Socialism and the Welfare State - G. Richard Jansen

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Brief reply.

You are making an assertation that can not be proven by facts. This is some guy's theory and as a theory sounds great but it is a theory unsupported by facts.

A theory unsupported by fact (not the invisible hand of the free market - which I've yet to see or measure) is just a theory.

You are not willing to accept the 'opinions' (or other theories) as equally valid or even make the attempt to understand another point of view and one that actually coinsides with historical facts.

I'm glad you liked this piece you read and thank you for sharing it.

A very astute observation and one that do I agree with. I am mulling over how exactly to explain this fact, that is, the fact that economics is not empirically provable. As a broad scoping, all encompassing study of human action, economics is not experimentally provable or disprovable though it is logical.

We can make comparisons using the device of economic history, both recent and ancient but, I am hesitant to complicate this particular discussion. In this case, the evidence, the economic history of the unworkability of these specific policies is compelling.

I am making the case that the abdication of individual freedom for what I believe to be a spurious doctrine is a loss for everybody and will cost our society greatly.

Facts are not 'explained' but demonstrated.

Economics is quite empherical (argh - my spelling) if you look at data and not 'theory' and there is plenty of data out there and in supports the case that a 'welfare' state is a stable state and therefore a good place to do business.

Data also supports that progressive taxes rates provide for a stable state.

There's plenty of data out there but very little to support this fellows theory and your opinion. Doesn't make them wrong - just makes them flimsy.

You want the theory to be true. Okay - why do you want the theory to be true? Check your motivation for believing this theory without further evidence. There must be evidence that led to this theory - look at it. If there isn't, well....

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: greencmp

what revelation would that be mate?

The fact that it is very easy to get a high paying job with no real education in a country with free healthcare and high quality welfare? Or maybe it's the fact that there is no such thing as working class poverty down under?

All it really proves is that a country with a good welfare system causes a higher quality of life. So what if housing and luxury items are slightly more expensive if the people feel safer and happier and can afford it?

Seems like a small price to pay to me. I mean, can you even put a price on the happiness and security of an individual?

That the purchasing power of your currency has equalized to the detriment of your poorest citizens. Really, have you heard anything I have said here? (Yes, I know it is text and you can't 'hear' it, just heading off your only retort).

$70,000 factory worker?

A small price to pay indeed.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Facts are not 'explained' but demonstrated.

Economics is quite empherical (argh - my spelling) if you look at data and not 'theory' and there is plenty of data out there and in supports the case that a 'welfare' state is a stable state and therefore a good place to do business.

Data also supports that progressive taxes rates provide for a stable state.

There's plenty of data out there but very little to support this fellows theory and your opinion. Doesn't make them wrong - just makes them flimsy.

You want the theory to be true. Okay - why do you want the theory to be true? Check your motivation for believing this theory without further evidence. There must be evidence that led to this theory - look at it. If there isn't, well....

You are completely wrong.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: greencmp

what revelation would that be mate?

The fact that it is very easy to get a high paying job with no real education in a country with free healthcare and high quality welfare? Or maybe it's the fact that there is no such thing as working class poverty down under?

All it really proves is that a country with a good welfare system causes a higher quality of life. So what if housing and luxury items are slightly more expensive if the people feel safer and happier and can afford it?

Seems like a small price to pay to me. I mean, can you even put a price on the happiness and security of an individual?

$70,000 factory worker?

Yeah, that is night shift though. When you consider the the $15,000 to $20,000 in loading that a person is entitled to for night shift then it's actually just an average wage really. Don't know what working entitlements are over there, but I wouldn't think a person would be expected to work night shift at the same rate as day shift, that would be harsh.

That the purchasing power of your currency has equalized to the detriment of your poorest citizens. Really, have you heard anything I have said here? (Yes, I know it is text and you can't 'hear' it, just heading off your only retort).

Yeah I do understand what your saying and after a little research I will concede the US and Australian average wage is approximately the same at around $50,000 and that the median US wage is on average a little higher due to our slightly higher cost of living.

But your ignoring the bigger picture here. I mean what happens when a person in the US becomes sick and has no insurance, or has a condition that's not covered by there insurance company. They will then go bankrupt paying out ridiculous amounts of money for there medical bills, when a person in Australia can simply access there entitlement to free medical cover. Or what if they lose there job and then end up having there house and car reprocessed and end up on the street because there not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Also what about the poverty stricken population who are forced into crime because they have no possible way of supporting themselves. This then has flow on effect and creates slums & and high crime rates, costing the tax payer even more in the long run and causing people to feel unsafe and lowering the quality of life for the population as a whole.

It really makes no sense in the long run to make millions of people suffer in poverty, simply so a few well off people can have a slightly higher disposable income. It simply doesn't make sense economically.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It certainly isn't that I don't sympathize with poor people who can't afford medical care but, we used to have free care for the uninsured (to a point) and that has been irradicated with the passage of the ACA. Somehow, people were convinced that hospitals were suffering from financial ruin as a result which is total nonsense.

I personally do not believe in insurance but, it is a service that is offered by some companies and they should not be interfered with if they decide to engage in that sort of gambling.

Keep in mind that these specialized services were created specifically to be able to circumvent the terrible existing laws which capped pay and thus were inviting creative workarounds to skirt the intent of the law (which, of course, I think was a terrible law, did I say that?).

The idea that such an evasive and disingenuous manifestation of corruption could somehow be eventually considered a 'right' is beyond me. The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed since then and has always been significantly regulated. We all lose.

There is no difference between the cost and quality of education and the cost and quality of healthcare. The more it is subsidized and regulated, the higher the costs become and the more the quality deteriorates. These are facts unlike my assertions regarding the sociopolitical implications of national social service policies.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Yeah, that is night shift though. When you consider the the $15,000 to $20,000 in loading that a person is entitled to for night shift then it's actually just an average wage really. Don't know what working entitlements are over there, but I wouldn't think a person would be expected to work night shift at the same rate as day shift, that would be harsh.

If you're desperate enough to work night shift that means you need a job bad. If you're that desperate you have no bargaining power, which means you get even less than the day shift person. Why would any company ever pay you more for that? Night shift is where you put the screwups.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well over here nightshift results in at least a 30% higher wage. All fulltime workers are entitled to 2 weeks holiday and 10 days sick leave a year. Also, when I say our minimum wage is $18.70, that’s only fulltime workers (meaning there guaranteed there 38 hours a week and can’t be fired without 3 written warnings and a very legitimate reason), the casual workers minimum wage is actually $21.

But, I guess that’s the difference between working in a country where the working class is a respected and highly regraded part of the community, to a country where the well off use the lower class as pawns by the wealthy to have a few messily extra grand a year of median income.

Then the US government deliberately has a minimum wage that could better be described as ‘slave labour’ just to manipulate the currency to make sure it remains high, which only has any kind of benefit for the rich, btw. But also results in entire cities that are slums and plagued with crime, filled with hard working people that are working class poverty.

People may think I just want to bag out a foreign country here, but that has nothing to do with it. I just have a very strong opinion of social justice and I absolutely despise it when the rich can just get away with taking such blatant advantage over the lower class. Doesn't matter to me what part of the world it’s happening in.

As a recipient of social services in the past 3 years following a sudden disability, I feel compelled to answer this:

1. I was severely (criminally) wronged by my employer and left disabled. Every system of complaint in place failed me miserably. Internal affairs, union, city manager's office, workforce commission, judicial system (a lawyer took about $3k and then disappeared without doing anything), FBI. It was TANF ($230/month cash), food stamps and medicaid that allowed me to make it for the 2 years it took to finally be awarded disability. I lost everything- my daughter and I ended up in a homeless shelter, bills were charged off, my vehicle was repossessed, my credit completely ruined....but at least we were able to buy food with the food stamps.

2. I have a BA and 16 years of work experience. I don't want to be on assistance. I want to work. I can't anymore.

3. But as someone who has seen the system from the inside, it could definitely be improved. They go by income charts, so it's more advantageous for someone to work less, or even quit their job to get help. And you get more help if you have a bigger family size, so it's advantageous for someone to have more babies to get more benefits.

4. They do require people to report to the workforce commission for job placement/training. I was excused from this requirement because of my disability. The whole system could be improved by rewarding work and education...and encouraging the able bodied to get out there and get on their own two feet.

5. A major problem is the working poor. People who are working full time and still unable to feed their family.

6. As I said before, I was finally awarded disability. This is my sole income. My grandmother is 95, SS is her sole income. As a society, there has to be something in place to help people like us. To leave the disabled and elderly in the dust would just be uncivilized.

7. On that note: F*@^% corporate bail outs! Those a$$ holes ran their corporations into the ground, got billions in bail out from our tax dollars and then gave themselves an effin raise?????

8. If we'd stop sending billions in foreign aide we'd surely have enough $$$ to send everyone on welfare to quality job training.

Just saw PPs adding health insurance to the mix. Argh! I spent 4 hours on the phone yesterday trying to get my children insured..ended up having an anxiety attack, ruined my day and I had to take extra anxiety meds. And they still aren't insured.

I'm covered by Medicare. But not my children. My income is JUST enough for them to not qualify for Medicaid. To pay out of pocket would be $300 a month!!!!!!!! for insurance. But I'm entitled to a tax credit, but how do I get a tax credit when my income isn't taxable??? The healthcare exchange told me I had to call SS and the IRS myself to figure all this out. After literally an hour on hold with SS the other end finally picked up....and there was no answer. At that point I gave up, in tears, with severe chest pains...full on panic attack.

On top of that I'm paying $250 per month in payment agreements for medical bills incurred in May. My daughter (uninsured at the time) ended up in the ER with a reparatory illness= $10,000 in bills! 3 breathing treatments and then discharge, she wasn't even hospitalized.

And I'm in Texas. They're leading the moral charge to shut down abortion clinics, therefore forcing women to have unwanted children. But then they don't help provide health care for those children. (* Both of my children were very much planned/wanted, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the system)

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Aazadan

Well over here nightshift results in at least a 30% higher wage. All fulltime workers are entitled to 2 weeks holiday and 10 days sick leave a year. Also, when I say our minimum wage is $18.70, that’s only fulltime workers (meaning there guaranteed there 38 hours a week and can’t be fired without 3 written warnings and a very legitimate reason), the casual workers minimum wage is actually $21.

But, I guess that’s the difference between working in a country where the working class is a respected and highly regraded part of the community, to a country where the well off use the lower class as pawns by the wealthy to have a few messily extra grand a year of median income.

Then the US government deliberately has a minimum wage that could better be described as ‘slave labour’ just to manipulate the currency to make sure it remains high, which only has any kind of benefit for the rich, btw. But also results in entire cities that are slums and plagued with crime, filled with hard working people that are working class poverty.

People may think I just want to bag out a foreign country here, but that has nothing to do with it. I just have a very strong opinion of social justice and I absolutely despise it when the rich can just get away with taking such blatant advantage over the lower class. Doesn't matter to me what part of the world it’s happening in.

I understand that point of view, I even happen to agree with it but for better or worse that's not how the US approaches labor. Remember, this is a country where a food service worker doesn't make enough money to buy themselves enough to eat without government help and where in most states your employer can fire you for any reason they want, or no reason at all. We have no guaranteed vacation time and it is looked at as a good thing that people work 10 hours per day 7 days a week, lower end jobs won't even give you an allowance for being sick. If you come into work sick you'll get fired for harming the business and if you stay home to not infect others you'll get fired for being lazy. It's your personal responsibility to avoid all those pesky germs which is why flu shots are so prevalent here. If you get a cold or flu you stand a very real chance of ending up unemployed, and unless you have kids you have no social safety net to help out.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: learnatic

That is confirmed, you have missed the point.

Though, perhaps that isn't exactly correct since you didn't read it. It is difficult to misunderstand what you refuse to inspect much less comprehend.

i think you mean its difficult to understand what one refuses to inspect (good observation actually) but not to worry.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think there is a silent majority that disagrees with that view.
However it is a silent majority, one that is comparatively economically-left-of-center. and perhaps socially more conservative.

so basically a likely means to successfully implement decent reforms would be to have a "Christian-'Social-Democratic' Party", one that blends some of the populism we see/saw on the right-wing, with the block of fundamentalist-christian voters, with some of the "radical"(significant/substantial) economic policy changes that are left-of-center.

a reply to: greencmp

I think the trick is to figure out a balance. At what point is there "too much" redistribution. And for context, is it really redistribution if the rules are already rigged in a manner where a certain class of people get the bulk of the rewards of increased productivity? I really believe these little spiels are based on a lot of subjective premises.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

The Constitution Party fits that description. While I like the name and sympathize with most of their platform, it is the fact that they are 'socially' motivated which disqualifies them for me. Good Christians are great folks and I love to be around them but, it is not the place of policy makers to make decisions regarding anything but those specific responsibilities itemized in the constitution.

"That government is best which governs least." -Thomas Jefferson

If we are to recover from our socialist excursion, I see no solution but the libertarians (whatever party they belong to).

a reply to: learnatic

How could we not have heard about it? People like you are here to remind us every time we point out that maybe it's a bad idea to make people comfortable in their welfare state because it discourages their independence from the same making them lifelong dependents.

Of course, we know about it. This is when we talk about how cronyism is bad, but then, the larger government necessary to administer the welfare state has the nasty side effect of morphing into a cronyist state over time too. It needs more power and more money to fuel its endless bureaucratic tyrannical benevolence.

Sooner or late we'll ALL be in the cage whether we want to be or not. Obamacare and public education are only the beginning.

a reply to: greencmp

eh, I'm not one to take the founders all that seriously, it's been two centuries and we've done a pretty good job ignoring them for the majority of that time. Bulldozing various ideas, institutions, and etc. they supported. Expanding our country through imperialist wars of aggression, and conquest, getting involved in foreign entanglements and clusterf*cks. Hell the Monroe Doctrine was little more than a stealthy way of declaring we ruled a great deal of the western hemisphere. (which our country did in it's own way, not officially of course, but through frequent and violent military interventions that overthrew democratic governments and installed bloodthirsty dictators)

but then again I don't particularly like fundamentalists christians, they're too.. ideological for my tastes.
but they provide a means to an end, and that is a suitably humane and modern civilization. it's playing with fire, and if one isn't precise and careful about it, one can have that fire get out of control. So you have a Social-Libertarian Left wing fighting against it(feminists and wall-street types, sorta like the contemporary democratic party but dropping any pretentions of a new-dealist, FDR-esque series of reforms). In any case it would be a better choice than that which we have now, which is Pro-business(Democrats);Pro-business (Republicans)..

Don't ever elect anyone who tells you "government doesn't work" because they'll just end up proving it..

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

My basic premise is that occupiers of political office are no less likely to be corrupt and thus misuse their power than any business owner. The difference is that business owners go out of business when they abuse their market position and fail to consider the wants and needs of consumers, politicians get promoted. Perhaps more importantly, government exists at a scale that so dwarfs any individual company that any attempt to conflate their influence isn't reasonable. Indeed, the only companies which reach such scales are heavily intertwined with policy makers who use the power of the state to create and defend those monopolies.

Sans interventionist policy from the state, the equilibrium created by unfettered competition is real and can be depended upon to inform sensible investment. I suppose I should point out that when I say investment I mean private sector as I do not believe there can be such a thing as public sector investment; how could everybody (taxpayers represented by an individual or a group) at one casino table possibly make better gambles than everybody at every other table? Is not the cost of a single failure unthinkable?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton