3 ms·

There are two ways not to be poor: either you're productive yourself or you are supported by someone who is productive. If you are not productive, it's because

by dpatru 16y ago

There are two ways not to be poor: either you're productive yourself or you are supported by someone who is productive. If you are not productive, it's because you don't want to be or because you can't. You may not want to be productive if it's easier or more pleasant not to be (eg, if you're receiving large unemployment check from the government.) You can't be productive if factors outside of your control prevent you (eg, you suffer from a severe handicap, you're in prison, or no one will hire you.) If you're not supported by someone, it's because you either don't want help or you don't have anyone in your life whose willing and able to support you. In the modern, these two cases (being productive and having someone willing and able to support you) are often merged. For example, there are many people who are essentially professional beggars. They are not productive in the way a farmer is. A farmer works at farming and lives directly off of the wealth produced by the farm which he trades. In contrast, a fundraiser for a charity works at convincing people to give for something that is only indirectly beneficial to themselves. Sometimes the same person may play both of these roles. A politician may ask a working person to vote for him because he will provide students with financial aid. The politician in this case is acting as a kind of professional beggar on behalf of students. The worker who votes for the politician does not expect to receive a direct benefit. The worker's vote is an act of charity. The same politician may ask a student for her vote because he will increase her government-provided student aid. The student's vote is a kind of business decision. (Although of questionable morality since her vote is not a vote for charity so much as a vote for coercing others to give.) The social welfare state has also given rise to what are essentially unemployed beggars: People who in the past might have lived off of the charity of others but now don't even ask for support. They simply declare their need to the government which supports them.

michaelchisari 16y ago
I think you have a major misconception about how welfare works in the U.S. The idea of a "large government check" or that living off of welfare is preferable to a living wage job, is not really realistic. Since welfare reform in the 90's, TANF, for instance, runs out in just over two years. Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.
- dpatru 16y ago
  The choice that welfare allows is: welfare (much leisure with little money) versus work (little leisure with X money), where X depends on your productivity. For people with little productivity, welfare looks very attractive.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    You make a series of egregious assumptions in your analysis of poverty. First, is that "productivity" is fixed in any way. New skills can be learned, attitudes can change, etc. I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor, instead arguing that depression and social alienation are greater issues than a culture of leisure. Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc. In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.
    - dpatru 16y ago
      > I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . . Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work. > welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . . The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years. See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=show http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.

by dpatru 16y ago

michaelchisari 16y ago

I think you have a major misconception about how welfare works in the U.S. The idea of a "large government check" or that living off of welfare is preferable to a living wage job, is not really realistic. Since welfare reform in the 90's, TANF, for instance, runs out in just over two years. Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.

dpatru 16y ago
The choice that welfare allows is: welfare (much leisure with little money) versus work (little leisure with X money), where X depends on your productivity. For people with little productivity, welfare looks very attractive.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  You make a series of egregious assumptions in your analysis of poverty. First, is that "productivity" is fixed in any way. New skills can be learned, attitudes can change, etc. I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor, instead arguing that depression and social alienation are greater issues than a culture of leisure. Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc. In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.
  - dpatru 16y ago
    > I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . . Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work. > welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . . The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years. See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=show http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.