3 ms·
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Much, if not all, of politics, on both sides, for ordinary people, is concerning who gets what welfare. For every Oreg
by an_opabinia 5y ago
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Much, if not all, of politics, on both sides, for ordinary people, is concerning who gets what welfare. For every Oregon FAA there are probably 100 offices in the military and government agricultural sector that provide a small number of good but sort of meaningless jobs.
For every 1 soldier actually shooting bullets or 1 bonafide back-bending farmer there are 999 comfy desk jobs for college educated people in the same org chart. Many for whom college was paid for by that government. Is that good or bad?
- hallway_monitor 5y agoPeople who want the "star trek future" don't seem to understand that, yes, work is valuable in its own right. It's better to work for your meal than have it handed to you. So, a primary concern of society is indeed keeping its people gainfully employed and we see outcomes that would not make sense were this not the case.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- travisjungroth 5y ago> Is that good or bad? I’m gonna go with bad.
- echelon 5y agoDo you just fire them and let them go on unemployment? If everything else is held constant, then there's nothing done and more people without money. It's an even greater drain on society, not to mention these people's lives.
- dantheman 5y agoYou fire them and let them get a job where they can do something beneficial for society. There's more than enough work out there, hell just picking up trash would provide more value than they currently do. I'd rather have people on welfare than in these bureaucratic jobs that actually hamper progress, because well they need to be 'involved'
- beebeepka 5y agoIndeed. Is a pointless but harmless job worse for society than preventable poverty? I think not. Is that always the case? No, of course not.