3 ms·

Someone with the skills to be a social worker, on average, can use those skills for higher paid work. They are knowingly trading the good feeling they get when

Someone with the skills to be a social worker, on average, can use those skills for higher paid work. They are knowingly trading the good feeling they get when helping people for the cash they could get by being a cold capitalist. You can make the argument social workers should be paid more but probably not the argument the person is employed in the highest saving ability profession they could reasonably hope to work in.

jewayne 4y ago
Again, you seem to believe that eliminating the job of social worker from society is a viable option.
- notch656c 4y ago
  [flagged]
rqtwteye 4y ago
What are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs? Society is seriously f...ed up if it's ok to exploit people who do a valuable job for society and only selfishness gets rewarded. Same for entrepreneurs. What are the genius billionaires going to do if nobody wants to work for them and everybody wants to be an entrepreneur? We need to reward all kinds of useful jobs and not have all reward go to the sociopaths at the top.
- notch656c 4y ago
  If nobody does at the current wage, then wages will have to rise to meet supply/demand. As it stands individuals see the good feels as part of their wages. Otherwise they would do something higher paying. IF nobody does the job because the good feels does nothing for them then they'll have to start paying as much as the cold capitalist job.
  - jewayne 4y ago
    Yes, that's how it works. Certainly nobody would just complain loudly that "Nobody wants to work anymore!" and demand more suffering for the people at the bottom of society.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      It would be an interesting experiment if we fired all the social workers and gave the money of the salary and all the overhead of those programs directly to the poor, and compare the outcomes.
      - jewayne 4y ago
        Yes, because statistically valid studies are cheap and don't require highly-trained professionals.
      - hdctambien 4y ago
        Would you give that money to the abused/neglected kids that social workers protect, or the parents that are abusing/neglecting them? Who would be in charge of identifying who gets that money and managing the systems that distribute that money and would they get paid more than the social workers that got fired?
        notch656c 4y ago
        I would do a negative income tax basically at the lowest earnings (that is they basically get graduated credits). I'd simplify the tax code so we'd only need half the IRS or less and then repurpose some of them to making sure the negative income tax is refunded. Unemancipated children would not be included in the refund. My prediction is especially neglect but also abuse are often symptoms of poverty and insufficient economic security. I do not believe economically starving the parents is somehow going to help the neglect of overburdened parents, but I can respect some possible hints that may be drawn from your question. My belief is the number of kids saved through such a measure would outdo the number the social workers would have saved. But that is just a theory.

jewayne 4y ago

Again, you seem to believe that eliminating the job of social worker from society is a viable option.

notch656c 4y ago
[flagged]

rqtwteye 4y ago

What are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs? Society is seriously f...ed up if it's ok to exploit people who do a valuable job for society and only selfishness gets rewarded. Same for entrepreneurs. What are the genius billionaires going to do if nobody wants to work for them and everybody wants to be an entrepreneur? We need to reward all kinds of useful jobs and not have all reward go to the sociopaths at the top.

notch656c 4y ago
If nobody does at the current wage, then wages will have to rise to meet supply/demand. As it stands individuals see the good feels as part of their wages. Otherwise they would do something higher paying. IF nobody does the job because the good feels does nothing for them then they'll have to start paying as much as the cold capitalist job.
- jewayne 4y ago
  Yes, that's how it works. Certainly nobody would just complain loudly that "Nobody wants to work anymore!" and demand more suffering for the people at the bottom of society.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    It would be an interesting experiment if we fired all the social workers and gave the money of the salary and all the overhead of those programs directly to the poor, and compare the outcomes.
    - jewayne 4y ago
      Yes, because statistically valid studies are cheap and don't require highly-trained professionals.
    - hdctambien 4y ago
      Would you give that money to the abused/neglected kids that social workers protect, or the parents that are abusing/neglecting them? Who would be in charge of identifying who gets that money and managing the systems that distribute that money and would they get paid more than the social workers that got fired?
      - notch656c 4y ago
        I would do a negative income tax basically at the lowest earnings (that is they basically get graduated credits). I'd simplify the tax code so we'd only need half the IRS or less and then repurpose some of them to making sure the negative income tax is refunded. Unemancipated children would not be included in the refund. My prediction is especially neglect but also abuse are often symptoms of poverty and insufficient economic security. I do not believe economically starving the parents is somehow going to help the neglect of overburdened parents, but I can respect some possible hints that may be drawn from your question. My belief is the number of kids saved through such a measure would outdo the number the social workers would have saved. But that is just a theory.