Mystery Economic Theater 2010

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by fivemack

The world does not have as many jobs that need doing as it has humans.

In what way is inventing unnecessary jobs for people to do for pay preferable to simply giving them the money, unless the motive is essentially punishment?

There are always lots of things that could be done to improve society, but don't attract the kind of private money to pay living-wage salaries to do them.

A motive for requiring welfare recipients to do these could be simply to acquire the social improvements that labor could provide.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Bullshit - there is *always* something useful that needs doing, at every skill level - you just have to look around. Many local libraries could surely use an extra pair of hands, as could animal shelters, daycare centers, nursing homes, etc. Local parks - especially in many urban areas - could use fixing-up, cleanup, groundswork.

Yes, but at what point do we cross over from freedom to coercion?

Perhaps society could simply put more resources into encouraging volunteerism and informing the populace of volunteering opportunities than it does now.

I suspect many of the folks engaged in this "radical experiment" might be surprised to actually find themselves enjoying it, both in the keeping-busy and social-interaction aspects.

... but in the coercive aspect ... ?

I've had friends who were made to do community service as part of a legal judgment who said they actually ended up enjoying it quite a bit - and in such cases it was for no pay at all.

fivemack asked about situations other than those involving punishment.

The discipline needed to get up every weekday morning and go out and do even an unnecessary job is far preferable to doing f*ck-all and collecting a check one "is entitled to".

Okay, but where do we draw the line of coercion? Who decides ... if we don't simply use the existing system of representative democracy to make that decision, as we do now?

So, what's needed is to persuade others of the superiority of your views.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

Fair enough, but do you propose paying for the child's upkeep? In more biblical language, do you punish the children for the sins of their parents, even unto the seventh generation?


Paul

Of course one does not punish the children. One punishes the parents.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

In more biblical language, do you punish the children for the sins of their parents, even unto the seventh generation?

You are misquoting and misapplying the passage.

"Visiting the sins of..." is explained here: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/visiting.html

In other words God will inspect and examine the results on future generations of parental iniquity. He will take note of how each generation influences the next.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Yes, but at what point do we cross over from freedom to coercion?

There is no loss of freedom. The recipient is free to choose from

a) Doing useful work and getting unemployment/welfare payments, or
b) Not doing work and getting no unemployment/welfare payments.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Prime95

There is no loss of freedom. The recipient is free to choose from

a) Doing useful work and getting unemployment/welfare payments, or
b) Not doing work and getting no unemployment/welfare payments.

Allow me to ask the following: What if the recipient were unable to perform
this "useful work"?

For example, and just speaking for myself, I have to have a desk
job. I have had a total of seven (yes, 7 !!!) spinal surgeries and suffer
from severe and chronic disk problems/spinal stenois/spinal arthritis.
A surgery on my neck to fuse two disks caused nerve damage to my
vocal chords and talking is a problem. My voicebox gets tired and
I start coughing. So lecturing to a classroom would be difficult as well.

I can do productive work, but I can not stand or walk for long periods.
I am not crippled, but standing upright puts pressure on the disks in
my lower back, causing pinched nerves. I have both sciatica and
radiculopathy.

[Xyzzy]

Of course one does not punish the children. One punishes the parents.

That is what marriage is all about!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Allow me to ask the following: What if the recipient were unable to perform this "useful work"?

For example, and just speaking for myself, I have to have a desk
job.

I'm sure there are plenty of community-service jobs which would suit ... community centers,libraries,food banks,animal shelters etc all have their share of desk-jockey jobs.

Medical waivers would of course also be a possibility - so long as one ensures that exception doesn't get abused. You don't automatically get a desk job just because you're overweight, for instance, assuming you are otherwise in OK health.

But, assuming the community-service-jobs programs provide a variety of jobs with varying physical-labor aspects, most folks who are unable to do even the desk jobs should probably be covered by disability rather than unemployment.

I gotta say, the mere fact that we're discussing this as though it were some kind of radical and dangerous experiment in social-engineering appalls me. That is the corrosive nature of entitlement-think in effect.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

You are misquoting and misapplying the passage.

"Visiting the sins of..." is explained here: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/visiting.html

I'm well aware of the original and of its meaning. I was not misquoting because I was not quoting. Parodying may be arguable.

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I'm sure there are plenty of community-service jobs which would suit ... community centers,libraries,food banks,animal shelters etc all have their share of desk-jockey jobs.

That is certainly true around here. Just one example: the rescue centre from which we've taken in several cats always has at least one desk-bound person near the entrance. There are almost always several little old ladies (they are invariably women) aged at least 70 who collect the money paid to them by purchasers of donated goods. Their most strenuous duty is finding a bag or some wrapping paper for small items.


Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Prime95

There is no loss of freedom. The recipient is free to choose from

a) Doing useful work and getting unemployment/welfare payments, or
b) Not doing work and getting no unemployment/welfare payments.

And what happens to the child of a parent who refuses to work?

I have a modest proposal but let's hear from others first.

Paul

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

And what happens to the child of a parent who refuses to work?

I have a modest proposal but let's hear from others first.

Paul

Here in Massachusetts children whose parents are irresponsible can be
removed by Children's Services and placed in foster care. There is an
entire state agency devoted to investigating child abuse, child neglect,
drug addict parents, etc. etc. This agency has the authority to remove
children from their parents.