Is The Work Ethic Dead?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I would assume that it is dead. Look at the number of people on welfare..

That service, in the beginning, was only for pregnant teen mothers and widowers of war.

Now anybody with a pack of kids and thier grandmother is on welfare.

To my knowledge most services of its kind was put into action by democrats, in turn sustaining votes will be kept for future democratic hopefuls for president.




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SGSPatriot
 


How convenient for you. Sure, that number of people on welfare can't be connected to struggling families due the middle class squeeze and the drowning of the lower class.

Have you talked to anyone trying to find a job lately? It's hard to do WITH a college diploma. What about that makes you surprised that Welfare is more used?

You think Welfare needs to be ended? Just see what happens if those social programs get pulled. They'll be forced to live on the streets. I know you don't care about that. I know you don't care if people are homeless. That's fine. As far as you are concerned it's their fault. They should have made due with a poor education, abusive family, and other issues that don't concern you.

But you will care when they start taking matters into their own hands to live. You end Welfare and the revolution everyone keeps talking about will happen.

You want something to blame? How about the widening gap between the lower and upper class. How about monopolies that are allowed to exist due to relaxed regulation. Welfare is a failed program, but only because people don't care - democrats and republicans alike.

They measure success on how much money they invest, not by benchmarks. The only time people look at the results is when they want to use them as a reason to blame others.

 

Fine. Blame "democrats". What do you suppose we do with the masses of poverty stricken families?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I agree with you. I think welfare needs stiff regulations.

But, for people to be just that, fat and lazy and suck the life out of everyone around them?

People in families that have to use welfare are in that position because they have a lack of respect for themselves. It is not my fault lil john decided to drop out of school just because he didnt want to go. Then john knocks up 3 different girls then sells drugs and drives a way nicer car then myself.

I have a college degree and I dont even work in my field. But im hacking and slashing away through the jungle of poverty

I guess we can agree to disagree



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SGSPatriot
 


I understand. But you do realize that you already have a leg up on the people you are talking about. It's a difficult subject and can't really be addressed quickly.

Some of them have mental health issues. Some of them have physical issues. Some of them have no education. Some probably are just lazy, don't know.

What I do know is that you can't just go blame the system without proposing a better one, then blame the party you claim to have put it into place.

We can disagree on ideals, but only if you actually have one. So what is it?


It is not my fault lil john decided to drop out of school just because he didnt want to go. Then john knocks up 3 different girls then sells drugs and drives a way nicer car then myself.


What about Joe the Plummer who quit his job because of meth and lives in a trailer park? You realize how many white people in trailer parks are abusing government programs? Why does it have to be about "lil john"?

I agree that we need to be more strict in our regulation of social programs to further prevent abuse. We also need to start putting the extra money into solving the ROOTS of the problem.

I also don't believe blaming everything on "lil john" is a great solution - though I do think population control is another important topic that needs to be addressed.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620

But you will care when they start taking matters into their own hands to live. You end Welfare and the revolution everyone keeps talking about will happen.




This is the problem right here Sublime.

Hard working people are forced to support those who refuse at the barrel of a gun. Subsidize their poor decisions or they will just end up robbing you, whether it's a mugging on your way home from work or a massive uprising of the poor demanding benefits.

Either way we pay.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


Exactly. It's not fair for you. At the same time, it's not fair for them. Most of them were born without a chance. Some can rise out of the dirt, wipe themselves off, and make something of themselves, but that's a rare breed of person.

To me, it seems like we have three options:

1) Cut them off and see what happens.

2) Continue to treat the symptoms by sending a check in the mail.

3) Look for the underlying cause and try to find a real solution.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


What solution is there to sloth? You can't make people be productive. Honestly.

I live in Toronto and there are city safety nets under provincial safety nets under federal safety nets. There is absolutely NO REASON to be poor here. No bloody reason. There is an organization that can help clear any hurdle out of your way if you haven't been able to succeed. Yet people still live on welfare. There is no reason for this other than that they have no ambition and are happy just subsisting on the dole.

If anything, to me Toronto has proven that welfare doesn't impact poverty. The queue for public housing just gets longer and longer, and benefits claims continue to increase despite all the help people are given. That is if they bother to pick up the phone or go to a government office to recieve it.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


Perhaps, then, the answer is to regulate welfare more strictly.

It has always been my opinion that if laws are more fair, they can be more strict at the same time. It works on every level:

-Drugs (we can't talk about that here though)

-Welfare (if good supports are provided, stricter regulation can be enforced on welfare subscribers. This would also serve as additional motivation)

-Immigration (if we make it easier to get a work visa or become a citizen, we can enforce more strict regulation on illegal immigrants)

-Taxes (if we force companies to pay executives less so that they can afford to pay all employees fair salaries, a flat tax becomes reasonable)

-Healthcare (if we make health care more affordable, then there can be more strict regulations on the payment of health-related bills)

The list goes on.

I'm not saying there aren't bad apples out there, but I just don't believe you can let a few ruin it for the rest of us. I just feel that society owes each other fairness.

Some may disagree with me.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Work Ethic Dead is not dead, it just got shipped out of the country with everything else. I understand what you are getting at. I have seen work ethic slowing fade away over the years.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by sc2099
 


Perhaps, then, the answer is to regulate welfare more strictly.

It has always been my opinion that if laws are more fair, they can be more strict at the same time. It works on every level:

-Drugs (we can't talk about that here though)

-Welfare (if good supports are provided, stricter regulation can be enforced on welfare subscribers. This would also serve as additional motivation)

I disagree with this completely for many reasons. But here is the big one for me,

It is stealing, I.E., you are taking my money without my permission like some modern day robin hood and giving it usually, to an able bodied person who has no excuse to not be working somewhere doing something. If i want to help someone out, it's my choice not yours, not the G-mint. And i do contribute to charity's, work at the soup kitchen a few times a year, donate stuff to the food bank, Etc.

I am a product of the welfare mentality, my family was on welfare for most of my life growing up, it made me feel of less worth and much shame. In other words it actually kept us (well at least me) down. There was no incentive to go out and better ones self, no incentive to grow as a person.

Luckily for me my sense of wanting there to be more for me than a monthly check, (that i in no way earned) motivated me to go to work. I worked from the age of 16-25, mostly manual labor jobs, until i had enough saved up to pay for my college. I didn't take out a single loan or get a single grant, i was done taking hand-outs. I got a degree in something i thought i would like, and something i hoped would serve me well in the job market. I became a Geologist, started working for an oil company and i haven't looked back since. I truly believe that there is nothing truly "special" about me. 98% of the people out there could do what i have done. But it takes dedication, the right attitude , and most of all, something sadly lacking in the lower classes, A GOOD WORK ETHIC.

I really do believe that not only does welfare not help people it actually causes much more harm than good. It robs them as much as the people that have to pay for it. Robs them of their self worth, robs them of ambition, and most sadly, robs them of their hopes and dreams.

That all said, i am a reasonable man and i am willing to compromise. We can have a limited form of Short Term welfare to help people in extreme circumstances. This would be in the form of vouchers for things like rent, utility bills, food and health insurance. No cash of any kind, no luxury. This welfare would not exceed a period of 6 months, period. No exemptions, no second chances and its a one time deal. Once you get it that's it. The person or persons receiving the benefits have to A. Pay it all back when they get back on there feet, or B. Have to do some kind of meaningful work while receiving benefits. Welfare will also include some kind of job training and limited job placement.

There is so much that is morally and ethically wrong about government sponsored welfare i could fill volumes about it, but that's not the topic of this thread so i will leave it at that.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicademus
Luckily for me my sense of wanting there to be more for me than a monthly check, (that i in no way earned) motivated me to go to work. I worked from the age of 16-25, mostly manual labor jobs, until i had enough saved up to pay for my college. I didn't take out a single loan or get a single grant, i was done taking hand-outs. I got a degree in something i thought i would like, and something i hoped would serve me well in the job market. I became a Geologist, started working for an oil company and i haven't looked back since. I truly believe that there is nothing truly "special" about me. 98% of the people out there could do what i have done. But it takes dedication, the right attitude , and most of all, something sadly lacking in the lower classes, A GOOD WORK ETHIC.


When i posted this thread about a lack of work ethic it was not posted against one class. You're kidding right? You think it's just the lower classes? You don't get it at all, speaking as someone who has employed people i can tell you it was the kids that came from middle class families who seemed most lazy. The person who ended up working for me and worked very hard was living on the streets two years before i employed him.


Originally posted by Nicademus
That all said, i am a reasonable man and i am willing to compromise. We can have a limited form of Short Term welfare to help people in extreme circumstances. This would be in the form of vouchers for things like rent, utility bills, food and health insurance. No cash of any kind, no luxury. This welfare would not exceed a period of 6 months, period. No exemptions, no second chances and its a one time deal. Once you get it that's it. The person or persons receiving the benefits have to A. Pay it all back when they get back on there feet, or B. Have to do some kind of meaningful work while receiving benefits. Welfare will also include some kind of job training and limited job placement.


This makes no sense. What about the long term disabled? What about people with severe cancer that can go on for years? What about people who have conditions like MS, CFS etc etc. Are you seriously suggesting they are only given 6 months of benefits?

If you're only talking about healthy people then i agree fully and it's something i posted in another thread a while back. People on benefits who are healthy enough to work should at least be made to do community work until they can find a job. That way they get experience and earn their benefits.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
To me, it seems like we have three options:
1) Cut them off and see what happens.
2) Continue to treat the symptoms by sending a check in the mail.
3) Look for the underlying cause and try to find a real solution.


There is a fourth option (well it sort of falls into three but it is really separate).

Offer them 10k as payment for getting sterilized (for women, less for men, who cares if its sexist). Any teenager with an illigimate child, any low income adult that doesn't mind giving up fertility for a nice check, any meth addict etc... In fact in the case of meth addicts and those that end up in jail i would offer money plus reduced prison terms. If they want to reverse the sterilization on their own dime they can do it.

THAT would make a major difference in a few years. The fact is many meth addicts turn out a slew of mentally damaged offspring. Women with low iq's (under 90) are MUCH more likely (some studies show 55%) to go on welfare after 1 child, and many just don't have the mental juice to effectively use birth control so they too will often have quite a few children that will ALSO be supported by welfare, and probably won't be any brighter than their mothers. That is the vicious cycle, and it will continue until we as a society decide to utilize common sense when it comes to popping out babies.

The sick, the mentally ill, those that really need help should be taken care of properly by society. They aren't because the resources are being used up by the ignorant, so those that truly need help are scraping the botton of the barrel for services. Those that are just too stupid to stop breeding when they can't/won't properly raise their own offspring should NOT be encourged to continue. As a society we can't let the offspring starve in the streets, but we COULD do a lot to stop irresponsible people from having more kids.



[edit on 4-11-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Well to me, a work ethic means that you work hard and you work long


Why does a good work ethic mean you have to work long? Of course business would like to have you believe that good workers are the ones who put in 60,70,80 hour weeks - especially if their on salary and don't have to pay overtime.

I'm so over it. I work my 37.5 hours per week and that's it. My 37.5 hours are productive and I do my job. I have people here in this office who do so many more hours all in that struggle to get ahead - in the mean time they neglect their children, their health and their happiness.

I work to live, not live to work.

And yes Europe is MUCH better for the worker but the unsaid push by government is to be more like America.

I have 25 days of paid vacation, work 37.5 hours per week and no one thinks I'm a slacker.

I'm not about to be a martyr for some corporation.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 



Women with low iq's (under 90) are MUCH more likely (some studies show 55%) to go on welfare after 1 child, and many just don't have the mental juice to effectively use birth control so they too will often have quite a few children that will ALSO be supported by welfare, and probably won't be any brighter than their mothers


Nice. So you propose we require an IQ test now before you're allowed to have children - Reckon we should make sure they come from good stock too? DNA checks probably should be mandatory as well - wouldn't want any undesireable traits now would we?

My own mother was a victim of this type of thinking. She was taken away from her mother in infancy becasue her family was deemed to be of inferior stock. This type of thinking is everything that is wrong and evil with this world - humans can come up with better more humane solutions.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
It is nowhere near dead! It is just that we evolved our machines enough to let them do the job for us. All we got out of it is lay offs. The work ethic is still there but not many people can prove themselves because our nano-technology has taken too much work. The plant I worked at had about 15-20 guys painting. One year they installed one robotic paint machine and it went well. Now, we have 1 guys working in there to take care of the machines they installed. 4 machines do the job for 15-20 guys.

I do understand what you are saying as well. However, we are in the temp agency era now. We are literally slaving for a $10.00/H job. Is it worth it? Heck no! That is why you get people half-a*sing jobs in big companies.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I was actually wondering why you bothered posting this, instead of working. I'm sure as you took the time to write that up, you could have been working. So who was picking up your slack during that time?



Im all about working smarter and not harder.

The reason people don't "work hard at work" is not an inherent flaw in people, or some quality that has been degraded over time. Rather, this is the side effect of a monetary-reward based system. When someone realizes they are working to survive, and that the only satisfaction from their job comes in the form of a paycheck, which is then turned over to someone else (bills, rent, etc.) - how long do you expect people to "work hard?"

Perhaps if there were better incentives than just money, you could stop blaming other people, as though it's everyone else's fault that they don't like to be exploited for small change and a thankless job.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
Nice. So you propose we require an IQ test now before you're allowed to have children - Reckon we should make sure they come from good stock too? DNA checks probably should be mandatory as well - wouldn't want any undesireable traits now would we?


Heavens no! I would never suggest such a thing, that would be wrong! I am simply suggesting that we offer a fair amount of money and let those individuals choose for THEMSELVES what is best for them at that time.

Or are you saying they aren't smart enough to make the right decision given the choice?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientistThe reason people don't "work hard at work" is not an inherent flaw in people, or some quality that has been degraded over time. Rather, this is the side effect of a monetary-reward based system. When someone realizes they are working to survive, and that the only satisfaction from their job comes in the form of a paycheck, which is then turned over to someone else (bills, rent, etc.) - how long do you expect people to "work hard?"


That has been the case throughout human history. People work to survive. Its not like "in the good old days it was about fun! people worked so they could have fun!" and now all that has changed. Or for some of us the good old days when we worked for "spending money" because we lived at home and didn't have to pay for rent or gas or food.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


I'm sorry but attacking the poster and not the message is dne when you can't be bothered to think up a more decent arguement. Your analysis of me is way off, but try again if you wish.

Working hard is what tends to drag people out of the mud. Working smart is also important but i think the two go hand in hand for anyone who is succesful. By succesful i don't mean wealth, i just meana decent life. Working hard could be anything not just a dull office job.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Sorry about the confusion, what i was thinking about when i wrote the part about the lower classes i didn't mean to single them out except to say that, at one time they were the epitome of the expression Work Ethic. I don't see that anymore. That is another thing welfare seems to have robbed them of. It used to be that's how the lower classes made it to middle class or above through there work ethic. I just don't see the strength that used to come with being in the lower classes, I.E. having to work hard for everything you got.

On the subject of the time limit, i mean healthy, otherwise able bodied persons. I would hope we would have a program in place for those that are infirm. A separate program, I don't consider helping people that can't help themselves, welfare. I consider it the right thing to do. In general i think we have lost a lot of work ethic across the board in all classes, i guess it is just most noticable in the lower classes.





new topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join