4 ms·

Related slatestarcodex post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/

by evanpw 11y ago

Related slatestarcodex post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-lik... "if your job can be done more cheaply without you, and the only reason you have it is because people would feel sorry for you if you didn’t, so the government forces your company to keep you on – well then, it’s not a job. It’s a welfare program that requires you to work 9 to 5 before seeing your welfare check."

guelo 11y ago
That's only bad if you have a bad conception of "welfare program". If you think society should provide for the welfare of all its members than it's not a bad connotation.
- evanpw 11y ago
  The post argues that this back-door form of welfare is inferior in just about every way to just cutting people a check, but that we tend to do it this way exactly because "welfare" has negative connotations: 'With all these advantages of “Simple Check”, what exactly is the “Sneaky Job” condition good for that makes it so popular? As far as I can tell, it is good for fooling people. People do not like paying welfare.'
  - minimuffins 11y ago
    > "welfare" has negative connotations > People do not like paying welfare. We should work on fighting this perception. Welfare is actually good. There was a time in the past ('30s-'70s) when welfare wasn't a bad word. People liked the idea of welfare. It was a positive idea. That we're still all talking like this, like welfare is a handout to worthless losers, etc is a testament to the success of Reaganite conservative politics. We all talk like Gordon Gekko now. We should rehabilitate the word and the idea. Say it with me: WELFARE IS GOOD AND COOL.
    - nickff 11y ago
      The main problem with this line of thinking is that it is materialistic. People get more out of their jobs than money, and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] Most people are happier with a job that pays minimum wage than a welfare program that pays significantly more. [1] http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] It's worth reading the paper past the initial TL;DR bullet points. It goes into interesting discussion about what exactly it is about unemployment that makes people unhappy. Some quotes from the middle of the article: "There is plenty of evidence in support of the hypothesis that the evaluative component of well-being depends on how much one conforms to or deviates from the norms of the social group one associates with. For unemployment, this means that the harmful effect of unemployment on life satisfaction is larger the stronger the prevailing norm toward work is. (...) There is additional evidence in support of the importance of social norms to the degree of life satisfaction of people who are unemployed. A German study finds that unemployed people report a substantial increase in life satisfaction when they retire, although other life circumstances remain largely unchanged [10]. The study interprets retirement as a switch in the social group with which one identifies, from the working-age population to retirees, and thus to a change in the social work norm. Once an individual has retired, not working no longer violates the social work norm, and life satisfaction consequently increases. (...) The potential felt scarcities and worries associated with unemployment are manifold. They include fewer social contacts, less social recognition, less money, a less structured day, less control of one’s life, and less certainty about what the future will bring. Indeed, although the effect on happiness of temporary income reductions during unemployment is not very large, people who are unemployed worry about their future economic uncertainty." -- I think it's still possible that unemployeds' unhappiness is caused by the work-centric culture and economy. Being shoveled money at is problematic, because you're getting for free what society expects you to get by work. Consider the ultimate welfare we all get - sunlight, breathable air. No one feels inadequate or sad because they're receiving it for free. It's part of the environment. We assume air and sun are always there, will always be there, and are available to everyone without having to work for it. I think food and shelter are things we should actually try and push to the environmental level, i.e. have it available for free and to everyone, unconditionally.
rsl7 11y ago
so many assumptions there.
sbilstein 11y ago
slatestarcodex is the tech version of David Brooks.

by evanpw 11y ago

guelo 11y ago

That's only bad if you have a bad conception of "welfare program". If you think society should provide for the welfare of all its members than it's not a bad connotation.

evanpw 11y ago
The post argues that this back-door form of welfare is inferior in just about every way to just cutting people a check, but that we tend to do it this way exactly because "welfare" has negative connotations: 'With all these advantages of “Simple Check”, what exactly is the “Sneaky Job” condition good for that makes it so popular? As far as I can tell, it is good for fooling people. People do not like paying welfare.'
- minimuffins 11y ago
  > "welfare" has negative connotations > People do not like paying welfare. We should work on fighting this perception. Welfare is actually good. There was a time in the past ('30s-'70s) when welfare wasn't a bad word. People liked the idea of welfare. It was a positive idea. That we're still all talking like this, like welfare is a handout to worthless losers, etc is a testament to the success of Reaganite conservative politics. We all talk like Gordon Gekko now. We should rehabilitate the word and the idea. Say it with me: WELFARE IS GOOD AND COOL.
  - nickff 11y ago
    The main problem with this line of thinking is that it is materialistic. People get more out of their jobs than money, and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] Most people are happier with a job that pays minimum wage than a welfare program that pays significantly more. [1] http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] It's worth reading the paper past the initial TL;DR bullet points. It goes into interesting discussion about what exactly it is about unemployment that makes people unhappy. Some quotes from the middle of the article: "There is plenty of evidence in support of the hypothesis that the evaluative component of well-being depends on how much one conforms to or deviates from the norms of the social group one associates with. For unemployment, this means that the harmful effect of unemployment on life satisfaction is larger the stronger the prevailing norm toward work is. (...) There is additional evidence in support of the importance of social norms to the degree of life satisfaction of people who are unemployed. A German study finds that unemployed people report a substantial increase in life satisfaction when they retire, although other life circumstances remain largely unchanged [10]. The study interprets retirement as a switch in the social group with which one identifies, from the working-age population to retirees, and thus to a change in the social work norm. Once an individual has retired, not working no longer violates the social work norm, and life satisfaction consequently increases. (...) The potential felt scarcities and worries associated with unemployment are manifold. They include fewer social contacts, less social recognition, less money, a less structured day, less control of one’s life, and less certainty about what the future will bring. Indeed, although the effect on happiness of temporary income reductions during unemployment is not very large, people who are unemployed worry about their future economic uncertainty." -- I think it's still possible that unemployeds' unhappiness is caused by the work-centric culture and economy. Being shoveled money at is problematic, because you're getting for free what society expects you to get by work. Consider the ultimate welfare we all get - sunlight, breathable air. No one feels inadequate or sad because they're receiving it for free. It's part of the environment. We assume air and sun are always there, will always be there, and are available to everyone without having to work for it. I think food and shelter are things we should actually try and push to the environmental level, i.e. have it available for free and to everyone, unconditionally.

rsl7 11y ago

so many assumptions there.

sbilstein 11y ago

slatestarcodex is the tech version of David Brooks.