the welfare state results from private sector abdication
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
An email correspondent (with whom I've had an ongoing joust of political positions) sent the following
as reply to my reply to his reply to . . . . of former back-and-forth dissertations and dissents.
"You want billionaires to be more charitable, fine. You want CEO pay to not be so far above that of average
worker, fine. Those would be private decisions. But you also want fed and state gov'ts to provide a fairly
substantial level of welfare to an arbitrary number of people because a) that's what "social justice" requires
and b) it all just gets recycleds back into the economy anyway. But, you seem to ignore the basic economic
principle that benefits have costs. There's also the further issue of incentives: both for those receiving this
largesse and for the remaining producers, who might reasonably object to ever higher levels of gov't confis-
cation of their earnings.
From several sources, including [. . ]. who works as a recruiter, i hear that there are plenty of jobs that
languish unfulfilled because of a) an irresponsible worker class; b) an unmotivated worker class; c) an un-
trained worker class.
[I'd mentioned previously the extent to which robotics is expected to become the
"new worker class", even returning "jobs" to the U.S. because robots will be cheaper than foreign people].
My friend says, I agree that technology is hurting human jobs in some areas,
I must also say that I (continue to) have my doubts about the ultimate otives of our 44th preesident. He
is at least a divisive hard-left idealogue, unconstrained now and disinterested in the generational theft
of our ever growing debt.
[My friend mentions that Whole Foods, a super market chain, is one of the employers that could provide
(or already has languishing) those plenty of jobs.
The above is the position of a past professorial position and present "retirement-profession" investment
counselor and broker.
To follow, my reply.
I do not want fed and state governments to provide a "fairly substantial level of welfare". Ideally NONE!!
Income should be primarily from wages paid by private-sector enterprises for jobs therein, and herein!!
I do not want fed and state to provide for "an arbitrary number of people". Ideally, NONE!!
Those provided for should be employed in occupations or positions such as govt. per se., or the myriad
former private sector realms that the government has had to provide the survival of (such as rapid
transit, railroads per se, air lines, . . . ), or has always paid for (such as cops, firemen, teachers,
municipal workers, etc.)
I do obviously think that where private sector's traditional role of providing domestic jobs, but where that
role has been, so to speak, abdicated, (and here, "domestic" refers to in America -- not "domestic"
as in hotel-level positions or pay).
Either something steps in to provide a basic monetary means of survival for the unemployed
Or we'll see, especially our cities reduced to the squalor and filth and beggary of elsewheres.
I do think "social justice" should be part of the paradigm for state and nation. The people, not just the privileged,
"Social juscie", though, is not welfare (which is actually social injustice denying the means for the MAJORITY
of the people to fulfill their inherent ambition, motivationk, and responsibility. Again, as I've previously considered
in our correspondences, unless some sudden viral onset of populace-degeneracy has taken place within the last
few years, (prior to which there was no concern with the unemployed and, as well, there was a fiscal surplus)
. . . .the people now are the same as the people were then.
Wanting stuff is a prime motivation for responsibility and ambition and just collecting welfare
or unemployment benefits (while they last) is hardly a satisfactory level of financial meaans for
any but the very minor group of hard-core freeloaders, addicts, derelicts.
And even they should be required (as has been done in some places) to perform some
function or service in order to earn their dole (such as picking up litter, mowing park lawns, etc.)
Your a) an irresponsible worker class; b) an unmotivated worker class; and c) an untrained worker class
suggest a unit-disparagement of a triad of factors. The despicable "lower class" lazy once-workers
a) If the irresponsibility of a class exists, where's the responsibility of those with the "class" of
power, position, and portfolois to protect their own interests as well as those of their society
to prevent such socio-economic deterioration as seems to have taken place, or now so obvious,
(to some) to correct the downfall of civilization if not humanity
b) If the unmotivation of aclass exists and is so damaging to the economy and elitists' equilibrium
and tolerances . . .how inept, divorced from, disinterested in, or just unmotivated to correct
these faults for the benefit of themselves, at least, if not their country and "system of suitable
society" . . . . . .is the "upper class"
c) If the lack of training of the worker class is such a problem, where is the requisite training to come
from? Training has to be provided in facilities of, and by those proficient in, the fields for which one
is to be trained. Or are those masses supposed to become spontaneously self-trained?
So many positions for which people were once trained are no longer available in this country.
So many positions here are being filled by "workers" that are programmed, not trained (and inorganic).
So many positions open to people here require specialization, if not higher education (even post grad)
So many positions for which mere training ("put the colored clothes on this conveyor, the whites on
that, anything extremely soiled with feces or vomit goes in the bin over there . . . .") have no
openings for there is only so much dirty laundry.
And, realistically, how many jobs can Whole Foods provide for a populace of
consisting of a whole (formerly -- picture the hordes going into the factory
or mill gate . . . .) former workers . . .?
IF THE "LOWER CLASS" OF THIS COUNTRY IS SO IN CONTROL THAT THEIR RECENTLY ACHIEVED IRRESPONSIBILITY
AND UNMOTIVATED AND UNTRAINED STATE OF BEING . . . RULES AND RUINS THE STATES-UNTO-COUNTRY IN TOTO,
THE "UPPER CLASS" IS AT FAULT, TO BLAME, CULPABLE, CONDEMNABLE FOR . . .
. . . MAKING THEIR PERSONAL INTERESTS (AND DIVIDENDS AND ALL) SO PRIORITIZED THAT THE
WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY IS COMPROMISED BY THEIR DEFAULT IRRESPONSIBILITY, UNMOTIVATION
AND MAYBE EVEN UNTRAINING TO DEAL WITH ANY ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIVE (SUCH AS ACTUAL WORK
OR PERSONNEL) ASPECTS OF RUNNING . . THE BUSINESS OF A NATION.
Eh, but they don't own shares in America as a country. Their value-increment has been
derived from Dow while downsizing and off-shoring and minimum-waging or part-timing
what was the comoprehensive (and "class-level" reciprocity) of "olden times"
Thus, collecting the welfare dividends derived from (default) demographic decay and
economic end-times of all those worthless (double-entendre) others . . . why should
the "uppers" bother to get off their "rolls" of the free-market-free-ride . . . .. ?
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Your dissertation partner is off-base when he says "Whole Foods has plenty of jobs....yeah right probably as stock boys and window washers, earning at or slightly above minimum wage. Let's see him support his family on a minimum wage job.
But then YOU SAY:
"I do not want fed and state governments to provide a "fairly substantial level of welfare". Ideally NONE!"
"I do not want fed and state to provide for "an arbitrary number of people". Ideally, NONE!! Those provided for should be employed in occupations or positions such as govt. per se., or the myriad of former private sector realms that the government has had to provide the survival of (such as rapid-transit railroads per se, air lines, . . . ), or has always paid for (such as cops, firemen, teachers, municipal workers, etc.)."
To this, I answer what about those Americans who are unemployed as the result of lay-offs, sicknesses, physical deformities, mental incompetency, and the myriad of other reasons that one of them might not be able to work for either a short time, or a more protracted period of time, or even permanently? Our society has never abandoned these individuals, and I don't believe most Americans want that to happen. Is there abuse in the system? Of course there is and there are people employed to uncover and penalize that abuse, but that doesn't mean it will end. That is the way this country was founded and governed for centuries now. If one dislikes it so much, THEY should be the ones to change or else move.