3 ms·

I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That

I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That is a force, the force of starvation.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds? I totally missed that part of the article.
- yequalsx 11y ago
  We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. I think it doesn't make sense in terms of overall societal emotional well being.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed." Did you read it? I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. Welfare recipients are disgruntled people who are unpleasant to be around? I thought they were just regular folks who were down on their luck, who wanted to work but are unable to find a job.
    - creshal 11y ago
      > If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. Exactly. So why "rethink the entire safety net, affecting nearly every federal entitlement program, so that it is oriented around the gig economy"? The gig economy isn't going to change the fundamental problem that there is not enough work, there won't ever again be enough work, and we can't centre our measurement of human worth around work. If we just keep pretending that's not the case we'll either end up with bullshit jobs that create no worth and are subsidized by the companies offering them (at best just a more convoluted form of benefits, paid by corporations directly); or with even more working poor that have a job and still depend on government benefits. Or both.
    - yequalsx 11y ago
      Forcing people to do work they don't want to often times leads to disgruntlement. It appears that you are purposefully misreading what I wrote to come up with the last rhetorical question you made. Such tactics are not conducive to proper discourse. Great to write on paper that we will exempt those who are mentally/physically unable to work. Then we will end up with a bunch of edge cases that force a government agency to be created that will end up drawing up rules/regulations in order to arbitrate these decisions. We will employ enough people in order to process/monitor all exempt people. It would in my opinion just be better to ensure a base level of existence regardless of ability. I've met a number of welfare recipients who don't want to work and it is a good thing that they aren't working due to their toxic personalities. Then there are people who are on welfare who are great to be around. It's a sufficiently large group that you'll find all kinds. In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don't believe that every person who can be employed can find work. I don't think anyone really believes that it is always the case that the number of people who wants jobs is less than the available number of jobs. Even if the system proposed is enacted then some people will still not be able to find work since there aren't enough jobs for everyone. We will add another layer of bureaucracy to ensure that those who claim they can't find work really can't find work. This already exists to some extent with unemployment benefits but would need to be expanded to really make sure no one is taking advantage of the system.
      - 11y ago

I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That is a force, the force of starvation.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds? I totally missed that part of the article.

yequalsx 11y ago
We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. I think it doesn't make sense in terms of overall societal emotional well being.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed." Did you read it? I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. Welfare recipients are disgruntled people who are unpleasant to be around? I thought they were just regular folks who were down on their luck, who wanted to work but are unable to find a job.
  - creshal 11y ago
    > If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. Exactly. So why "rethink the entire safety net, affecting nearly every federal entitlement program, so that it is oriented around the gig economy"? The gig economy isn't going to change the fundamental problem that there is not enough work, there won't ever again be enough work, and we can't centre our measurement of human worth around work. If we just keep pretending that's not the case we'll either end up with bullshit jobs that create no worth and are subsidized by the companies offering them (at best just a more convoluted form of benefits, paid by corporations directly); or with even more working poor that have a job and still depend on government benefits. Or both.
  - yequalsx 11y ago
    Forcing people to do work they don't want to often times leads to disgruntlement. It appears that you are purposefully misreading what I wrote to come up with the last rhetorical question you made. Such tactics are not conducive to proper discourse. Great to write on paper that we will exempt those who are mentally/physically unable to work. Then we will end up with a bunch of edge cases that force a government agency to be created that will end up drawing up rules/regulations in order to arbitrate these decisions. We will employ enough people in order to process/monitor all exempt people. It would in my opinion just be better to ensure a base level of existence regardless of ability. I've met a number of welfare recipients who don't want to work and it is a good thing that they aren't working due to their toxic personalities. Then there are people who are on welfare who are great to be around. It's a sufficiently large group that you'll find all kinds. In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don't believe that every person who can be employed can find work. I don't think anyone really believes that it is always the case that the number of people who wants jobs is less than the available number of jobs. Even if the system proposed is enacted then some people will still not be able to find work since there aren't enough jobs for everyone. We will add another layer of bureaucracy to ensure that those who claim they can't find work really can't find work. This already exists to some extent with unemployment benefits but would need to be expanded to really make sure no one is taking advantage of the system.
    - 11y ago