Forum Thread

the welfare state results from private sector abdication

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    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 . . . .. ?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    along,
    Your post is depressing. Very accurate but depressing as well. I believe a major factor is the under trained segment. I can't imagine many of these displaced workers forking over 10 - 15,000.00 to become employable. They probably can't afford to do so. At the same time you can say "How can they afford not to ?" but it's tough on a tight household economy. I think it would be a fabulous program if the president crafted a plan for the US to pay for worker retraining. Something that would bridge a large gap and get us past a social obstacle. I've seen news stories wherein employers could not find trained workers. One case was a machine shop where the heavy machinery was very technical as well. They say that employers don't train employees any longer. They expect to hire them ready to do the job. In the story about the machine shop they suggested it took about 14 months of training to make someone proficient at that job. The company ultimately hired a couple of workers and trained them which earned them a good story on the national news.
    I appreciated your well thought out analysis but if you're so eloquent in explaining the dilemma, perhaps you might offer a solution or two as well.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dear Along....,

    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.