4 ms·

Actually, coming from a country with a high minimum wage ($16/hr+), the idea of a company paying some otherwise-unemployable warm body $5/hr to stand at the doo

by sho 17y ago

Actually, coming from a country with a high minimum wage ($16/hr+), the idea of a company paying some otherwise-unemployable warm body $5/hr to stand at the door and do nothing all day except say hello to indifferent customers seems bizarre to me - not to mention demeaning and perverse. Our unemployment benefit is $6.20 an hour. I'd rather the poor guy stays at home, works on his novel or something, and keeps his dignity.

eru 17y ago
Staying at home means watching TV for a lot of unemployed people. Getting any job is often better.
- g2petter 17y ago
  Agreed. One of the problems with some of the welfare models is that it's often very hard to get people out of them once they've adapted to being jobless and doing nothing.
  - sho 17y ago
    Well, yes, that's definitely an issue. But some people, you know, they're just hopeless and they wouldn't do anything productive anyway. May as well have them watching television, at least they won't go crazy with resentment after being forced to be a freaking greeter for 5 years. And not all people will be like that. If just 1 in 5 people get bored, start studying, turn their life around and start pulling $120k, their tax pays for the other 4, plus the GDP per capita of the five quadruples. It can and does happen. I know a guy who was an unemployed bum for a few years, then got bored, spent 2 years teaching himself computer animation, then got a job at a major animation studio (two of their productions playing in cinemas now). He probably "paid back" that measly trickle of benefit payments in 1 year. I pretty much support an untested basic payment for all low income earners, actually, because of that and other experiences. Just gives people a base, a safety net. They might want to do nothing but watch TV, but they might want to do something good, too. Just gives people the support they need. And because of human nature, and general societal pressure to succeed, people do step up, eventually. (edited to remove potentially identifying personal information)
maneesh 17y ago
which country?
- sho 17y ago
  Australia.

by sho 17y ago

eru 17y ago

Staying at home means watching TV for a lot of unemployed people. Getting any job is often better.

g2petter 17y ago
Agreed. One of the problems with some of the welfare models is that it's often very hard to get people out of them once they've adapted to being jobless and doing nothing.
- sho 17y ago
  Well, yes, that's definitely an issue. But some people, you know, they're just hopeless and they wouldn't do anything productive anyway. May as well have them watching television, at least they won't go crazy with resentment after being forced to be a freaking greeter for 5 years. And not all people will be like that. If just 1 in 5 people get bored, start studying, turn their life around and start pulling $120k, their tax pays for the other 4, plus the GDP per capita of the five quadruples. It can and does happen. I know a guy who was an unemployed bum for a few years, then got bored, spent 2 years teaching himself computer animation, then got a job at a major animation studio (two of their productions playing in cinemas now). He probably "paid back" that measly trickle of benefit payments in 1 year. I pretty much support an untested basic payment for all low income earners, actually, because of that and other experiences. Just gives people a base, a safety net. They might want to do nothing but watch TV, but they might want to do something good, too. Just gives people the support they need. And because of human nature, and general societal pressure to succeed, people do step up, eventually. (edited to remove potentially identifying personal information)

maneesh 17y ago

which country?

sho 17y ago
Australia.