4 ms·

Why do we care that people are working? There are many reasons, probably, which is why there are different measures. I do think most of these measures (incorrec

by dfxm12 6y ago

Why do we care that people are working? There are many reasons, probably, which is why there are different measures. I do think most of these measures (incorrectly) presume that having a job means you have a living wage, or at least at some level, that if you have a job you generally don't need so much assistance. Maybe that was true at some point in history, but it is not today. Most minimum wages across the US are not a living wage. Many necessary benefits are tied to full time employment only. Unemployment rates with no context attached don't have such a strong meaning.

jfengel 6y ago
Americans seem to have a deep resentment of being taken advantage of. They're not un-generous, but their generosity is only for the "worthy", and they're afraid that the un-worthy are benefitting. There are examples in this thread, where the poster personally knows people who do not wish to work and are somehow living the high life off of their taxes. The implication is that it's worth eliminating the program in order to avoid that; the abstraction of other deserving people who need it is less important. They wouldn't necessarily mind a system that managed to remove all of the malingerers, but even a very tiny number of them invalidates a system. As you say, we can easily afford it: the country produces over $60,000 per person each year. It's more a matter of fairness than resources: people resent a system they perceive as unfair to them even more than they resent a system in which unfortunate people suffer. That's certainly not unique to Americans, but from what I've seen, it dominates the thinking here more than in many other parts of the world. When you describe, say the UK's NHS or a UBI, the American mind seems to go first to "How many people must be abusing that system?"
- refurb 6y ago
  That shouldn’t be a shocker to you, it comes down to fairness. If you have two 30 year old males, both capable of work and one works a full time job, pay 1/3 in taxes and the other guy chooses not to work and is effectively supported (in part) by the guy working, is that fair? I think most people would say no. And I don’t think it’s unique to capitalism. Even in the Soviet Union they had “social parasites” who refused to contribute to society. Same with communal societies without a monetary system. People who can contribute but choose not to are pretty quickly pushed out. And I see a lot of comments on HN about paying taxes as the cost of enjoying the benefits of society. Even if you ignore the unfairness of one laborer paying for another laborer to be idle (even though they can work), isn’t it unfair to society for someone to not contribute to the system they benefit so greatly from? And I’m not even an American.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    If you want to talk about what's unfair, the low-hanging fruit is the increasing income inequality between executives and typical workers [0], or the executives paying a lower rate in taxes than their secretaries [1]. 0 - https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ 1 - https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secret...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
    If you have two 30 year old males, both capable of work and one works a full time job because they have to and another has a 10 million dollar inheritance from his family and wouldn't know what work is if it slapped him on the face, is that fair?
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Why not answer their question instead of reaching for Whataboutism?
      - scollet 6y ago
        They are both valid hypotheticals.
        luckylion 6y ago
        Sure, but it's not a reply, it's just babbling on, hoping that the other person will change course to discuss that issue instead. That's not a conversation and it certainly isn't an interesting conversation. It's what reddit or twitter are optimizing for.
  - mLuby 6y ago
    > People who can contribute but choose not to are pretty quickly pushed out. "Pushed out" meaning what exactly? Shamed? Debtors' prison? Homeless? No medical care? Left to starve? Euthanized? Plenty of options, none befitting a decent society. Also, fairness (which literally everyone supports) depends greatly on framing: 1. Alice pays taxes, Bob doesn't, Bob gets free stuff from the government, so Alice is paying for Bob's selfish laziness. 2. Alice and Bob both pay 30% of their income in taxes. The government guarantees all its citizens a decent standard of living, and so gives Bob, who falls below some threshold, assistance. 3. Alice is physically and mentally healthy, so she compounds her advantages and resources. A portion of her financial gains go to the government as taxes. Bob isn't so lucky, struggles with physical or mental illness, experiences personal or family tragedies, etc. He struggles to stay financially afloat, and can't consistently accumulate a safety net to weather multiple bad outcomes. He turns to the government for help sometimes. It comes down to whether you'd rather punish the guilty and innocent alike or would rather help the downtrodden and seemingly slothful alike. I choose to be kind, but I get that it's hard to act that way if you feel threatened.
bluGill 6y ago
I care because I'm supporting them to my job. I have sympathy for those who can't work (or can but only minimal levels) - and I know a number of them. However I also know some who could work but are milking the system (less than the number who can't work). Every penny taken out of my income to support someone else is a penny I can't apply to my own dreams. My dreams are (in no order - in fact the order changes day to day): retire early, buy more toys, pay for my kids' education, take more exotic vacations. I have enough to live on, and even by US standards I'm doing very well, but there is always more, and the money going to someone else is money I work for that I can't enjoy.
- tolbish 6y ago
  Do you consider people who post on HN during working hours to he "milking the system"? Are they not also freeloaders?
- dfxm12 6y ago
  The pennies going towards our neighbors is probably negligible on the list of things getting between you and your new toys. I suggest directing your callousness towards our employers, who are keeping our wages down [0], as they are milking the system far more. It also doesn't help that a conservative court consistently rules against us [1], but there's little we can do about that now. 0 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent-wages-keeping-up-its-not-the-economy-its-management/#55af407c397e https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent... 1 - https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3183&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
- confidantlake 6y ago
  The toys and "adventures" you buy the military cost vastly more than what you give to those milking the welfare system.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    I'm against that too.

by dfxm12 6y ago

jfengel 6y ago

Americans seem to have a deep resentment of being taken advantage of. They're not un-generous, but their generosity is only for the "worthy", and they're afraid that the un-worthy are benefitting. There are examples in this thread, where the poster personally knows people who do not wish to work and are somehow living the high life off of their taxes. The implication is that it's worth eliminating the program in order to avoid that; the abstraction of other deserving people who need it is less important. They wouldn't necessarily mind a system that managed to remove all of the malingerers, but even a very tiny number of them invalidates a system. As you say, we can easily afford it: the country produces over $60,000 per person each year. It's more a matter of fairness than resources: people resent a system they perceive as unfair to them even more than they resent a system in which unfortunate people suffer. That's certainly not unique to Americans, but from what I've seen, it dominates the thinking here more than in many other parts of the world. When you describe, say the UK's NHS or a UBI, the American mind seems to go first to "How many people must be abusing that system?"

refurb 6y ago
That shouldn’t be a shocker to you, it comes down to fairness. If you have two 30 year old males, both capable of work and one works a full time job, pay 1/3 in taxes and the other guy chooses not to work and is effectively supported (in part) by the guy working, is that fair? I think most people would say no. And I don’t think it’s unique to capitalism. Even in the Soviet Union they had “social parasites” who refused to contribute to society. Same with communal societies without a monetary system. People who can contribute but choose not to are pretty quickly pushed out. And I see a lot of comments on HN about paying taxes as the cost of enjoying the benefits of society. Even if you ignore the unfairness of one laborer paying for another laborer to be idle (even though they can work), isn’t it unfair to society for someone to not contribute to the system they benefit so greatly from? And I’m not even an American.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  If you want to talk about what's unfair, the low-hanging fruit is the increasing income inequality between executives and typical workers [0], or the executives paying a lower rate in taxes than their secretaries [1]. 0 - https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ 1 - https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secret...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  If you have two 30 year old males, both capable of work and one works a full time job because they have to and another has a 10 million dollar inheritance from his family and wouldn't know what work is if it slapped him on the face, is that fair?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Why not answer their question instead of reaching for Whataboutism?
    - scollet 6y ago
      They are both valid hypotheticals.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Sure, but it's not a reply, it's just babbling on, hoping that the other person will change course to discuss that issue instead. That's not a conversation and it certainly isn't an interesting conversation. It's what reddit or twitter are optimizing for.
- mLuby 6y ago
  > People who can contribute but choose not to are pretty quickly pushed out. "Pushed out" meaning what exactly? Shamed? Debtors' prison? Homeless? No medical care? Left to starve? Euthanized? Plenty of options, none befitting a decent society. Also, fairness (which literally everyone supports) depends greatly on framing: 1. Alice pays taxes, Bob doesn't, Bob gets free stuff from the government, so Alice is paying for Bob's selfish laziness. 2. Alice and Bob both pay 30% of their income in taxes. The government guarantees all its citizens a decent standard of living, and so gives Bob, who falls below some threshold, assistance. 3. Alice is physically and mentally healthy, so she compounds her advantages and resources. A portion of her financial gains go to the government as taxes. Bob isn't so lucky, struggles with physical or mental illness, experiences personal or family tragedies, etc. He struggles to stay financially afloat, and can't consistently accumulate a safety net to weather multiple bad outcomes. He turns to the government for help sometimes. It comes down to whether you'd rather punish the guilty and innocent alike or would rather help the downtrodden and seemingly slothful alike. I choose to be kind, but I get that it's hard to act that way if you feel threatened.

bluGill 6y ago

I care because I'm supporting them to my job. I have sympathy for those who can't work (or can but only minimal levels) - and I know a number of them. However I also know some who could work but are milking the system (less than the number who can't work). Every penny taken out of my income to support someone else is a penny I can't apply to my own dreams. My dreams are (in no order - in fact the order changes day to day): retire early, buy more toys, pay for my kids' education, take more exotic vacations. I have enough to live on, and even by US standards I'm doing very well, but there is always more, and the money going to someone else is money I work for that I can't enjoy.

tolbish 6y ago
Do you consider people who post on HN during working hours to he "milking the system"? Are they not also freeloaders?
dfxm12 6y ago
The pennies going towards our neighbors is probably negligible on the list of things getting between you and your new toys. I suggest directing your callousness towards our employers, who are keeping our wages down [0], as they are milking the system far more. It also doesn't help that a conservative court consistently rules against us [1], but there's little we can do about that now. 0 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent-wages-keeping-up-its-not-the-economy-its-management/#55af407c397e https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent... 1 - https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3183&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
confidantlake 6y ago
The toys and "adventures" you buy the military cost vastly more than what you give to those milking the welfare system.
- bluGill 6y ago
  I'm against that too.