Remove All Social Safety Nets

So many of you are misinterpreting his post...he's not even advocating for the philosophy of no safety nets, but is just saying that if we DID remove them, it would become very obvious how flawed our social structure is at a fundamental level, because there would be tons of people literally unable to get by, that would die...

Which is interesting to think about...not exactly realistic, but it WOULD make the point you are getting at...things would get real crazy real fast.

a reply to: James1982

I agree with this, for reasons that may not be totally the same as yours.

I am poor, as someone else said, and this would have a negative effect on me as well. That said, there is a positive side to it. People who otherwise pay no attention to whats going on in our country would be forced to. Their eyes would be held open, whether they liked it or not, rich and poor alike. The disregard for everything besides facebook and sons of anarchy would be over when your stomachs growling and homes are burning.

That's where we both agree.

Maybe you agree with me on the other points i thought of too, but everyones watching and we can't say these things. It would be marvelous though, wouldn't it?

safety nets should only be giving for a short time. it was designed as a band ad to help but now it is a life style for some. raising minimum wage will not help the poor. if i make 16 dollars an hour now and can afford to live ok and you raise minimum wage to 15 an hour now every one like my self is now much poorer. because the cost of every thing will go up to compensate for the wage increase. now i grew up on welfare, living in welfare motels and it sucked. because people like my mom were able to go through life on tax payer's dollar. then when they did welfare reform in the 90s people like my mom had to finally do some thing with their self. she got a job and with in a few years went from living in welfare motels (the scariest place you can stay) to owning her own home and having 2 nice cars. safety nets are fine as long as it is temperately.

The government Wont people totally dependent on them...
that way they can control them more.
they Hate independent free thinkers.

you live off the grid they take your home!

originally posted by: cancerslug
safety nets should only be giving for a short time. it was designed as a band ad to help but now it is a life style for some. raising minimum wage will not help the poor. if i make 16 dollars an hour now and can afford to live ok and you raise minimum wage to 15 an hour now every one like my self is now much poorer. because the cost of every thing will go up to compensate for the wage increase. now i grew up on welfare, living in welfare motels and it sucked. because people like my mom were able to go through life on tax payer's dollar. then when they did welfare reform in the 90s people like my mom had to finally do some thing with their self. she got a job and with in a few years went from living in welfare motels (the scariest place you can stay) to owning her own home and having 2 nice cars. safety nets are fine as long as it is temperately.

If your argument is accurate then you can never shrink the number of poor. If everyone was suddenly educated and working well paying jobs, it would only increase the cost of goods for everyone according to your argument, which would then make everyone equally poor. Therefore you need a bunch of poor people in order for anyone to do better, essentially a few get to live comfortable lives on the backs of the many.

The problem is this isn't at all how history has played out. Having a high minimum wage has lead to less wealth inequality, which in turn grows the middle class while shrinking both the rich and the poor.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Social safety nets are in place to protect the rich.

I've read the same in a number of places, that they exist now now a social tool, a perversion of what started out as a humanitarian endeavour. It's an interesting consideration and man is exceptional at fashioning the world to it's advantage. (Remove the wheels off a hospital trolley and, statistically at least, it becomes a 'bed'.)

I realise he may not be flavour of the month and easy to dismiss but here's Slavoj Zizek talking on what I think lay at the core of what the OP offers. Watch the whole thing but it starts to reference what I believe is addressed/suggested in the OP here at about 6 minutes in:
RSA Animate - First as Tragedy, Then as Farce

The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible and the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves and so prevented the core of the system being realised by those who suffered from it and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralises. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.

Now we hear from another Stockholm syndrome sufferer, who thinks that only the rich, powerful elite can suck the very lifeblood out of the common folk. The system is a scam, a crime being committed against we the ordinary people all around the world, the movie the Matrix had it right in so many ways. I deny spiritual immaturity and thereby the entire uncompassionate premise of your thread dear OP. We should divorce ourselves from this sick system with non-cooperation and let it wither and die. Then we shall band together as neighbors and help each other, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or national origin.... then maybe one day we can throw all the aforementioned barriers of separation onto the trash heap of history. Namaste.

There's an easier way. First scrap the many different aide programs that go through the many different gov't agencies and make it just one monthly cash allotment. That cash allotment should not be more than the minimum wage (which can be raised) and the income qualifications for the average family size should be in the same range- they should all be as close to being equal as can be. No more should a person who is working be worse off than those who aren't..

and then let the economy sort the rest out! either that or force some restraints on those items that are needed-
housing
medical care
food
higher education
ect.

This might have to be a gradual change but well we got into this mess because of the gov't's involvement and stupidity. It's gonna take their involvement to get out and as much as the top percenters think that they are immune to the ramnifications of our economy failing they aren't! At least the ops idea might drive that fact home to them effectively enough for the realization that they actually can't do without those working for them and that makes them just as valuable as anything else in this world!

But well I will still be working on my home away from home because there is a cold chance in hades that the gov't is going to do anything that puts big business at a disadvantage and that right there will tear our economy apart!

a reply to: Aazadan

maybe you can find facts to prove me wrong about how many people made it out of poverty the last time minimum wage was raised. not trying to argue with you on the subject, i'm just going off what i think. i don't see companies paying a much higher wage to employees with out with out raising the cost of goods to compensate for the wage increase. in that case how would you be making more money to get out of poverty if every thing cost more? it would seem to me that you would be in the same position. i am against long term use of safety nets. staying on it only hurts you in the long run. every one i know that went on unemployment stayed on it for 2 years because they could. now those same people can't find a job cause the company looks at their resumé and sees that they went so long with out a job that they are not motivated for work. i got laid off and the next day i hit up every business for a job. and with in a few days i found a good job that i still have. the sad fact that so many people will not recognize is that a lot of poor people are content with being poor and will only do some thing with them self when they are forced to. i seen it to many times with friends and family.

Some would die, but not most. Those who are loved or have fellow parishioners will be just fine; especially since they will have more to give assuming the working people were allowed to keep their money.

Those who truly deserve it will receive the charity they need. Public safety nets are for those who either abuse charity or take it for granted as a right. When charity is taken for granted, it is no longer charity and the gravy chain should in fact be ceased.

a reply to: James1982

Safety nets would be better handled if they required the recipients to actually do some work. They should get together a think tank and summon some ideas to give the nation's disabled and handicapped jobs. If we're going to be handing money over to them anyway, why not ask for some services in return, even if the work they do isn't competitive with average workers? If I can get some return from them, why wouldn't I try? Some is better than none.

Average working people have more money and capacities available and so get around more, but these people don't travel as much. I think moving them around to different places would be a good thing. Our imagination needs data and you can't get the data you need staying in the same place for 30 years.

One of hte reasons people can become handicapped or overwhelmed is because low wage jobs can be very demanding work. 11+ hour days, sometimes 7 days a week, are not unheard of. When you have a person that's already vulnerable and you confront them with these kind of hours and a tough work environment, it's no wonder they crumble under the weight. And when businesses continue to hire low skill 3rd world labor to out-compete domestic businesses, we essentially lower our standards to that of the 3rd world because the only way to compete as a low skill worker is to have the same expectations as the 3rd world worker. So what we'll get is longer hours, less healthcare and other baggage. People in the third world have those expectations because of necessity. They don't EXPECT first world living standards. Some are more sexist too. For example, while the first world is trying to get more woman into politics and leading positions in business, elsewhere in the developing nations men still dominate those positions.

And software-controlled machines increasingly are replacing low skill workers. What will those workers do? They will have to be educated. College will have to be mandatory, not optional. All of these developing nations will have to become developed. And this brings with a central concern. How will we preserve our environment while all these developing nations are becoming developed? It's a hurdle for scientists and ultimately for everybody.

a reply to: EnigmaAgent

What are you talking about? Lending a helping hand has nothing to do with government. Family does, friends do, being the helping hand yourself does.

I guess I must just have a superior life to you because in my family, my neighborhood, we all help each other out. Maybe you should work on fixing your personal social problems.

My grandparents worked in coal mines and on plantations, they sacrificed and progressed. Don't give me this "holier than thou" crap. Work for it.

a reply to: TheJourney

things would get crazy, and society will be balanced.

Practically, a good purging wouldn't be a bad thing for the human race as a whole from time to time.

I know, i'm cold-hearted. But guess what, we wouldn't be in half the financial trouble we're in now, taking care of people who have no interest in bettering their lives.

a reply to: James1982

I don't think it was done purposely in the beginning, but now I think they keep the system broken on purpose.

originally posted by: TheJourney
So many of you are misinterpreting his post...he's not even advocating for the philosophy of no safety nets, but is just saying that if we DID remove them, it would become very obvious how flawed our social structure is at a fundamental level, because there would be tons of people literally unable to get by, that would die...

Which is interesting to think about...not exactly realistic, but it WOULD make the point you are getting at...things would get real crazy real fast.

Yes, we are at the point of no return.

originally posted by: cancerslug
a reply to: Aazadan

maybe you can find facts to prove me wrong about how many people made it out of poverty the last time minimum wage was raised. not trying to argue with you on the subject, i'm just going off what i think. i don't see companies paying a much higher wage to employees with out with out raising the cost of goods to compensate for the wage increase. in that case how would you be making more money to get out of poverty if every thing cost more? it would seem to me that you would be in the same position.

There's a long complex economics answer to this question but the short answer is that 100% of the cost of a product isn't made up from the cost of labor. Putting aside issues of what employers could afford for the moment (this is a separate but very relevant issue), you could raise the minimum wage by 100% while only needing to increase the cost of goods say 10% (if you want to use Australia as a real world comparison to the US). You could increase the wage 200% and only need to increase the cost of goods say 25%. This is because wages don't make up 100% of the cost of a product there is also material cost and profit in the price, but it's also because when people have more money, especially those on the bottom they have more money to spend which in turn goes back into the economy.

Remember the Bush stimulus checks? The entire theory was that they would goto people and be spent in the economy which would create jobs and revenue. Eventually the money would be distributed through the economy and we would be better off. It's the same theory except we aren't deficit spending to create that money, instead we work for it.

i am against long term use of safety nets. staying on it only hurts you in the long run. every one i know that went on unemployment stayed on it for 2 years because they could. now those same people can't find a job cause the company looks at their resumé and sees that they went so long with out a job that they are not motivated for work. i got laid off and the next day i hit up every business for a job. and with in a few days i found a good job that i still have. the sad fact that so many people will not recognize is that a lot of poor people are content with being poor and will only do some thing with them self when they are forced to. i seen it to many times with friends and family.

I don't want to go into the argument here but not everyone can find a job that easily. I've been sending out resumes for a year and have only gotten 1 phone interview in that entire time and I know a lot of people, myself included who have college degrees and are working minimum wage. There just aren't jobs for us, and this is coming from someone who has one of the most desirable skillsets in the country going by all of the hot jobs lists.

a reply to: Aazadan
i won't disagree you on the fact that it is hard to find a good job. i took a big step back in pay after i got laid off. used up all my savings moving to a cheaper place, sold my truck and got a cheap old motorcycle to get to and from work. it sucks for me but could be a lot worst.

a reply to: James1982

If that were to be our situation, much of our economy would grind to a standstill. People wouldn't spend money in good earnings years, knowing it could mean the death of their children if they were to be laid off down the road.

The other aspect, as others have mentioned, crime would go through the roof. People don't just starve or freeze to death, or let their children, etc. No, they rob, kill, cheat, whatever they have to, in order to survive.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
OP, your post makes me wonder....
If this did happen, would more people stand up and do what is right? Take people into their homes?

Probably not enough to help everyone, or even half, but I bet many would.

That depends on how many people would be in a position to take someone into their home. Health care, for example, is something that I bet a lot of people get help with, even middle-class Americans. To take someone into their home, a family would have to have the extra space and be in a good financial position independent of any safety nets.

I'm not sure what all of the safety nets are out there, but I know at the very least I get help paying for medications that would otherwise cost more than I make every month.

I loosely agree with the OP. We have become a society that loves to put bandaids on symptoms without ever solving the problem itself. Just like our medical system...we give people a pill to cure the sniffles but leave the virus behind.

For example...lets say I have cancer and demand that everyone be taxed to whatever extent is required to hire the greatest minds, create the greatest labs and cure my cancer. It sounds noble...doesn't it? If the cost of that effort to everyone were a huge percentage of their income and forced them into poverty...is it still a good idea? I feel we are doing this exact same thing when our government tries to redistribute wealth or otherwise "help" what can't be cured. Eventually, we will be able to do neither help nor cure.