The Glade 4.0

It used to be, throughout the great depression and in succeeding generations, that being on the government dole in any capacity was shame inducing. If you were, you didn't talk about it, and you worked your *** off to get off of it, because it meant acknowledging personal deficiency.

I feel this has changed, and I find it to be problematic.

What are your opinions?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't think requiring temporary assistance should be considered shameful, precisely because I don't think it implies personal deficiency. Living on the dole long-term, though, is a different story. Also, even people on temporary assistance should feel the urge to get back on their own feet as quickly as possible, but I think the motivating emotion there should be a sense of responsibility, not shame.

You don't think there should be a sense of shame accompanying an inability to be self-sufficient?

Why not?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think the two go hand in hand RD; without the sense personal responsibility you'd feel no shame, and your sense of personal responsibility causes you to feel shame at the prospect of living on the dole.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I can get behind temporary. The thing is temporary has a tendency to turn into permanent in this country when it comes to the government. If you have shame because you can't provide for yourself or your fam, you will be more inclined to do something about it.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Yeah, I've no problem with a stigma or shame being attached to it.

I agree that shame and responsibility are intertwined, such that failure to fulfill my responsibilities prompts a sense of shame which in turn induces me to redouble my efforts to fulfill those responsibilities. What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think temporarily needing public assistance represents such a failure.

There are two main reasons I hold that view. First, I don't think complete self-sufficiency is necessary, because no one is anywhere close to being completely self-sufficient in a modern society. We all benefit from a vast array of cultural, political, and economic norms and institutions, so the difference in self-sufficiency between a guy who makes a living "on his own" and one who needs some more explicit handouts from time to time is actually fairly minimal. Second, no matter how hard a person works or how carefully they plan ahead, sh*t sometimes happens. People get sick, markets crash, economies go into recession, etc. I don't think there's any shame in getting whacked by forces outside your control.

In short, people generally don't deserve as much credit for their successes as they think they do, nor as much shame for their failures as others think they do.

See, that's the thing. You've hinged the entirety of your beliefs here on a false premise. I disagree that we all benefit, as for something to be beneficial, the good achieved must outweigh the harm done, and history has taught us that over the durration of most of these so called "honored institutions" have done more harm than good, and usually the most harm to those they were intended to help.



You are pretending that none of these things are predictable, or that even if they are predictable, that there is no merit to trying to live your life in a way that manages these things.



I'm going to require evidence.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Imagine an intelligent, hard-working, self-motivated person living in a small village in northern Laos. Now imagine an equally impressive person living in Connecticut. The difference in their outcomes is the result of the differences in the cultural, political, and economic contexts in which they exist. It would be ridiculous for the guy in Connecticut to claim all the credit for his greater material success.



I agree that prudent planning is important and failure to engage in it is shameful, but sometimes life just gets the better of you. No one is omniscient, and there's not always enough lead-time to prepare even if you do see the storm coming.

I'm okay with temporary assistance. That said, to rely on anyone else for something you're personally capable of, for any amount of time, can be shameful.

don't confuse inability with unwillingness

some people reject the system, but also see it has it's uses.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

RD:

Using your example in combination with your earlier points leaves me with the impression that you are trying to argue both ends against the middle.

From your example: The reason the man in Connecticut is able to aquire more wealth, and attain a higher standard of living than our friend in Laos is, in fact, because of acess to the American system. But not because of what the American system offers today, but because of what it was built on hundereds of years ago. The truth is that the American standard of living has gone down for generations, and the more saftey nets and social structures we have created (and to which you earlier attributed across-the-board societal benefit) have caused that slide.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Can you back that up? While the percentage of take home pay has gone down, the standard of living has gone nowhere but up.

Yes, it would be ridiculous for a man in Connecticut to base his success comparatively with a Laotian villager.
That does not undermine comparisons with the man's neighbor as to how much credit he should take for his success. As I see it, your statement is only applicable in direct comparison of like to like, not Connecticut to Laos. If the man in CT is more successful than his neighbor, isn't he deserving of the credit, as the opportunities and pitfalls are relatively equal for them?



I agree, and believe that it's self-imposed shame that would drive the self-respecting man off the dole.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Depends on what we're defining as "the government dole". Assuming we're talking about straight-up handouts to able-bodied people and their families such as welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc., I wouldn't say shameful in the very short term (as in 2 weeks or less) but it should be embarrassing, and definitely shameful if you stay on it longer than that.

On the other hand, I don't see anything shameful about accepting government assistance when your entire community gets flattened by a hurricane or flood - for a while.

I also don't consider loans to be shameful, as long as you faithfully fulfill your payment obligations. Default should be shameful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I am still of the opinion that welfare is the best alternative, otherwise you have a lot of hungry, angry people who will resort to crime. Welfare costs substantially less than supporting them in a prison, and I don't want to sleep with a gun under my pillow.

As for the shamefulness, very few people have the mindset, "I want to do absolutely nothing and I want everyone else to support me." A big issue is that a lot of people honestly believe that they're just as qualified or skilled as others that were successful, and that the only reason they failed was bad luck. They spent maybe a year looking for a job in the field they have expertise or interest in and were completely unable to get a single hit, so they assume they just have horrible luck and appeal to the government for help. Nobody wants to go work at McDonalds because that admits failure far worse than going on welfare. On welfare you're just waiting until the economy gets better or your luck improves. When you go to work there, on a full-time basis to support yourself, you have basically admitted that you are a failure at life and will never amount to anything. I realize it is possible for someone to work their way out of that hole, but it's rare. Getting an education or gaining skills while supporting yourself on McD wages is ridiculously difficult, very few people have the fortitude to work the 80-100 hour weeks for years on end in order to drag themselves up.

It should always be shameful to be on the dole regardless of time frame for an able bodied person. It's called a saving's account and part of being responsible is realising that one day it will rain.

However I don't fault the people of today for feeling it's okay to fail, because it's something they are taught in school and by many's own parents while they are growing up.

The only exception to this would be accidents or birth defects where one's no longer able to work through no fault of their own. I'm still borderline on single mothers (self inflicted or accidental), I guess I'm okay with accidental, but aren't as tolerant of self inflicted. However keep in mind that I believe early term abortion to be the responsible thing to do (but lets not get into a fight about that again here).

I'm also more inclined to have government spend money on free education than the dole. I know people are stupid when they are young, but when they want the opportunity to become a functional part of society, they should be given every help available to do so.

I don't let other peoples unjustified anger dictate my morality. If that's what you do, fine, but let me opt out. I don't want to pay for things I consider immoral because you are either too cowardly or too lazy to take care of yourself.



There is no such thing as perpetual bad luck. 99 times out of 100 these people were under-prepared, or thought they should be able to get by on natural ability alone, while the people they were competeing with had done more leg-work, had acquired better connections, and compiled a better resume. You make your own luck when your preparation crosses opportunity.



No, it's that they expect to start at the top. They apply for jobs they are under-qualified for. They don't want to pay the dues, they want instant gratification. And one year is nothing. Not if what you are after is something you truly want, and knowing the average human lifespan. You are making an apologist's argument in favor of laziness here.



This is staggering. I can't wrap my head around the idea that you believe working for an honest day's wage is somehow less honorable than leeching off someone else's honest day's wage.



Right, because increasing taxes to cover this sort of inexcusable laziness is going to improve the economy! Also, potential employers love seeing, "Sat on my *** and collected a check when I could have been out working." on a resume! It's a sure-fire sign of a real "go-getter"!



Right. Working hard for something, and towards a greater goal, is what I call failure. There is no reason to take pride in an honest day's work, and certainly no joy to be found in overcoming life's obstacles.



You have no idea what you are talking about. None. First of all, McDonalds actually pays very competitive wages in the food service industry, and full time employees can be eligible for benefits. Hours are available to meet just about any scheduling needs, as the stores are open from as early as 5 AM in some cases to as late as 1 AM. In addition, like many other large restaurant chains, McDonalds offers tuition reimbursement to assist with education costs.

As to the 80-100 hour weeks? Ask RD how many hours he had to put in fresh out of law school. Ask SquirrelGirl and Screeling about the hours they put in, especially in the early going. You don't want to know what my average week looks like, and what I do now pales in comparison to my workload when I had my own storefront. Success takes effort, and not the kind of pseudo-effort that ends on Friday at 4 PM when you punch the clock. We don't live in instant-gratification land, as much as you are pretending that we must. If something is worth having, it is worth doing the necessary work to acquire, and if you are unwilling to do that work, then you are unworthy of those things.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I agree with this; but I that there should be an element of shame to it, thus pushing the desire to get back in the game ASAP.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

You need to meet more welfare recipients. Here in Vegas at least there is some sort of sense that if you can get the government to pay for you; you should contribute nothing back; they will encourage members of their family to come live with them, and then claim them as additional dependents.

This is why the Housing Authority has over a year long wait list.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Why do you think doctors and lawyers make such ridiculously high salaries? Because only a minor few can survive the immense workload of law/medical school followed by residency or being a new hire at a law firm. 100 hour weeks is exactly right when you are a resident or a law firm newbie. They OWN you for your first few years.

I'm not dissing McDonalds. I'm just saying that once you're there, it's very hard to get out. On welfare you have all the time in the world to gather new skills. I'm not making excuses, I'm simply stating the facts. The average person does not have the will or the drive to work 50 hours a week at a low-paying job, plus 15 credit hours of school and 15 more hours of studying to get good grades in school. If you add in commuting, you are basically living to work for several years for the chance at a better future. It's not even guaranteed that after you do this for 4 years and get a degree that it will get better for you. It's just a chance. It is extremely emotionally draining, because like it or not McD is viewed as a joke profession and people who work there get more **** and derision than the people who present their food stamp card at the grocery, at least in my experience.

You simply expect too much out of people. The average person is not willing to work 100 hour weeks unless it is necessary for survival. That why the few people who are despite the fact that they don't have to generally become amazingly successful.

No, this isn't the reason the make a good living. The make a good living because most aren't bright enough to do these essential jobs.



100% absolutely, and even glaringly, incorrect. No one who does this will ever be unsuccessful. They will have taught themselves an irreproachable work ethic, and will know the joy the completion of a difficult task brings to one who has earned it. One who has gone this far is always willing to go farther, especially after experiencing the feeling of pride which accompanies the completion of the undertaking.




No. I don't. But if that is what you feel they need to be successful, then why not do them the favor and give it to them. Don't allow them to survive on the dole. Force them to go out and work like the rest of us.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I believe that first sentence would be more representative of reality if you were to say "some doctors and lawyers", if you were to do a google search of "median salary lawyer", you may be surprised (unless you think $100k is ridiculously high). The results would be similar f you look at GP/Internist/Family Physician or Pediatrician.



Your "facts" are wrong; what they are based on besides your own limited experience, I have no clue.


This would bring us back full circle. I might also add that you should seek out a better sort of person around whom you gain your "experience", since those who have busted *** to survive don't generally joke about others trying to do the same. Ask Rynar about his views on life while trying to go to school when all he could find was a job in a kitchen, versus how he feels about that now, it might enlighten you as to why he holds the views he does.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

We could remedy that by resorting to other punishments and making prison a lot less pleasent than it is. As for you "not wanting" to sleep with a gun under your pillow, I suggest putting it in the drawer. I also suggest not assuming that the crime rate will be unmanageable just because it's convenient for your position.



No, they have the attitude "I want to sell drugs, and essentially do nothing useful, and make a shitton of money and if that doesn't work I want everyone else to support me."



Did you seriously just say that while you're working to get to where you want to be you're somehow simultaneously admitting to being a failure? You really want this problem to appear unsolveable ithout your precious social programs, don't you?

At one time people did have that fortitude. As for admitting you're a failure by working at McDonalds, that attitude that working there is more of a failure than going on welfare is precisely the attitude that's the problem.

By the way, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan regularly work 80-100 hours a week, wearing 50+ pounds of equipment, and of course have the risk of being shot at or blown up. It's not some inhuman task. I worked 84 hours a week normally and often more.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because all lawyers are in law firms and make high salaries.

As for medical residencies, they have been cutting back seriously on the hours interns and residents work because (surprise!) exhausted doctors make more mistakes.



How exactly is it hard to get out of McDonalds? Haven't you ever actually been in one? It's mainly kids working there.

As for the rest of this, yes the average person does have the will and drive to do it - when some fool isn't telling them they shouldn't have to. Emotionally draining? Living to work? So **** what? Get the **** over it.



You're not even close to describing 100 hours a week worth of effort unless we assume your absurd 50+ hours of McDonals work plus a full college schedule plus your arbitrary communiting and study requirements are what's actually expected. Try 20 hours a week at McDonalds.

100 hours a week, between work and school, is, in any case, not too much to expect from a young person in college. It's not expecting too much of people, it's you making pussified excuses for laziness.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."