| |
|  |  |
 |
| Discussion: Jack How do you measure lack of ambition? Actually, don't answer that if it boils down to 'the fewer cars, the less ambition'. You put a 'w' on the end of 'periods' but other than that, a definite improvement. Have a gold star. >>By Flagg >Do you see any correlation between the extended periodsw of time that one may languish living off society and the abysmal lack of ambition in your society? Nope. And again you are spouting absolute crap. Percentage of workforce unemployed in 2006 USA 5.1 UK 4.7 The "nasty left-leaning subversive" source of my figures THE CIA WORLD FACTBOOK!!!!! :P >>By planet ear Tell me. Ear, that you know better. Are people on the dole counted as unemployed? Ear, you have a serrious problem with facrs. Again, what percentage of your people are unproductive? And how long do you tolerate people frfusing work/or refusing to look for work? We have a six moth limit on unemployment insurance....what is yours? >>By lv2read Ask the CIA >>By planet ear How come your "most boyant economy in the worls bar none" actually manages to employ less of it's available workforce than "demotivated" UK? Clearly you not I have the problem with facts. >>By planet ear L2R, you have the gall to flatly deny that what Ear said is based on fact, but do you have the guts to check the same source he checked and see for yourself? >>By Flagg I can hazard a guess what the answer to that is Flagg. But as we know lv2bs thinks that Unicef, the International Monetary Fund and now the CIA all all incapable of making valid judgements/presenting defensible figures but HE isn't! After he must be right he's been to Liverpool FFS! :)))) >>By planet ear Sadly, I think you're right, but we'll see. Or we might not. Yeah, we probably won't. >>By Flagg I'm getting dizzy. >>By Tchock Ear....if your unemployment rate is anywhere you purport that it is, how can the people on the dole tally between 10 and 50% of the people Hello? Aren't those on welfare out of work? You are smarter than this, no? >>By lv2read Some benefits are available to those in work. Try getting some facts straight just once maybe. >>By planet ear Some "benefits" to those in various education also. But overall such a non-specific "accusaton" suggests you're plucking numbers out of the air as you usually do. Where did you get your figure for the per capita income of South OC? >>By planet ear And btw using "black" when you mean "poor" is racist. Unless you consider say Condellesa Rice poor? >>By planet ear Ear....you have far too many people on the dole, How long are these people carried in a state of unproductivity? Again, you have a major problem there. Don't be so self conscious. How do you motivate people to work that have the security of lifelong care?? >>By lv2read So I take it you didn't take the time to check the source Ear quoted. Let me ask you something, just hypothetically, with no values attached (not at my end). If you can *give* people the security of lifelong care, why should they work? Why *would* they work? If lifelong care is enough for them? >>By Flagg >Ear....you have far too many people on the dole. Your figures and their source please. >>By planet ear If you can *give* people the security of lifelong care, why should they work? Why *would* they work? If lifelong care is enough for them? >>By Flagg (Friday, 25 May 2007 13:57)>>>> Exactly my point!! But the real question is....who is paying for that and have the taxed given their consent for providing such a stipend? A major issue in your society...part of your current national debate. Unknown, of course, to Ear!!! How long will Brits continue to endorse unproductivity?? >>By lv2read Insofar as the tax payers have allowed the concept of the dole to exist and be implemented, yes, they have given their consent. So Brits endorse unproductivity because of this... presumably then, any country with any kind of welfare/benefits system also endorses unproductivity. Like, say, uh, I dunno, um, the United States? >>By Flagg Flagg Our welfare/benefits system is considerably more harsh than yours.....geared completely towards a resumption of productivity. Our system doesn't provide a nice comfortable living, however. >>By lv2read ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ >>By planet ear Actually, now I'm curious: where *did* your ideas about the British welfare system come from? Have you seen it first hand? >>By Flagg Arguments in favor humanitarian - the right to the basic necessities of life is a fundamental human right, and people should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily through lack of provision. democratic - the gradual extension of social protection is increasingly favoured by the citizens of mature economies, who have approved these as part of political election campaign promises. ethical - reciprocity (or fair exchange) is nearly universal as a moral principle, and most welfare systems are based around patterns of generalised exchange. altruism - helping others is a moral obligation in most cultures; charity and support for people who cannot help themselves are also widely thought to be moral choices. utilitarian - the same amount of money will produce greater happiness in the hands of a less well-off person than if given to a well-off person; thus, redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor will increase the total happiness in society. religious - major world religions emphasize the importance of social organization rather than personal development alone. Religious obligations include the duty of charity and the obligation for solidarity. mutual self-interest - several national systems have developed voluntarily through the growth of mutual insurance. economic - social programs perform a range of economic functions, including e.g. the regulation of demand and structuring the labour market. social - social programs are used to promote objectives regarding education, family and work. market failure – in certain cases, the private sector fails to meet social objectives or to deliver efficient production, due to such things as monopolies, oligopolies, or asymmetric information. economies of scale - some services can be more efficiently paid for when bought "in bulk" by the government for the public, rather than purchased by individual consumers. The highway system, water distribution, the fire department, universal health, and national defense might be some examples. anti-criminal - people with low incomes do not need to resort to crime to stay alive, thus reducing the crime rate. Empirical evidence indicates that welfare programs reduce property crime.[1] Arguments against moral (compulsion) – libertarians believe that the "nanny state" infringes upon individual freedom, forcing the individual to subsidize the consumption of others. They argue that social spending reduces the right of individuals to transfer some of their wealth to others, and is tantamount to a seizure of private property. religious/paternalism – Some Protestant Christians also believe that only voluntary giving (through private charities) is virtuous. They hold personal responsibility to be a virtue, and they believe that a welfare state diminishes the capacity of individuals to develop this virtue. anti-regulatory - the welfare state is accused of imposing greater burdens on private businesses, of potentially slowing growth and creating unemployment. efficiency - advocates of the free market believe that it leads to more efficient and effective production and service delivery than state-run welfare programs. They argue that high social spending is costly and must be funded out of higher levels of taxation. According to Friedrich Hayek, the market mechanism is much more efficient and able to respond to specific circumstances of a large number of individuals than the State. motivation and incentives - the welfare state may have undesirable effects on behavior, fostering dependency, destroying incentives and sapping motivation to work. charitable - by the state assuming a larger burden for the financial care of people, individuals may feel it is no longer necessary for them to donate to charities or give to philanthropies. managerial statecraft - this paleoconservative view posits the welfate state is part of an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power. illogical - As more people go onto welfare, the people that have jobs will have to pay higher taxes, thus reducing the amount of money they earn from work. If the amount of money people get through welfare is near the amount of money that people earn through legitimate work, they will quit work to go onto welfare. Obviously, this will increase the number of people on welfare, and this will require more money through taxes. This cycle will logically continue until 100% of the population is on welfare and 0% of the population is working. coercion - As government taxation is involuntary (if you don't pay, you will be imprisoned), it is unethical to force people to pay for something they would not pay for on the free market, as this would allow the government to force people to pay for things that they find repulsive, like war, the death penalty, the war on drugs, prohibition, slavery, Japanese internment camps, etc. If people want to pay for welfare, they can choose to do so, but they have no right to take money that they have not earned and spend it on their own interests. crime - Welfare programs cause crime, increasing the total crime rate as welfare recipients have more free time, and would be punished if they got a legitimate job, as they would no longer receive welfare. Empirical evidence, however, indicates that greater welfare payments reduce property crime. Thought I'd save us all some time............... But before everything gets all squirrelly again, how about we reflect that maybe our welfare system is too impitent due to the fact that our civil service runs it, the American system is too harsh because it is probably run by people nostalgic for the days when Laissez-faire was a tad more acceptable.......... ?? My opinion is that yes, we do tend to hand out the cash rather than help people back into work. I guess that's more significant of how we tend to execute things lately. Throw a bit of money at it, and it should work fine so long as we all agree not to mention it ever again. Unfortunately, there are some fools out there who actually think this tactic works. That is not to say benefits aren't good. They are great when you need it, but for instance, there is no point in soothing an illness rather than finding the cure. People go on the dole for a number of reasons, but due to a few indiscretions, some appear to be living quite comfortably on it. This leads them to rethink entering the world of work. Lazy sods, are what they are collectively known as. No one helps them get back into work - and that's not what the welfare state is about. It's a safety net - to use the cliché. It is there when we fall, but we should be encouraged to climb back up. But this has nothing to do with ambition or productivity. You get lazy sods in every society, culture or civilisation. However, they reflect the minority.... most people would actually quite like to earn their own living by working. So, thus, you're just rambling on about something you don't really know about. Just as an aside, I picked up this fact along the way........37 million people in America are categorized as poor as of 2004. That's over half our population, and no matter if you've got 300m population, it still doesn't deter from the fact that you have 37 million people under the poverty line. Is the American Dream alive in their hearts - or were they just not ambitious enough ??? >>By Tchock The poverty line....I beg your pardon. What we call the poverty line would more than satisfy many Liverpoolians!!!! I'll let you figure this out yourself...The minimum wage is now $7.00 per hour. Ostensibly making that amount would raise you out of poverty. Liberals argue that the min wage should be $10-$15 per hour.....they may be right but that amount would put 90% of the teens out of work. Why don't you dig deeper to find out about our poverty levels and tempt the Liverpoolians to trade with their American counterparts. >>By lv2read UK Minimum wage for workers aged 22 and over is £5.35 which at todays rate of exchange equates to $10.62, we have a couple of lower bands for those under 22. So yep paying US minimum wages here would be deemed illegal exploitation...... >>By planet ear >Liverpoolians Liverpudlians. >>By Flagg Flagg ??????? LiverWHAT...you're sounding like Ear and Tchock.... Liverpool....Liverpoolians. >>By lv2read Oh for feck's sake.......it's Liverpudlians I think we'd know, lv2read. Were you going to say anything else ???? >>By Tchock Ear... Does it need to be proven to you that the UK has too many people on the dole?? Now you reside there and that is a controversial statement to you......you think?? Figures to back it up?? Open your eyes man!! You are walking in a room and tossing common sense out the window. All that discordant music has gotten to your senses. Now the kids won't call you on this, but ANY adult would. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ >>By lv2read Ahhh, so you weren't going to. My mistake. >>By Tchock Tchock....off topic, but no. I'll flork you. >>By lv2read |