Haven welfare & OTL parallels

As instructed have taken this to politics, from the Honorverse forum.

Short incoming personal point is that I have worked with people receiving welfare, both as an unpaid volunteer and as a paid bureaucrat. In the latter role worked at the coal face assessing needs, but finished writing government policy.

Very complex subject with many angles to consider. There are a number of people who simply won't work, and a number who are content to live in squalor (not necessarily the same people). In our society these are the minority. Most of our welfare recipients are either suffering temporary setbacks, or are genuinely unable to work for a living. Many still contribute to society in other ways.

My personal belief is that we should assist those with potential to get off the welfare cycle, and for those that never will provide them with basic sustenance and park them. This is a purely pragmatic approach in that you have to consider the whole cost to society. When you set out to marginalise those who will never work you get costs like high incarceration rates, home security issues, and an underclass that deals in drugs and such to get by.

I will probably annoy a couple of posters here by pointing out that chronic negativity is a proven health issue that does shorten life spans. Not suggesting that we all sit around the campfire singing Kum Baya or quoting the Desiderata, but chill out. Comments like "welfare scum", and "money out of other's pockets" indicate that there is too much judgemental anger for your own health's sake.

Daryl wrote:As instructed have taken this to politics, from the Honorverse forum.

Short incoming personal point is that I have worked with people receiving welfare, both as an unpaid volunteer and as a paid bureaucrat. In the latter role worked at the coal face assessing needs, but finished writing government policy.

Very complex subject with many angles to consider. There are a number of people who simply won't work, and a number who are content to live in squalor (not necessarily the same people). In our society these are the minority. Most of our welfare recipients are either suffering temporary setbacks, or are genuinely unable to work for a living. Many still contribute to society in other ways.

My personal belief is that we should assist those with potential to get off the welfare cycle, and for those that never will provide them with basic sustenance and park them. This is a purely pragmatic approach in that you have to consider the whole cost to society. When you set out to marginalise those who will never work you get costs like high incarceration rates, home security issues, and an underclass that deals in drugs and such to get by.

I will probably annoy a couple of posters here by pointing out that chronic negativity is a proven health issue that does shorten life spans. Not suggesting that we all sit around the campfire singing Kum Baya or quoting the Desiderata, but chill out. Comments like "welfare scum", and "money out of other's pockets" indicate that there is too much judgemental anger for your own health's sake.

Problem 1: I don't know about Australia, but in the US we have a problem with one size fits all government programs. So the those with temporary setbacks and those who simply won't work tend to be treated the same.

Problem 2: Those who simply won't work are often first rate con artists (and yes I have met a few of these personally) and they do an excellent job of imitating those with temporary setbacks. So sorting those 2 groups isn't a trivial challenge.

Problem 3: We have to have someplace for them to go i.e. they need jobs that don't currently exist. We are currently in our 6th year of the jobless "recovery". Most economic measure indicate that the upper middle class and upper classes have completely recovered and then some (which may be why congress which is composed primarily of millionaires doesn't get it), while the working poor and the rest of the middle class have not only not recovered but often have continued to lose ground.

Problem 4: Government benefits (especially non-cash ones like housing assistance, food stamps, heading assistance etc) can add up to a lot. Practically speaking, people trying to leave get paid the difference between the hourly wage and what they would get on welfare. For those on the bottom rung of the ladder, that difference often isn’t very much and in some cases the difference is zero. So effectively they are working for free.

Problem 5: Defining who can't work. There are a lot of people who are semi-disabled. They can work some types of jobs but they take lots of time off for doctors, take lots of sick days (legitimate), perhaps require extra accommodation etc. In theory the American with Disability Act protects them. In reality the ADA protects lawyers suing about the slope of wheelchair ramps while doing little to help people. Especially people who have less obvious disabilities such as autoimmune disorders.

biochem wrote:

Daryl wrote:As instructed have taken this to politics, from the Honorverse forum.

Short incoming personal point is that I have worked with people receiving welfare, both as an unpaid volunteer and as a paid bureaucrat. In the latter role worked at the coal face assessing needs, but finished writing government policy.

Very complex subject with many angles to consider. There are a number of people who simply won't work, and a number who are content to live in squalor (not necessarily the same people). In our society these are the minority. Most of our welfare recipients are either suffering temporary setbacks, or are genuinely unable to work for a living. Many still contribute to society in other ways.

My personal belief is that we should assist those with potential to get off the welfare cycle, and for those that never will provide them with basic sustenance and park them. This is a purely pragmatic approach in that you have to consider the whole cost to society. When you set out to marginalise those who will never work you get costs like high incarceration rates, home security issues, and an underclass that deals in drugs and such to get by.

I will probably annoy a couple of posters here by pointing out that chronic negativity is a proven health issue that does shorten life spans. Not suggesting that we all sit around the campfire singing Kum Baya or quoting the Desiderata, but chill out. Comments like "welfare scum", and "money out of other's pockets" indicate that there is too much judgemental anger for your own health's sake.

Problem 1: I don't know about Australia, but in the US we have a problem with one size fits all government programs. So the those with temporary setbacks and those who simply won't work tend to be treated the same.

Problem 2: Those who simply won't work are often first rate con artists (and yes I have met a few of these personally) and they do an excellent job of imitating those with temporary setbacks. So sorting those 2 groups isn't a trivial challenge.

Problem 3: We have to have someplace for them to go i.e. they need jobs that don't currently exist. We are currently in our 6th year of the jobless "recovery". Most economic measure indicate that the upper middle class and upper classes have completely recovered and then some (which may be why congress which is composed primarily of millionaires doesn't get it), while the working poor and the rest of the middle class have not only not recovered but often have continued to lose ground.

Problem 4: Government benefits (especially non-cash ones like housing assistance, food stamps, heading assistance etc) can add up to a lot. Practically speaking, people trying to leave get paid the difference between the hourly wage and what they would get on welfare. For those on the bottom rung of the ladder, that difference often isn’t very much and in some cases the difference is zero. So effectively they are working for free.

Problem 5: Defining who can't work. There are a lot of people who are semi-disabled. They can work some types of jobs but they take lots of time off for doctors, take lots of sick days (legitimate), perhaps require extra accommodation etc. In theory the American with Disability Act protects them. In reality the ADA protects lawyers suing about the slope of wheelchair ramps while doing little to help people. Especially people who have less obvious disabilities such as autoimmune disorders.

We do have different programs for people in different circumstances; be it temporally unemployed, temporally disabled, permanently disabled, old, or supporting single parents. They are all administered by the same national government department so hopefully there is no duplication (no local food stamps etc). All programs do have specific add on benefits and the career welfare people know all of those, plus batten on charities who often are fronted by good hearted gullible people.

Regarding those who are good actors and abuse the system, I fully agree that there are a number. Some can be turned around by good case managers but a hard core are simply bludgers on society and always will be.
As mentioned earlier I tend to the pragmatic with these. They have to eat and find shelter, so it costs society less to simply pay them a minimum and park them. If you don't then they will steal, run drugs, or do other unsociable things until they are jailed and end up costing much more again.

I have boundless sympathy for those caught in the welfare system through no fault of their own, and boundless contempt for the lazy passengers who want to be there. However it doesn't profit me to be bitter and twisted about it, modern society can afford to park them. In the case of Haven it is obvious that the numbers of multigenerational losers has got out of hand, and we need to be vigilant about that possibility.

I think what distinguishes reactionary Americans such as myself from the more "enlightened", particularly the Europeans, is that the US does have a half century long tradition of multigenerational losers. The US welfare system was unique for including marital status as a criteria for means testing. The noble tradition of charity for widows and orphans inspired rules that discriminated against intact families that included an able bodied husband/father. While I am contemptuous of men who leach off their wives, these rules ignored the reality that some men experience episodes of unemployment through no fault of their own. Logging and timber workers who lost their livelihoods to the spotted owl hoax are a prime example. The resulting disincentive to get married and stay married contributed to the evolution of the single mother family. The children of such families were at much higher risk of being unemployed and unemployable.

The US system was improved when Newt Gingrich compelled President Clinton to sign welfare reform. The time limitation and lack of increase in benefits for additional children eliminated the collection of welfare as a viable career for single mothers. The percentage of mothers who are single continued to increase, but at least they delayed childbirth and had fewer children.

The basic truth of modern society which is often conveniently ignored in these topics, is that modern society is structured in such a way that:

1) Everyone having a job is an impossibility. It is in fact by far even highly undesireable. This means that there will always be some "between jobs" who is "between" ever after, even just by random chance(before taking anything else into account).

2) Unlike historically, it is generally extremely difficult to survive if you lack a source of money.


What this means is that anyone supporting the current way of living and society, who wants welfare gone or made much stricter, they are essentially saying, lets play a little game of massmurder!


And from experience, the biggest detractors of welfare will usually change their tune extremely fast if they are forced to become dependant on welfare.

It´s very easy to point fingers at others and preach on how they should live their lives, it is far more difficult to do it, IN THE SAME SITUATION.

Very complex subject with many angles to consider. There are a number of people who simply won't work, and a number who are content to live in squalor (not necessarily the same people). In our society these are the minority.

In my whole life, i´ve not yet run into anyone who doesn´t want to work.
And less than a handful of people bent on "exploiting the system". So, maybe 1% of the total that are truly "parasites" or whatever you want to call it.

Research done about this, here and elsewhere, says the number is 1-4% depending on criteria.

Most of our welfare recipients are either suffering temporary setbacks, or are genuinely unable to work for a living.

Also to be remembered is that "temporary setbacks" can often be very harsh on people, a very noticeable minority become sick and/or depressed due to those setbacks, and at that point there is often need for some outside assistance to get "back". Punishment for being "lazy" will commonly just make sure that temporary turns into permanent.

Consider how Denmark has some of the more generous terms for unemployment benefits, yet the average time in unemployment is lower then places with less generous terms.

Many still contribute to society in other ways.

Indeed! This is usually ignored, but the amount of unofficial "work" added to society by this group is often quite substantial.

My personal belief is that we should assist those with potential to get off the welfare cycle, and for those that never will provide them with basic sustenance and park them. This is a purely pragmatic approach in that you have to consider the whole cost to society. When you set out to marginalise those who will never work you get costs like high incarceration rates, home security issues, and an underclass that deals in drugs and such to get by.

+1.

Do something worthwhile instead of trying to pretend "Doing Something".

The basic truth of modern society which is often conveniently ignored in these topics, is that modern society is structured in such a way that:

1) Everyone having a job is an impossibility. It is in fact by far even highly undesireable. This means that there will always be some "between jobs" who is "between" ever after, even just by random chance(before taking anything else into account).

2) Unlike historically, it is generally extremely difficult to survive if you lack a source of money.

There is a difference between unemployment which is usually temporary and welfare which is supposed to be temporary but in some cases has become permanent.

And from experience, the biggest detractors of welfare will usually change their tune extremely fast if they are forced to become dependant on welfare.

It´s very easy to point fingers at others and preach on how they should live their lives, it is far more difficult to do it, IN THE SAME SITUATION.

You're being overly broad here. There is a HUGE difference between individuals such as Relax and RFC who are critical of the welfare system as it currently exists because of their EXTENSIVE personal experience working with individuals in that system (see the original thread in Honorverse) and those annoying talking heads on TV who have been successful all their lives and have never suffered from setbacks that were significantly beyond their control. The lack of compassion from the talking heads is so breathtaking it comes close to sociopathy and I agree the talking heads would change their minds with some actual personal experience (at least those that aren't actually sociopaths).

In my whole life, i´ve not yet run into anyone who doesn´t want to work.

You need to get out more and interact with people that aren't like you if you've never met anyone like this.

Also to be remembered is that "temporary setbacks" can often be very harsh on people, a very noticeable minority become sick and/or depressed due to those setbacks, and at that point there is often need for some outside assistance to get "back".

Agreed

Punishment for being "lazy" will commonly just make sure that temporary turns into permanent.

There are many reasons people are poor. One size fits all solutions don't fit. Some people DO need punishment for being lazy because they are lazy and the tough love approach is the only thing that will work for them. For other people punishment will hurt more than it helps (the depression risk you mentioned for example). Different people are different and if society REALLY wants to help, there needs to be different solutions. This is one of the reasons that I tend to prefer private charities. It's a lot easier to have individual solutions that way. Government programs by their very nature tend to be one size fits all.

You're being overly broad here. There is a HUGE difference between individuals such as Relax and RFC who are critical of the welfare system as it currently exists because of their EXTENSIVE personal experience working with individuals in that system (see the original thread in Honorverse) and those annoying talking heads on TV who have been successful all their lives and have never suffered from setbacks that were significantly beyond their control.

Actually no there isn´t.

"Extensive personal experience" of working with inviduals in the system gives absolutely ZERO real insight into what it´s actually like being stuck in such a system.

It´s 2nd hand knowledge or experience.

The lack of compassion from the talking heads is so breathtaking it comes close to sociopathy and I agree the talking heads would change their minds with some actual personal experience (at least those that aren't actually sociopaths).

I wouldn´t know as i most certainly do not follow such TV.

There is a difference between unemployment which is usually temporary and welfare which is supposed to be temporary but in some cases has become permanent.

Yes, there most definitely is, but the one is usually what leads to the other so i am sometimes inclusive with the grouping rather than exclusive, as long as it shouldn´t make any actual difference for whatever the subject is.

You need to get out more and interact with people that aren't like you if you've never met anyone like this.

I´ve still been in contact with literally thousands of people(and a fair portion of them, people with "unfortunate" lifes so to speak(because i´ve been chronically ill since i was 10)), and if there is one thing that is the same between people, a job is a defining thing, it can be being aknowledged or valued, it can be to be allowed to do what you want to do, it can be a way to get a decent life, interact with people etc etc etc, almost noone seriously wants to be outside of all of what a job can give.

People that claim all those "OTHERS" being lazy, i´ve found them to be more lazy in general than those they accuse of it.

Some people DO need punishment for being lazy because they are lazy and the tough love approach is the only thing that will work for them.

I have found the concept of "tough love" to be mostly an excuse for the ones providing it to be "unpleasant" and still be able to say "but it´s for a good cause!".

And most of those hurts a damn lot more than they help.

Structure is usually the most important thing, because most people are not really LAZY, but stuck in a bad pattern that they have little or no incentive to break(or the ability to notice such incentive). And punishing them to get them out of it only makes sure that they will return to it ASAP.



Consider this, USA vs Sweden, prison population, USAs system is focused on tough, rough and punishment, here the aim is towards eventual rehabilitation of the majority of prisoners (exceptions exist of course).

In Sweden, currently, prisons are actually being closed down due to a lack of prisoners. In USA, you´ve got more than 10 times as many prisoners per capita, and the difference is increasing.

And no, to preempt a common objection, ethnic diversity in Sweden is actually slightly higher than in USA.


While not the exact same thing, it´s close enough to clearly show which system works better(and i´m sure it´s still far, FAR from "good", or "best"). Because it still deals with people, under similar conditions.

And that´s the thing you can never allow yourself to forget if you´re trying to deal with this subject, people on welfare are people just the same as you and me are.

biochem wrote:You're being overly broad here. There is a HUGE difference between individuals such as Relax and RFC who are critical of the welfare system as it currently exists because of their EXTENSIVE personal experience working with individuals in that system (see the original thread in Honorverse) and those annoying talking heads on TV who have been successful all their lives and have never suffered from setbacks that were significantly beyond their control. The lack of compassion from the talking heads is so breathtaking it comes close to sociopathy and I agree the talking heads would change their minds with some actual personal experience (at least those that aren't actually sociopaths).

The thing is that there seems to be a version of the prosperity gospel among some US conservatives, especially those that trumpet "personal responsibility". There seems to be a strong belief that if someone becomes destitute, it's inevitably his fault in some way.

Eyal wrote:

biochem wrote:You're being overly broad here. There is a HUGE difference between individuals such as Relax and RFC who are critical of the welfare system as it currently exists because of their EXTENSIVE personal experience working with individuals in that system (see the original thread in Honorverse) and those annoying talking heads on TV who have been successful all their lives and have never suffered from setbacks that were significantly beyond their control. The lack of compassion from the talking heads is so breathtaking it comes close to sociopathy and I agree the talking heads would change their minds with some actual personal experience (at least those that aren't actually sociopaths).

The thing is that there seems to be a version of the prosperity gospel among some US conservatives, especially those that trumpet "personal responsibility". There seems to be a strong belief that if someone becomes destitute, it's inevitably his fault in some way.

Worse was the Puritan take IE "You make good it shows God's favor, you do poorly and it shows you are damned by the All Mighty." This morphed into it's to poor's fault they are poor over time.

Poker

pokermind wrote:

Eyal wrote:
The thing is that there seems to be a version of the prosperity gospel among some US conservatives, especially those that trumpet "personal responsibility". There seems to be a strong belief that if someone becomes destitute, it's inevitably his fault in some way.

Worse was the Puritan take IE "You make good it shows God's favor, you do poorly and it shows you are damned by the All Mighty." This morphed into it's to poor's fault they are poor over time.

Poker

Along with that protestant belief was also the belief that charity was an individual's responsibility. Americans give more to chairity per capita than any other nation. In many ways welfare isn't charity but a right. It sticks in one's craw that someone has the right to mooch off of me. I already give to charity and don't mind supporting folks who need help through welfare. I do mind the welfare cheats who believe they have a right to mooch off of me. No one has the right to live off of my work but I do have the responsibility to help my fellow man.