what I want you to" crap most people shovel lately.
  • Isaac
    13
    Somebody wants to work hard,Book273

    It's your definition of 'work hard' that's bullshit. You're just including in that definition everything that's done under standard western capitalism and excluding stuff you don't like. There's nothing honest, down-to-earth, hard working about most corporate goings on, they do as little as possible for the maximum return. I'm asking you for clear distinction between that and a benefit recipient who's doing as little as possible (attending the benefits office) for the maximum return (benefits payment).
  • Book273
    2
    Alright, so you hate corporations, for whatever reasons you think are valid. Never mind that every corporation started out with someone who wanted to improve their lot and busted their ass to get there, risked money and time and more. Forget all that shit. In your world the evil corporation just magically showed up; a fully functional monster just out to squish the innocent and plunder the world. Do you actually believe that shit? Next you will try and tell me that Satan runs all corporations and that God loves me.

    I am not donating to your cause.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    2


    Benefits recipients should not be receiving benefits at all.Book273

    5% of the British population (plus unemployed not claiming unemployment benefit) are taking reasonable steps to find work. They are not choosing to remain unemployed, and neither are the disabled, deemed unfit for work by a doctor, plus an assessor for the government.

    It will be the same around the world, not everyone can find or do work, and it will only get worse and worse with automation.

    Please explain non-emotional suffering. Is that like...physical pain? Otherwise, it's all emotional.Book273

    Yes physical pain. Reduction of suffering is my ethical priority, and I am worried that a world void of emotions, while good for the lack of emotional suffering, would lead to more physical pain.
  • Book273
    2
    Suffering is such an interesting thing. It is entirely individualized and almost entirely based on perspective. I am not sure how an increase in physical pain equates to an increase in suffering, again, perspective I guess. Not all pain is bad.
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.