Millennial generation
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@art_of_shred said:
And what's wrong with America is all the people who want to rob from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" because they "deserve" everything I have, but shouldn't need to work to get them, since I have done the work and earned enough to have them.
I hate the expression "haves and have nots". Politicians are using it in the UK at the moment and it's not true and is just a classic case of divide and conquer. The reality is that people go through life moving between having and not having as they get jobs, then lose jobs, then get jobs, then get sick, then get better etc etc. The welfare state is just an insurance scheme to smooth out life's ups and downs. So in the same way that I'm not resentful when my neighbour gets an insurance payout after his house has been burgled when I've been paying insurance premiums for years and haven't received a dime, why should I be resentful when my neighbour loses his job or gets sick and needs some help?
I'm really lucky that I've never been unemployed or sick but there but for the grace of God go I.
I agree, welfare has a good place and when done well is to everyone's benefit, much like universal healthcare. It is in the interest of everyone to have a healthy, productive population. A sick person, or a dead one, isn't just an "expense" but they impact family, friends, jobs, etc. Every person we can keep healthy is a person who produces and is a positive to the economy rather than a negative. When we don't have good support systems, everyone gets hurt (or at least, fails to benefit.)
The problem here, though, is that most Americans, given the choice and understanding that universal welfare and healthcare benefits them even if they don't use it, choose to hurt themselves to keep those who they feel don't deserve it (and I'm not saying that they do) from getting it. The "cutting off their nose to spite their faces" problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Example you ask? Morocco.
Strange example. They're a democracy and the King changed the constitution after protests during the Arab Spring uprisings. So they didn't have a revolution, but they were on their way to a revolution had the King not reduced his powers and increased the elected government's powers. I find it hard to believe people would prefer an autocracy to a democracy.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Example you ask? Morocco.
Strange example. They're a democracy and the King changed the constitution after protests during the Arab Spring uprisings. So they didn't have a revolution, but they were on their way to a revolution had the King not reduced his powers and increased the elected government's powers. I find it hard to believe people would prefer an autocracy to a democracy.
I agree with you - I don't think 'people' ever really will. A person might though if they trust the autocracy, and even in a discussion a person might accept that it's a better solution - maybe, but people never will.
-
@scottalanmiller's example isn't a bloodless revolution, it's simply a regime change either due to death or the previous regime stepping down, but definitely not a revolution.
This type of thing happens all the time in dictatorships - though generally the status quo just happens to be maintained. The example provided just showed where the new leader decided to make his and his countries situation better.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The problem here, though, is that most Americans, given the choice and understanding that universal welfare and healthcare benefits them even if they don't use it, choose to hurt themselves to keep those who they feel don't deserve it (and I'm not saying that they do) from getting it. The "cutting off their nose to spite their faces" problem.
Please explain to me how it helps me when I don't use it?
I suppose you'll say that if my wife is sick, the benefit to me is that I don't go into the poor house while she is getting well? Or my work load at the office is evenly spread because everyone is well, and the fact that others have health care means that if they do get sick, they'll get well faster bringing a benefit to me? OK sure, but I have to ask... at what cost?
Our government has shown that it can't run anything efficiently - they should be able to get the economy of scale thing, but we can all see that they don't - also, since there shouldn't be any profit in it for the healthcare system, what's the motivation to do a good job?
My German friends have told me that their state provided healthcare is great as long as you get nothing worth than a cold, or perhaps a broken bone. But if you need a surgery to get a tumor removed, you'll likely die from it before you get surgery because the lines are so long and the number of surgical spots to few. My friends tell me that additional private coverage is a must if you want real coverage.
Now I'll agree that most illnesses are of the generic kind that can be taken care of non surgically, and those are probably handled very well by a state provided service, but what do you do about the specialty cases - cancer, organ transplants, etc. Then there's the most expensive part of healthcare - elderly care. Americans spend something like 50% of their healthcare costs (or more) in the last year of their lives. Short of a healthcare Czar dictating who does and doesn't get services after a certain health level condition (which we kinda have today, it's called the insurance coverage you have - but we completely ignore that anyway, and just saddle our families with the debt after we die)?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I hate the expression "haves and have nots". Politicians are using it in the UK at the moment and it's not true and is just a classic case of divide and conquer. The reality is that people go through life moving between having and not having as they get jobs, then lose jobs, then get jobs, then get sick, then get better etc etc. The welfare state is just an insurance scheme to smooth out life's ups and downs. So in the same way that I'm not resentful when my neighbour gets an insurance payout after his house has been burgled when I've been paying insurance premiums for years and haven't received a dime, why should I be resentful when my neighbour loses his job or gets sick and needs some help?
OK I see what you are saying here, but I don't see Haves and Have Nots like that. The Have Nots to me are those who don't work to better their own situation, instead they dole along life just expecting handouts (food stamps, free medical care, extra money for each kid they have, etc).
I'm actually totally for welfare programs to help someone survive for a short period of time, but we have over 100 million people are in households that received welfare in the US last year.
That's 35% of our country - 35 PERCENT! -
@Dashrender said:
).I'm actually totally for welfare programs to help someone survive for a short period of time, but we have over 100 million people are in households that received welfare in the US last year.
That's 35% of our country - 35 PERCENT!Part of the problem with our Welfare system is they only give help to those who don't do anything at all. We have someone we know that if they go get a job they won't earn enough to support their family. So they are stuck not doing anything at all because the system won't help to make up any differences in their income so they can better themselves. What the heck they could be making about 75% of what they need, Welfare could be helping them out the other 25% and we could be paying 75% less for their needs but nope if they get a job they are screwed and wont have enough of anything at all. So why bother.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
Part of the problem with our Welfare system is they only give help to those who don't do anything at all. We have someone we know that if they go get a job they won't earn enough to support their family. So they are stuck not doing anything at all because the system won't help to make up any differences in their income so they can better themselves. What the heck they could be making about 75% of what they need, Welfare could be helping them out the other 25% and we could be paying 75% less for their needs but nope if they get a job they are screwed and wont have enough of anything at all. So why bother.
I hear this often - I'm really curious how it works? I was unemployed for about 6 months many moons ago - I looked into getting unemployment. Considering my previous income I qualified for the max, around $260/week (and they still took taxes from this). I was told that any income I made would be directly deducted from this amount. At the time I was doing IT consulting for around $100/hr about 5 hours a week. Considering my income was $500/week, I knew I would never get one cent from unemployment, so I told them to cancel my request.
What I don't know is how things like foodstamps, section 8, and the countless other welfare programs work.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
Part of the problem with our Welfare system is they only give help to those who don't do anything at all.
Here in Utica (my MIL is a welfare admin) we have lots and lots of success with the welfare program, the city and country are really using it to rebuild the economy. They absorb people from all over into their welfare program and have huge success is moving them from welfare to entry level work to slightly better work. They have a huge private support network of companies looking to work with them and some big ones (like Mabelline) moved in locally just to work with the program. They take people from being unable to work to successful blue collar workers all the time.
These are the most extreme cases, but for a really bombed out, economically destroyed city it is amazing to see how they are using welfare as a means to turn the city around. Certainly not the only factor, but it is creating, rather than supporting, an existing economic base.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
At the moment it seems that a lot of Africa's problems are being solved by Chinese investment, but I'm nervous about how that'll eventually turn out.Here's how Chinese "investment" in Africa is working, at least where I was: The government owns everything and keeps the people poor. The government sells the natural resources of their country to Chinese companies. The government wishes to placate their poor populace, so they pay Chinese construction companies to come in and build infrastructure (which will only last about a generation, as there is no upkeep done on anything, ever). In the end, it's great for China, and the African governments get to cash in on their natural resources, which they have no industry to process themselves. China gets the resources, and continued labor opportunity, as well as having a decent portion of what they spent handed back to them. Good deal for everyone, right? I mean, at least the citizens get a shiny new airport out of the deal.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm actually totally for welfare programs to help someone survive for a short period of time, but we have over 100 million people are in households that received welfare in the US last year.
That's 35% of our country - 35 PERCENT!Can't be 35%. We are way over 350m people in this country. Still a huge number, I grant you.
But those are households, not people. So be super careful. Most of that number is probably kids, spouses, etc. If I was to get unemployment, all of the family who lives with me (which at the moment includes many working adults) would be counted in that head count. And if I did it for just one month, we'd show up for a year. So at an extreme case, one unemployed 22 year old might flag a household of eight when having only gotten assistance one time at the beginning or the end of the year.
The number of people getting assistance has to be much smaller and the number of man-years of welfare would be far lower still. So the actual percentage of "man-years of working adults" might be a quite reasonable number. Counting households and "in a year" are things that would only be done to artificially inflate the number. Because that is the number that they use, you can be sure that the meaningful number is not shocking enough to bother to print.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Example you ask? Morocco.
Strange example. They're a democracy and the King changed the constitution after protests during the Arab Spring uprisings. So they didn't have a revolution, but they were on their way to a revolution had the King not reduced his powers and increased the elected government's powers. I find it hard to believe people would prefer an autocracy to a democracy.
I agree with you - I don't think 'people' ever really will. A person might though if they trust the autocracy, and even in a discussion a person might accept that it's a better solution - maybe, but people never will.
That's a very Western mindset, which "most" of the world doesn't have. Because you are a Westerner, you actually need to first live in a non-Western culture in order to have your eyes opened and realize that some things we see as "basic human psychology" can actually be extremely deep-rooted cultural concepts. A whole lot of the world actually doesn't care for democracy, as odd as that seems to us who were born into it and just assume that all people basically want to be free. I still can't really fully grasp the notion, but I have seen that it is in fact true. Democracy is not the worldwide manifestation of a political utopia, as we simply assume it to be.
-
@art_of_shred said:
That's a very Western mindset, which "most" of the world doesn't have. Because you are a Westerner, you actually need to first live in a non-Western culture in order to have your eyes opened and realize that some things we see as "basic human psychology" can actually be extremely deep-rooted cultural concepts. A whole lot of the world actually doesn't care for democracy, as odd as that seems to us who were born into it and just assume that all people basically want to be free. I still can't really fully grasp the notion, but I have seen that it is in fact true. Democracy is not the worldwide manifestation of a political utopia, as we simply assume it to be.
And not everyone sees democracy as the same. American democracy is very different than European, for example.
But it is very true, democracy is propaganda, something shoved down American throats by the media and education systems. No one every comes up with "why it is good", in fact, it doesn't even make much sense when you think about it. Given that the actions of a government must be often secret and/or complex, how could the polis vote on that? They don't have the information necessary to vote. So voting, by nature, is reckless.
I really don't see why people would want a democracy. I can see why they might not want anything else, everything has its flaws, but why they lean to democracy as they thing they often passionately want is something that I just can't figure out. What's the "good" part of it?
-
@Dashrender said:
That's 35% of our country - 35 PERCENT!
Here is how the much the media spins that....
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Percentage of PEOPLE on unemployment.... 4.1% at any given time (or specifically, now.) That's a relative high in the grand scheme of things. Not a record, but on the high side.
4.1% is pretty darn good, I think. And nothing like 35%.
-
No matter what type of government you have, each has its own pitfalls, and they all come because of the reality that people corrupt easily. If you have 1 guy in charge, all you can do is hope he's got your best interests at heart. If you put everything up to the tally of a public vote, all you can do is hope that the majority is not made up of idiots (good luck!). Anything in between, no matter how many checks and balances it employs, is going to come down to a person or a group of people with a responsibility to choose and to do what is good (and we can't even all agree what "good" is). With that power, there will always be outside influences from people who will pay/cheat/steal/extort to swing the decision-makers in their favor. And there are always takers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's 35% of our country - 35 PERCENT!
Here is how the much the media spins that....
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Percentage of PEOPLE on unemployment.... 4.1% at any given time (or specifically, now.) That's a relative high in the grand scheme of things. Not a record, but on the high side.
4.1% is pretty darn good, I think. And nothing like 35%.
Yeah, but those numbers are BS, too. When you read the fine print of what that's based on, it's in reality a small portion of what the average person would define as unemployed. There are lots of people not in the system for all sorts of technical reasons, re-applying, etc. that don't show up there. I think that's just as "spun" as the other view.
-
@art_of_shred said:
No matter what type of government you have, each has its own pitfalls, and they all come because of the reality that people corrupt easily. If you have 1 guy in charge, all you can do is hope he's got your best interests at heart. If you put everything up to the tally of a public vote, all you can do is hope that the majority is not made up of idiots (good luck!). Anything in between, no matter how many checks and balances it employs, is going to come down to a person or a group of people with a responsibility to choose and to do what is good (and we can't even all agree what "good" is). With that power, there will always be outside influences from people who will pay/cheat/steal/extort to swing the decision-makers in their favor. And there are always takers.
That's why I like the "one person in charge" with some degree of oversight (there is always the oversight of revolution even in the worst cases - French, for example.) Because it has the best chances of "keeping the good interests at heart." The closer you get to having the whole populace involved, the closer you get to impossible to have good intentions. Average people aren't educated enough, "in the know enough", interested enough or possibly even capable of being good decision makers on a national scale - so if you force that to be the base of the government you guarantee problems.
-
What the heck is "one person in charge, with some oversight"? Either the dude's in charge, or he's not. If he has oversight, he's not really in charge.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's 35% of our country - 35 PERCENT!
Here is how the much the media spins that....
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Percentage of PEOPLE on unemployment.... 4.1% at any given time (or specifically, now.) That's a relative high in the grand scheme of things. Not a record, but on the high side.
4.1% is pretty darn good, I think. And nothing like 35%.
I knew there was spin on the 35% number. Thanks for digging into it while I'm working on my phone system
-
@art_of_shred said:
What the heck is "one person in charge, with some oversight"? Either the dude's in charge, or he's not. If he has oversight, he's not really in charge.
This has been my feeling since Scott started talking about a monarchy last week.
I would love to know what this is too.
