4 ms·

That floor is always an issue, even in countries with a better than average social system. Here in Germany, they will cut your financial aid if you aren't will

by k__ 5y ago

That floor is always an issue, even in countries with a better than average social system. Here in Germany, they will cut your financial aid if you aren't willing to take every shitty job you get offered. This leads to companies who prey on the poorest, because they know they have to take their crappy jobs.

Tiny-rolleyes 5y ago
pc86 5y ago
There's a somewhat prevalent mindset here in the US that it's better to have a lot of honestly down-on-their-luck, "not-their-fault" poor and impoverished people struggle in order to avoid buying one meal or one nice jacket for the freeloader who simply doesn't feel like getting a job. I imagine even in countries with good social safety nets that you have a certain contingent of people who feel the same way.
efdee 5y ago
If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Wouldn't the correct answer to your problem be laws that put lower limits on what acceptable jobs are, rather than not expecting people to take whatever job there is for them if they can't find anything better?
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  > If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Yours is an entirely ideological point of view. There is no reason to believe people would just sit at home and wait for the system to pay them. Even if someone did just sit at home, you have to prove that that would be worse overall than having many others' needs ignored. We already have a class of people who "sit" expecting the system to pay them: it's the rich. We already practice socialism for the rich, giving incredible amounts of public money to companies in tax cuts and subsidies, it's time we do socialism for the poor as well.
  - efdee 5y ago
    I'm not sure your "we" is the same as my "we". I live in an European "socialist" country with a well functioning healthcare and welfare system. I have lots of sympathy for people who are experiencing some downtime in their life. I understand that might not have been obvious from my comment. I'm not sure I understand you when you say there is no reason to believe people are sitting at home waiting for the system to pay them. Considering we are talking about people who are unable to find a job and not willing to do the jobs that are available, who are healthy and not at home because of some condition - who exactly are we talking about? Your last paragraph sounds very worrisome but not something I feel my "we" are experiencing. We do a lot of socialism for the poor and we tax our rich quite heavily. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I feel you're approaching this from a very US-centric point of view.
    - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
      I tend to think internationally, so when I refer to "we" I mean pretty much everyone. I'm Italian anyway so I also live in the "socialist" Europe, nevertheless this year we gave away €50B in companies' subsidies and less than €10B in subsidies to citizens. At the same time the class divide grows wider, while most people this year struggle to even pay the bills. Perhaps you live in northern Europe, in that case your country definitely has higher standards of life, but I don't think north Europe is really representative of the world's situation.
- thomastjeffery 5y ago
  Because that's slavery.
  - efdee 5y ago
    Obviously 'forced' here means 'take the job or lose your unemployment benefits, not 'take the job or be arrested/die/...'. Nothing like slavery.
    - thomastjeffery 5y ago
      ...nothing like slavery I mean, sure it's better, but I'm not convinced it's nothing like slavery. I definitely wouldn't call it liberty.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Obviously 'forced' here means 'take the job or lose your unemployment benefits, not 'take the job or be arrested/die/...'. Nothing like slavery. Yeah, fortunately, we live in a system where the necessities of life are provided universally free of charge or condition, so that losing one’s income stream has no impact on access to those necessities.

by k__ 5y ago

Tiny-rolleyes 5y ago

pc86 5y ago

There's a somewhat prevalent mindset here in the US that it's better to have a lot of honestly down-on-their-luck, "not-their-fault" poor and impoverished people struggle in order to avoid buying one meal or one nice jacket for the freeloader who simply doesn't feel like getting a job. I imagine even in countries with good social safety nets that you have a certain contingent of people who feel the same way.

efdee 5y ago

If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Wouldn't the correct answer to your problem be laws that put lower limits on what acceptable jobs are, rather than not expecting people to take whatever job there is for them if they can't find anything better?

pastacacioepepe 5y ago
> If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Yours is an entirely ideological point of view. There is no reason to believe people would just sit at home and wait for the system to pay them. Even if someone did just sit at home, you have to prove that that would be worse overall than having many others' needs ignored. We already have a class of people who "sit" expecting the system to pay them: it's the rich. We already practice socialism for the rich, giving incredible amounts of public money to companies in tax cuts and subsidies, it's time we do socialism for the poor as well.
- efdee 5y ago
  I'm not sure your "we" is the same as my "we". I live in an European "socialist" country with a well functioning healthcare and welfare system. I have lots of sympathy for people who are experiencing some downtime in their life. I understand that might not have been obvious from my comment. I'm not sure I understand you when you say there is no reason to believe people are sitting at home waiting for the system to pay them. Considering we are talking about people who are unable to find a job and not willing to do the jobs that are available, who are healthy and not at home because of some condition - who exactly are we talking about? Your last paragraph sounds very worrisome but not something I feel my "we" are experiencing. We do a lot of socialism for the poor and we tax our rich quite heavily. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I feel you're approaching this from a very US-centric point of view.
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    I tend to think internationally, so when I refer to "we" I mean pretty much everyone. I'm Italian anyway so I also live in the "socialist" Europe, nevertheless this year we gave away €50B in companies' subsidies and less than €10B in subsidies to citizens. At the same time the class divide grows wider, while most people this year struggle to even pay the bills. Perhaps you live in northern Europe, in that case your country definitely has higher standards of life, but I don't think north Europe is really representative of the world's situation.
thomastjeffery 5y ago
Because that's slavery.
- efdee 5y ago
  Obviously 'forced' here means 'take the job or lose your unemployment benefits, not 'take the job or be arrested/die/...'. Nothing like slavery.
  - thomastjeffery 5y ago
    ...nothing like slavery I mean, sure it's better, but I'm not convinced it's nothing like slavery. I definitely wouldn't call it liberty.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Obviously 'forced' here means 'take the job or lose your unemployment benefits, not 'take the job or be arrested/die/...'. Nothing like slavery. Yeah, fortunately, we live in a system where the necessities of life are provided universally free of charge or condition, so that losing one’s income stream has no impact on access to those necessities.