Understanding Welfare

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

The Gnome King:

Super Not Cosmo:

I'm just going to quote a study on nurse salaries and education and what not done by Drexel University here. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about either though. . .

Your own quote shows 3 and 4 year school, not a 2 year associates. Not every student will succeed at becoming a nurse, either, no matter how hard they try. They'll end up with one of these jobs with a 2 year associates degree:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5378611_lowest-paying-jobs-medical-field.html

I understand you're upset that you didn't finish school, think it was a waste or otherwise not everyone needs it. I'll agree with you that a college education isn't for everyone. (I know very, very successful people without one.)

For most of us, however, a bachelor's degree means about at least a million dollars more income over the course of a lifetime, a pretty good investment.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/08/05/how-higher-education-affects-lifetime-salary

The "3 year" ADN they mention is a 2 year associates degree plus nursing certification. I know many people who have gotten to RN in under 30 months.

Super Not Cosmo:

The "3 year" ADN they mention is a 2 year associates degree plus nursing certification.

Right. Like I said, go out there and talk to some young nurses. Ask ones right out of a 2 year degree plus a year of certification what they're making & what they are paying back in loans. I love how you're harping on this point while:

1) Ignoring everything else and
2) Assuming that everyone has the ability to go to this particular university, enroll in this particular program, and earn that amount of cash.

You really won't admit that it's more likely that a person with a 2 year associates degree in any healthcare field will end up as one of the lower-paid jobs, but... trust me. There are a lot more people making minimum wage or barely above it in the healthcare field than you realize, often with 2 year degrees, associates degrees and degrees from technical schools.

I'll assume you agree with me on everything else and that you count your blessings nightly for how lucky you are for the reasons I outlined in my post above. Now, get out there and volunteer to help the less fortunate! You've been so lucky in life, now give back!

:)

Super Not Cosmo:
I didn't overlook the children but I fail to see how they change anything beyond the obvious. My only point is that the government shouldn't be in the business of putting people up for six years to better themselves when the same thing can be accomplished with 2 year degrees or training in a trade skill in a third of that time, or even a half if you want to extend it.

If you are worried about children staying in poverty then you should be all for restricting welfare benefits and adding greater incentive for single mothers to NOT sit and collect welfare but instead get out there and better themselves somehow. Because, speaking on the welfare state as a whole here, if you give people the option to live off the state ad nauseum they tend to do just that. It's no different than friends I've seen who refused to get their shit together until they were unceremoniously kicked out of their parents' home. There are no small number of people who are happy to live in relative comfort off of others for as long as it is allowed.

If we were to start telling these people after X amount of time you will lose Y benefits and the reduction of benefits will continue a little bit at a time then many would have no choice but to go out there and get to working. They would have to. If we make it less and less comfortable to live off of the state as time goes on it will become less and less desirable and at some point it will be more desirable to support yourself than it is to let the state support you.

As for punishing kids, I think your anger is misplaced. You seem to want to keep blaming government or tax payers for refusing them something they aren't entitled to. If you want to be mad at someone for why all these kids are in poverty be mad at the parents. It's not the government's fault these kids don't have books or whatever. It's the fault of the parents who don't do anything to provide them with books. It's not the government's fault these kids end up where they do. 99 times out of 100 it is the fault of the parents either one or both who's poor choices have landed them where they are.

Absolute nonsense. If you have insanely important responsibilities they come first. Courses do actually adjust to reflect that, you can't do something in the same amount of time as someone with little to no responsibilities, and places of study know this.

Plus you say my anger is misplaced because you think that society should punish kids for being born, because one parent decided not to support them, and that the other parent who devotes years to giving them a better life shouldn't be allowed to do that. There's litterally no reason in saying "Well tough, be mad at him" when you're supposed to be saying "How can we solve this situation?". People like you always fall to hindsight with no answers because you don't want to directly admit you'd rather society have innocent children dying on the streets than actually take responsibility for their people. Read your post, what is happening to the dad that ran off from his kids? Nothing. What is happening to the mum that wants to give them a better life? Not allowed to because lol education is for people without kids. What happens to the kids? Well tough hope you enjoy poverty and death, that'll teach you for being born lol.

Honestly not sure if you actually believe what you're saying. No one in their right mind can have morals where the death of small children and babies is a-ok if it means you pay less tax. It's just absurd.

The Gnome King:

Bentusi16:
But I live in a state where I have seen the middle class completely and utterly decimated by quote unquote social liberals who are holding entire swathes of population at gunpoint.

Really? What state is it where social liberals are holding entire swaths of the population at gunpoint? I'd like to explore this more, as it's obviously concerning. I live in a state where I've seen the middle class completely and utterly destroyed by lack of market regulations and runaway banks. (I live in the US, obviously.)

(Edit: I forgot to add, the systematic destruction of unions and labor. That has also caused the middle class to suffer horribly in the US. With labor representation comes fair wages.)

The loaded gun is the welfare state.

"Vote democrat, or all you people we brought in from out of state will lose your subsidized homes".

This is EXACTLY why I fear a total welfare state. One party has hijacked it and turned it into a way to maintain complete and utter power, and are given free reign to do WHATEVER THEY WANT because if you don't vote for them, your a monster who wants to throw people onto the street/get yourself thrown onto the street. And how can you give something up, even if your government is doing something terrible?

The fact that this strategy is mostly targeted at minorities is both brilliant and immoral as shit.

I don't think the current republican party is any better, but they do their thing in a different manner, and we're here talking about welfare states. Would I vote against a democrat or republican solely because they belong to either party? No. I would look at their voting record. I've voted for both in the past. I've also voted for neither.

I want there to be a social safety net to catch people and put them up on their feet so they can get for themselves and not be reliant on the government. Why? Because becoming reliant on the government means that when its time to vote, you have to vote for your family.

For example, just to clarify what I mean, imagine you have someone who is very pro-welfare, he's looking to expand the welfare system, but at the same time is also a war hawk. Now in a society where 'welfare' is meant solely to get you back onto your feet and self reliant (Up to a reasonable point, no man is an island etc.) again, then someone could go "OK, this is nuts, we don't' need another war.". But if your living in a welfare state where you HAVE to be reliant on the government for basic necessities then how far are you willing to go to support the government that you are now solidly beholden too?

And yes, the destruction of industry in the U.S. is a contributing factor, but that lands on the feet of both sides, or have you forgotten that Detroit (aka Union City) is totally bankrupt despite the amazing control the Unions have over industry in that area? If unions promote wonderfulhappysunshine, why the hell is the most union controlled city in the entire U.S. if not the entire world bankrupt with no industries left?

Bentusi16:
But if your living in a welfare state where you HAVE to be reliant on the government for basic necessities then how far are you willing to go to support the government that you are now solidly beholden too?

Er....you're beholden to the government, not a particular party. Sure, if one party feels like making things intolerable for a large slab of society, they'll lose lots of votes, but that's sorta how it works.

Bentusi16:
And yes, the destruction of industry in the U.S. is a contributing factor, but that lands on the feet of both sides, or have you forgotten that Detroit (aka Union City) is totally bankrupt despite the amazing control the Unions have over industry in that area? If unions promote wonderfulhappysunshine, why the hell is the most union controlled city in the entire U.S. if not the entire world bankrupt with no industries left?

Is that not because the city was reliant on a single industry, and that industry stopped being viable for external reasons?

thaluikhain:

Bentusi16:
But if your living in a welfare state where you HAVE to be reliant on the government for basic necessities then how far are you willing to go to support the government that you are now solidly beholden too?

Er....you're beholden to the government, not a particular party. Sure, if one party feels like making things intolerable for a large slab of society, they'll lose lots of votes, but that's sorta how it works.

Bentusi16:
And yes, the destruction of industry in the U.S. is a contributing factor, but that lands on the feet of both sides, or have you forgotten that Detroit (aka Union City) is totally bankrupt despite the amazing control the Unions have over industry in that area? If unions promote wonderfulhappysunshine, why the hell is the most union controlled city in the entire U.S. if not the entire world bankrupt with no industries left?

Is that not because the city was reliant on a single industry, and that industry stopped being viable for external reasons?

The suggestion made by the man I was replying to seems to be that unions are some sort of panacea for the ills of labor. " I forgot to add, the systematic destruction of unions and labor." were his direct words.

As someone directly related to the men who were running those unions, I can only say 'bullshit'.

Your beholden to the government yes, and my argument up top was actually towards the government. Essentially, political parties are bullshit, all are pushed by desire for power, and allowing them to gain power over you in such a manner that it is very nearly literally life or death (Shelter and food) is a really dumb idea. Because then it starts to become, "OK, I can either vote in such a manner that keeps me and my family housed and fed, or I can vote in a manner I believe to be more morally correct..." as such in my war example earlier.

The reason I use the term quote unquoe social liberals is because it's just a bullshit labeled used by people to try and make their ideas seem less 'evil' then the other guys. It's ALL about power. It doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a liberal or whatever, when you get to that level of government it's all about gaining and retaining power, and welfare is used as one of the most powerful tools to retain power, one that the 'conservatives' can't fight.

Bentusi16:

thaluikhain:

Bentusi16:
But if your living in a welfare state where you HAVE to be reliant on the government for basic necessities then how far are you willing to go to support the government that you are now solidly beholden too?

Er....you're beholden to the government, not a particular party. Sure, if one party feels like making things intolerable for a large slab of society, they'll lose lots of votes, but that's sorta how it works.

Bentusi16:
And yes, the destruction of industry in the U.S. is a contributing factor, but that lands on the feet of both sides, or have you forgotten that Detroit (aka Union City) is totally bankrupt despite the amazing control the Unions have over industry in that area? If unions promote wonderfulhappysunshine, why the hell is the most union controlled city in the entire U.S. if not the entire world bankrupt with no industries left?

Is that not because the city was reliant on a single industry, and that industry stopped being viable for external reasons?

The suggestion made by the man I was replying to seems to be that unions are some sort of panacea for the ills of labor. " I forgot to add, the systematic destruction of unions and labor." were his direct words.

As someone directly related to the men who were running those unions, I can only say 'bullshit'.

Your beholden to the government yes, and my argument up top was actually towards the government. Essentially, political parties are bullshit, all are pushed by desire for power, and allowing them to gain power over you in such a manner that it is very nearly literally life or death (Shelter and food) is a really dumb idea. Because then it starts to become, "OK, I can either vote in such a manner that keeps me and my family housed and fed, or I can vote in a manner I believe to be more morally correct..." as such in my war example earlier.

The reason I use the term quote unquoe social liberals is because it's just a bullshit labeled used by people to try and make their ideas seem less 'evil' then the other guys. It's ALL about power. It doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a liberal or whatever, when you get to that level of government it's all about gaining and retaining power, and welfare is used as one of the most powerful tools to retain power, one that the 'conservatives' can't fight.

This is why its so entertaining reading U.S politics. Kind of nice to live in a country where every party couldn't dream of removing welfare and as such the arguments presented here has no meaning.

But yea, anyone who calls themselves a Social Liberal living in the U.S is a flat out liar, but then again.. The Recessives call themselves Conservatives, so it might be just aswell.

Bentusi16:

The loaded gun is the welfare state.

So you were using an analogy, being hyperbolic. Not an actual "loaded gun" - got it.

"Vote democrat, or all you people we brought in from out of state will lose your subsidized homes".

It was more like, vote democrat or all you elderly people might see your social security privatized.

This is EXACTLY why I fear a total welfare state. One party has hijacked it and turned it into a way to maintain complete and utter power, and are given free reign to do WHATEVER THEY WANT because if you don't vote for them, your a monster who wants to throw people onto the street/get yourself thrown onto the street. And how can you give something up, even if your government is doing something terrible?

Perhaps your over-the-top language comes from the fear you claim you have, I don't know. I live in the US and so far I haven't seem the democratic party maintain complete and utter power over anything. They can't even maintain power when they have a majority in all the branches of government. ;)

The fact that this strategy is mostly targeted at minorities is both brilliant and immoral as shit.

It is? White people don't receive benefits or get poor?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/13/welfare-white-and-drugless/

http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/03/black-news/white-people-make-up-42-of-the-poor-but-take-in-whopping-69-of-government-benefits/

Might want to check on what percentage of the population is white vs. what percentage of benefits go to whites. It's actually disproportionately skewed towards whites vs. minorities, so if their strategy is to "target" minorities they aren't doing a fantastic job of it.

I don't think the current republican party is any better, but they do their thing in a different manner, and we're here talking about welfare states. Would I vote against a democrat or republican solely because they belong to either party? No. I would look at their voting record. I've voted for both in the past. I've also voted for neither.

OK?

I want there to be a social safety net to catch people and put them up on their feet so they can get for themselves and not be reliant on the government. Why? Because becoming reliant on the government means that when its time to vote, you have to vote for your family.

Clinton did a lot of that with Welfare reform when he was back in office, and I know for a fact that you can't just suck up benefits in most cases without looking for work. As for voting for your family - protip:

*Everyone* does this. Everyone. You will too if you think you'll benefit from it. Some people vote based on good schools, some crime, some government benefits like social security and Medicare, some people vote for gun rights but again - protip:

EVERYONE votes for what they believe is most important for them and their family, I don't know anyone who votes from a sense of lofty idealism alone. (And if you do, call me in ten years after you've had a wife and kids for a while to let me know how the lofty idealism is working out for ya.)

For example, just to clarify what I mean, imagine you have someone who is very pro-welfare, he's looking to expand the welfare system, but at the same time is also a war hawk. Now in a society where 'welfare' is meant solely to get you back onto your feet and self reliant (Up to a reasonable point, no man is an island etc.) again, then someone could go "OK, this is nuts, we don't' need another war.". But if your living in a welfare state where you HAVE to be reliant on the government for basic necessities then how far are you willing to go to support the government that you are now solidly beholden too?

It doesn't look like it. Support for the war in Syria is at an all-time low, for example. People on both sides of the aisle are coming to town hall meetings to protest it. (Sorry... not the "war" in Syria - the "targeted military strike" ...)

And yes, the destruction of industry in the U.S. is a contributing factor, but that lands on the feet of both sides, or have you forgotten that Detroit (aka Union City) is totally bankrupt despite the amazing control the Unions have over industry in that area? If unions promote wonderfulhappysunshine, why the hell is the most union controlled city in the entire U.S. if not the entire world bankrupt with no industries left?

It's a bit more complicated than "unions" -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit

http://kresge.org/sites/default/files/Uploaded%20Docs/Detroit%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/26/Why-Detroits-Economic-Ills-Are-Not-Contagious

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2013/08/11/the-earnings-tax-is-a-key-factor-in-detroits-taxpayer-exodus-bankruptcy/

There are entire economic lessons taught about Detroit, but I digress - it's easier to say "unions" I suppose. Or lazy poor people.

Bentusi16:
"Vote democrat, or all you people we brought in from out of state will lose your subsidized homes".

This is EXACTLY why I fear a total welfare state. One party has hijacked it and turned it into a way to maintain complete and utter power, and are given free reign to do WHATEVER THEY WANT because if you don't vote for them, your a monster who wants to throw people onto the street/get yourself thrown onto the street. And how can you give something up, even if your government is doing something terrible?

Um, wouldn't the problem of one party having the power to do whatever they want completely vanish if the other party stopped being outright assholes to anyone who needs government aid? So if, say, Republicans started supporting welfare and social security and universal healthcare and everything like that, what would the Democrats have to hold over the voters now that they no longer have the massive threat of Republican selfishness and stupidity to draw on?

Nikolaz72:

Super Not Cosmo:

Nikolaz72:
50% is probably right, no it's not 75%. The Sales tax not higher than surrounding countries.

Death tax is only there if you want anyone else than significant other/children to inherit your money. And even then its about the same as you'd see in America for the same thing.

I was adding in the sales tax to get to 75%. Afterall if pretty much everything you buy has a 25% sales tax attached to it that's just as good as a 25% increase in overall taxes. I suppose there could be exceptions to the sales tax but it seemed to me like it was across the board.

very low income (DKK 150,000) - approx. DKK 44,500 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 29.7% of the full amount.
very low income (DKK 150,000), and you pay DKK 20,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 38,000 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 25.3% of the full amount.

average income (DKK 375,000) - approx. DKK 134,800 in income tax, i.e. approx. 35.9% of the full amount.
average income (DKK 375,000), and you pay DKK 30,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 125,100 in income tax, i.e. approx. 33.04% of the full amount.

high income (DKK 780,000) - approx. DKK 351,200 in income tax, i.e. approx. 45.0% of the full amount.
high income (DKK 780,000), and you pay at least DKK 50,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 334,900 in income tax, i.e. approx. 42.9% of the full amount.

Very Low Income: 30.000Dollars ends with 25.000 (Around Minimumwage. What you'd expect to earn at a place like Wal-Mart)
Average Income 60.000Dollars ends with 40.000 (Still not the fanciest Job, I think Nurses fall between this and High)
High Income 100.000Dollars ends with 60.000

These are guesstimates btw, to make it easier for you

Here are the taxes.

On top of those, the Sales Tax is 25%, however unlike America. Shops are forced to include it in the actual shown price, and as such the food ends up not being that much more expensive, about 12% more so, +/- 5.

Then we have the church tax which depending on income is 0.4% to 1.5%

Overall, unless you are filthy rich its unlikely that you are gonna pay more than 50% taxes.

Now, considering the unemployed don't pay taxes. They end up with around the same disposable income as the minimumwage guys. But to get this they have to keep searching for a job, and in some cases do community service.

I decided to check up on the index of economic freedom done by the heritage foundation, even with the higher tax burden Denmark is more free in regards to economic freedom in comparison with the United States. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

It has a lower corporate tax, a joke of a tariff and they are wisely staying away from the EU monetary suicide pact. This makes Denmark far more competitive against protectionist policies that the United States has in place.

According to their comparison, labor unions are more free in the United States than in Denmark.
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=denmark|unitedstates&src=country

Where do you get this idea that the government is hostile to unions in the United States?

aelreth:

Nikolaz72:

Super Not Cosmo:

I was adding in the sales tax to get to 75%. Afterall if pretty much everything you buy has a 25% sales tax attached to it that's just as good as a 25% increase in overall taxes. I suppose there could be exceptions to the sales tax but it seemed to me like it was across the board.

very low income (DKK 150,000) - approx. DKK 44,500 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 29.7% of the full amount.
very low income (DKK 150,000), and you pay DKK 20,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 38,000 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 25.3% of the full amount.

average income (DKK 375,000) - approx. DKK 134,800 in income tax, i.e. approx. 35.9% of the full amount.
average income (DKK 375,000), and you pay DKK 30,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 125,100 in income tax, i.e. approx. 33.04% of the full amount.

high income (DKK 780,000) - approx. DKK 351,200 in income tax, i.e. approx. 45.0% of the full amount.
high income (DKK 780,000), and you pay at least DKK 50,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 334,900 in income tax, i.e. approx. 42.9% of the full amount.

Very Low Income: 30.000Dollars ends with 25.000 (Around Minimumwage. What you'd expect to earn at a place like Wal-Mart)
Average Income 60.000Dollars ends with 40.000 (Still not the fanciest Job, I think Nurses fall between this and High)
High Income 100.000Dollars ends with 60.000

These are guesstimates btw, to make it easier for you

Here are the taxes.

On top of those, the Sales Tax is 25%, however unlike America. Shops are forced to include it in the actual shown price, and as such the food ends up not being that much more expensive, about 12% more so, +/- 5.

Then we have the church tax which depending on income is 0.4% to 1.5%

Overall, unless you are filthy rich its unlikely that you are gonna pay more than 50% taxes.

Now, considering the unemployed don't pay taxes. They end up with around the same disposable income as the minimumwage guys. But to get this they have to keep searching for a job, and in some cases do community service.

I decided to check up on the index of economic freedom done by the heritage foundation, even with the higher tax burden Denmark is more free in regards to economic freedom in comparison with the United States. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

It has a lower corporate tax, a joke of a tariff and they are wisely staying away from the EU monetary suicide pact. This makes Denmark far more competitive against protectionist policies that the United States has in place.

According to their comparison, labor unions are more free in the United States than in Denmark.
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=denmark|unitedstates&src=country

Where do you get this idea that the government is hostile to unions in the United States?

I'm not trying to argue that Welfare is what makes the nation itself the wealthiest on earth, I'm just trying to say that you can treat your poor like... Not shit. And still get by, even without mountain-loads of natural resources. Although having those helps a lot.

And America has those.

Nikolaz72:

I'm not trying to argue that Welfare is what makes the nation itself the wealthiest on earth, I'm just trying to say that you can treat your poor like... Not shit. And still get by, even without mountain-loads of natural resources. Although having those helps a lot.

And America has those.

They need not be treated like "shit", unfortunately they are being used as pawns by political parties. They will be kept poor so that they can continue to fulfill that role.

It's unfortunate that many in my generation and those that are younger than I am don't take advantage of the shale boom in North Dakota (fortunate for me if my current job falls through I can always work there and pull in 6 figures within a year or two) or participate in the harvesting of natural resources. They believe good job opportunities will suddenly manifest near where they and their friends are. In a country of over 300 million competition of labor will drive these jobs salaries down.

Based on the numbers from the heritage report, I would bet that Denmark spends much more efficiently on transfer payments (welfare) than the United States. I'm sure you've seen me throw the number of "for every Dollar we spend to help the poor they only see 33 cents of it" once you figure out where those 67 cents go you find out who the real welfare queens are. An example, look into JP Morgan & food stamps.

Do you mind explaining how your welfare system works? Does it lock people in perpetuity in poverty? Thank you.

aelreth:

According to their comparison, labor unions are more free in the United States than in Denmark.
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=denmark|unitedstates&src=country

Where do you get this idea that the government is hostile to unions in the United States?

This may or may not be true, but I can't see the point being made in that graph.

It would I guess be covered by "Labor Freedom", which means:
The labor freedom component is a quantitative measure that looks into various aspects of the legal and regulatory framework of a country's labor market. It provides cross-country data on regulations concerning minimum wages; laws inhibiting layoffs; severance requirements; and measurable regulatory burdens on hiring, hours, and so on.

But this does not necessarily mean unions. In many cases, legal restrictions on the labor market are made unnecessary if the unions are capable of protecting workers, although the negotiated agreements between unions and businesses may actually be more restrictive for the labour market than laws.

That said, I would not be surprised if unions in Denmark were more free. The Scandinavian and German models of business are reportedly much more healthily co-operative than the likes of the USA and UK, where unions and employer tend to be hostile and oppositional.

aelreth:

Do you mind explaining how your welfare system works? Does it lock people in perpetuity in poverty? Thank you.

It's probably not welfare.

I might suggest Denmark (like other Scandinavian countries) tends to do well in this regard because it is a relatively egalitarian society with high human capital. In contrast, some countries like the USA and UK with massive wealth and social inequality have a relatively large underclass - i.e. people sub-working class brought up with rock-bottom skills, education, and frequently also motivation and aspiration.

Just saying, part of the reason it exists is because of stuff like this:

*posted by a friend of mine earlier this week*
10 years ago I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I also had a job at the time, my boss was a dick and left nails, glass, and everything he didn't have to bend over to pick up. so I showed up to work. and I stepped on one. it went through my shoe, through my foot and out the other side, my boss said that I did it on purpose, I sued the company and got on disability, now I cant walk without feeling massive pain in my foot, BTW I still have a bleeding foot wound on my right foot to this day

So he can't really work, outside of doing let's play on Youtube. Which he is now shutting down since he got nailed with fake copyright violations enough times that they're about to shut his channel down. :s

Agema:

This may or may not be true, but I can't see the point being made in that graph.

It would I guess be covered by "Labor Freedom", which means:
The labor freedom component is a quantitative measure that looks into various aspects of the legal and regulatory framework of a country's labor market. It provides cross-country data on regulations concerning minimum wages; laws inhibiting layoffs; severance requirements; and measurable regulatory burdens on hiring, hours, and so on.

But this does not necessarily mean unions. In many cases, legal restrictions on the labor market are made unnecessary if the unions are capable of protecting workers, although the negotiated agreements between unions and businesses may actually be more restrictive for the labour market than laws.

That said, I would not be surprised if unions in Denmark were more free. The Scandinavian and German models of business are reportedly much more healthily co-operative than the likes of the USA and UK, where unions and employer tend to be hostile and oppositional.

Could the corruption rating be an additional modifier to the USA's detriment?

aelreth:

It's probably not welfare.

I might suggest Denmark (like other Scandinavian countries) tends to do well in this regard because it is a relatively egalitarian society with high human capital. In contrast, some countries like the USA and UK with massive wealth and social inequality have a relatively large underclass - i.e. people sub-working class brought up with rock-bottom skills, education, and frequently also motivation and aspiration.

I'm not disputing that. The demographics of the aforementioned countries are more homogeneous than that of the US&UK. Not only that but the Nordic countries have higher illegitimacy rates than those of the US&UK, that typical correlation does not apply in that case. I would also like to inquire if culturally those in poverty in those countries have the determination to escape it.

Simply put I'm out of my cultural element with trying to understand those countries.

aelreth:
I would also like to inquire if culturally those in poverty in those countries have the determination to escape it.

You don't really have to look further than Social Mobility for that. There's no significant 'I wanna stay in poverty forever' demographic.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/17/want-to-get-ahead-move-to-denmark

"Only a quarter born into Poverty, stay there"

Huh... That's more than I expected. I stand corrected.

Nikolaz72:

aelreth:
I would also like to inquire if culturally those in poverty in those countries have the determination to escape it.

You don't really have to look further than Social Mobility for that. There's no significant 'I wanna stay in poverty forever' demographic.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/17/want-to-get-ahead-move-to-denmark

"Only a quarter born into Poverty, stay there"

Huh... That's more than I expected. I stand corrected.

Thank you. I'm grateful that your countrymen were able to pull themselves out of poverty and the numbers are much better than what the US experiences, to be honest if feels as if it's the exact opposite result in comparison.

While I can dig up a study by heritage regarding what the US poor (not welfare unfortunately) has in regards to amenities in their household http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty could you give me your opinion rundown or an actual study of what those on government assistance in Denmark would likely have.

Thank you again.

aelreth:

Nikolaz72:

aelreth:
I would also like to inquire if culturally those in poverty in those countries have the determination to escape it.

You don't really have to look further than Social Mobility for that. There's no significant 'I wanna stay in poverty forever' demographic.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/17/want-to-get-ahead-move-to-denmark

"Only a quarter born into Poverty, stay there"

Huh... That's more than I expected. I stand corrected.

Thank you. I'm grateful that your countrymen were able to pull themselves out of poverty and the numbers are much better than what the US experiences, to be honest if feels as if it's the exact opposite result in comparison.

While I can dig up a study by heritage regarding what the US poor (not welfare unfortunately) has in regards to amenities in their household http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty could you give me your opinion rundown or an actual study of what those on government assistance in Denmark would likely have.

Thank you again.

Lets see. If we are talking the ones in actual poverty, what they have access to is about the same. However there are some key differences.

There are two kinds of welfare for the 'poor' that we are thinking of in my opinion. One is the Unemployed, the other is the Longtime Unemployed/impoverished.

The Unemployment welfare is different depending on Unionmembership (Insurance of a sort) or not. If you have you get around 4 years of the same wage you recieved before you were unemployed (Unless you are somekind of ex-CEO who got millions a year), and after that you move into the long unemployment/impoverished status, if you don't you get the same but only for 2 years.

The welfare for those in abselutely poverty unable to get a job gives access to a decent house, a car, decent food, the ability to go out and afford a few luxuries. Essentialy the same a minimum wage can get you.

However the key difference between 'that' welfare and the Unemployment checks is that the latter demands that you basically sell all your shit. All your savings has to go first, then if you own a large villa/summerhome an extra car, that goes next. Once you've spend everything you have trying to keep yourself going after loosing the unemployment benefits, you get on the welfare (The one where only about 25% stay in according to the article)

Once you reach a certain age (I believe 64-65) you have access to Pensions, which are higher than your average welfare. If you've had work throughout your life you usually get yourself a pension-insurance which gives you a high standard of living. But if you didn't well.. You land with a State Pension which is basically the Imporverished Welfare. Except you don't have to sell all your shit or blow your savings to qualify.

If you're a student (Like myself) you have access to free education, up to the age of 27-29. Aka, most longterm University educations aswell. Only thing you have to pay for is your books.

On top of having education paid for, we get students stipend, it works a bit like those low-interest loans except we pay back by getting a job and paying taxes instead of.. Well.. Paying off a loan. It works.

The stipend differs depending on whether you live with your parents or not, and what income your parents have, whether they are seperated and if you have a child. (If you have a child your student stipend is effectively doubled)

The stipend when living with parentws lands you with about.. 200-300$ A month. Whereas what you get when living alone is about 8-900$ monthly. As I am aged 19 and have moved away from my parents I recieve the latter.

If you have a job while recieveing the stipend you have to have the money on different accounts, but it's still possible. And with a part time job you can basically end up with the same disposable income as an adult working a fulltime minimum-waged job.

There are also No-Interest loans available for students if they can't afford to live on the 900$ a month (Few can if they live completely alone)

As for children..

Pregnant Women gets a few years of maternity leave at about 80% of their former Income.
Father gets several months at 80% of their former Income.
They can trade that in between eachother I believe (My father gave a lot of his away) But the father has to take about 2 weeks off to be around the kid, apparently its good for them phsycologically.

Parents with children gets money for the child depending on age. They get a lot when they are 1-12. A decent amount from 12-16. And from there they get, well.. Basically nothing until they are 18 and start to recieve students stipend themselves.

People with disabillities, also have access to welfare. Although it is higher than the poverty one as they arent' claccified as imporverished.

Now. All this welfare bar the shitty one where you have to own nothing, requires you do something. Pensions requires that you're old and frail, student is only to a certain age and requires at least 16 hours of official study a week. Unemployment is something you save up by being in employment. And Child benefits/Maternity requires you legally have a kid. In the case of Maternity, one that was just born. In terms of Women on Maternity, one that was born by you.

Essentialy its a huge state-run insurance system paid for by taxes.

So yea, I'm pretty sure the ones on Danish welfare would have access to what the average Middleclass American can has access to, except for multible cars.. That's no really as much of a thing here. Most houses are only designed to hold a single car, a lot of city apartments are designed to have none. I think not having a lot of cars makes living decently a lot cheaper. Cars are expensive.

Oh yea, also. People check up on what you use the Welfare on, if some poor sod is found using up all his rent money/food money on drugs and alcohol. He stops recieving a whole lot of money and gets put into a state-purchased home, and recieves boxes of nutritious food and some candy, with a bit of money on the side of a beer or two while he has to spend time going to Alchoholics-Anonymous or whatever it is that get you off the drink/drugs.

Its been discussed if the same should be done for people whom blow a lot of their welfare on smokes. Some believe it would be degrading, but since the state is the ones footing the bill for a ruined lung I believe its fair if it were to be implemented and wouldn't cry a whole lot of tears.

Note: Not sure if its a private enterprise of staterun, but if you're poor you're qualified to recieve presents in the form of good danish cooking and a reasonably priced present from Santa. Hoh-hoh-hoh. Requirement: Must be December 24th.

Edit:

In light of the person below me I must say again, even with access to welfare the worst punishment of not having work for years is not the fact that you have less money to throw around. Its not having a job in and of itself, that fact is not different depending on country. Only different thing is how many luxuries you have access to.

Its why Unemployed here often use their money to do education as they 1: Make themselves better qualified to more easily find jobs.
2: Have something to 'do'

As someone currently living off welfare ive got to disagree, the money you get is barely adequate, and the punishment for being on welfare is the fact that youre sitting on your ass at home doing nothing all day, that sounds good to the working man/woman but trust me after a while it will get intolerable, never having enough money to get new stuff, the sense of not belonging to society, its all a punishment in itself.

aelreth:

I'm not disputing that. The demographics of the aforementioned countries are more homogeneous than that of the US&UK.

You mean racially homogenous? More homogenous than the USA certainly, but not much different from the UK (which is around 90% white, and 85% white British). But I'm not sure it's about racial homogeneity per se either; it's about cultural attitudes.

Not only that but the Nordic countries have higher illegitimacy rates than those of the US&UK, that typical correlation does not apply in that case. I would also like to inquire if culturally those in poverty in those countries have the determination to escape it.

It is likely that plenty of illegitimate children are actually brought up in stable, two-parent households: it's just the parents are relaxed about bothering to get married.

Agema:

aelreth:

I'm not disputing that. The demographics of the aforementioned countries are more homogeneous than that of the US&UK.

You mean racially homogenous? More homogenous than the USA certainly, but not much different from the UK (which is around 90% white, and 85% white British). But I'm not sure it's about racial homogeneity per se either; it's about cultural attitudes.

Not only that but the Nordic countries have higher illegitimacy rates than those of the US&UK, that typical correlation does not apply in that case. I would also like to inquire if culturally those in poverty in those countries have the determination to escape it.

It is likely that plenty of illegitimate children are actually brought up in stable, two-parent households: it's just the parents are relaxed about bothering to get married.

Considering that the Nordic countries are among the most Atheistic in the world, I think its likely that they aren't bothering as much with the whole marriage deal. Considering that we have a state religion a lot of the marriage thing usually goes through that, or at least many people still thinks it does. There are alternatives that doesn't require you to be part of some other religion, but they aren't well-advertised enough.

Charles_Martel:

ShipofFools:
Hey, I've been looking for a job for a couple of years now, that little twat wants to take my ciggies away from me?

Does she even know how much it sucks to be unemployed? Yeah probably not, she sounds like the kind of person who always got everything handed to her.

Libertarians often are like that, at least in my own experience.
Let's take all the contacts and safety nets away from libertarians, see how well they swim in the deep end.

Compassion, generosity, ethics, tolerance, patience, wisdom... No Libertarian has any of these qualities, they only pretend.

THERE. ARE. NO. JOBS!

Those help wanted signs I see must be figments of my imagination.

If there aren't any jobs in your area come to Wichita and take you pick.
http://regionalhelpwanted.com/home/35.htm

Wichita is in America. I am not.

Your answer was so strange I completely forgot what I wanted to post. :s
To be continued, I guess?

ShipofFools:
Wichita is in America. I am not.

Your answer was so strange I completely forgot what I wanted to post. :s
To be continued, I guess?

It's strange how privileged people who don't know what it's like to be poor have no concept of just how much it costs to uproot yourself and move to an entirely different location in order to find a job, nor how difficult it is to find a job once you get there when you don't have any money to afford a place to live and no possessions beyond what you could fit in your car, assuming you even have one. Must be pretty nice to know that at a moment's notice, you're so easily capable of moving half way around the world and starting a new life (not directed at you specifically, but people like Charles and Super Not Cosmo, mind you). Too bad most people in poverty don't have the $1000-2000 in disposable income at a bare minimum that is required to feasibly do so.

Zeconte:

ShipofFools:
Wichita is in America. I am not.

Your answer was so strange I completely forgot what I wanted to post. :s
To be continued, I guess?

It's strange how privileged people who don't know what it's like to be poor have no concept of just how much it costs to uproot yourself and move to an entirely different location in order to find a job, nor how difficult it is to find a job once you get there when you don't have any money to afford a place to live and no possessions beyond what you could fit in your car, assuming you even have one. Must be pretty nice to know that at a moment's notice, you're so easily capable of moving half way around the world and starting a new life (not directed at you specifically, but people like Charles and Super Not Cosmo, mind you). Too bad most people in poverty don't have the $1000-2000 in disposable income at a bare minimum that is required to feasibly do so.

Yes, I hear this all too often. People yell " why don't they move?" How are they supposed to do that? The poor own so little property they would have to pay someone to haul off what little they have rather than have anything of value to sell to assist them in many circumstances. And what do they do when they sold what they had and used the money to eat? Then they have nothing AND starve.

Many do not own a car, and those who do cannot even afford to put gas in it. Employers do not want to hire the homeless, because they are deemed unsightly and irresponsible regardless of their qualifications. When people are poor and homeless, they have many more issues than " just finding a job". Their health and hygiene is usually poor as well due to living in poverty, their mental capabilities become diminished as well from living in such conditions. Their social skills often suffer as well and all of this makes it far more difficult for them to even find a job. Hiring the homeless and poor also comes with risks to employers making this even more difficult on them to find a steady income. They are considered " high risk" because their living environment is unstable, and the few crappy jobs they manage to find are not enough to improve their living conditions.

People do not want to risk their businesses with taking a chance on them, and often only find work through word of mouth and charitable individuals and organizations that outreach to them. They are beaten down physically, mentally, and emotionally and until we can provide them with the resources to help all of those conditions, I do not see how that can improve.

Not having to worry about losing the roof over your head, food on your table, and having your medical conditions treated allows for people to start to do other things, but without those vital things being met, they cannot even start to improve their conditions. We have to start there, and then we can provide resources to help them gain the skills they need to become a productive member of society. One of the biggest issues I see with the "haves vs the have nots" is they are not brought in to be a part of the community, rather they are viewed as " outside the community" by themselves and others. In order to have them be a part of the community, they need to be included, welcomed, and given a helping hand as a family member, and not viewed by themselves and others as " less of a person" because they are struggling.

Cutting welfare only creates a vicious circle of poverty. All I see is one big catch 22 situation for those trapped in the cycle through unfortunate life events. If we actually value human life, as opposed to expendable labour, then everyone should be guaranteed a fair chance to bounce back. In fact, I'll wager, a generous social net makes people more likely to take risks which actually create benefits for society. If you know everything doesn't hinge on closing a dodgy deal; if there is less pressure to make dishonest (and thus inefficient) short-term transactions, then people are more likely to participate in more long-term and better informed activities.

In the UK, individuals' benefits can be stopped if they refuse a job offer, even if it is one in which they have no relevant qualifications or financial benefit to doing so. This similarly creates gross inefficiencies in the distribution of human resources. People are pressured to take up the first job they're offered, as opposed to the most suitable to their skills and needs.

Hmmm...isn't the prison industry a massive part of the US's economy?

Without going all tinfoil hat, should welfare reduce people turning to crime, that might not necessarily be seen as a good thing by certain important elements.

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...isn't the prison industry a massive part of the US's economy?

Without going all tinfoil hat, should welfare reduce people turning to crime, that might not necessarily be seen as a good thing by certain important elements.

Nah, the US Prison Industry has 'Non-violent Drug Offenses' to keep things humming along.

RhombusHatesYou:

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...isn't the prison industry a massive part of the US's economy?

Without going all tinfoil hat, should welfare reduce people turning to crime, that might not necessarily be seen as a good thing by certain important elements.

Nah, the US Prison Industry has 'Non-violent Drug Offenses' to keep things humming along.

Every bit helps! Gotta keep increasing the Prison population profits.

Capitalism at its worst.

Agema:

You mean racially homogenous? More homogenous than the USA certainly, but not much different from the UK (which is around 90% white, and 85% white British). But I'm not sure it's about racial homogeneity per se either; it's about cultural attitudes.

Complete agreement and thanks for clarifying my miscommunication.

Agema:

It is likely that plenty of illegitimate children are actually brought up in stable, two-parent households: it's just the parents are relaxed about bothering to get married.

Aye, the government in the US is catching on to this phenomenon, the father is unmarried so the mother can pull in additional benefits from the federal government. How this plays out in the realm of statistics based on outcomes is likely vague.

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...isn't the prison industry a massive part of the US's economy?

Without going all tinfoil hat, should welfare reduce people turning to crime, that might not necessarily be seen as a good thing by certain important elements.

More of a parasite than an actual business sector.

Nikolaz72:

Every bit helps! Gotta keep increasing the Prison population profits.

Capitalism at its worst.

The contract is designed to create a noble class that will draw revenue directly from the taxpayers.

Zeconte:

It's strange how privileged people who don't know what it's like to be poor have no concept of just how much it costs to uproot yourself and move to an entirely different location in order to find a job, nor how difficult it is to find a job once you get there when you don't have any money to afford a place to live and no possessions beyond what you could fit in your car, assuming you even have one. Must be pretty nice to know that at a moment's notice, you're so easily capable of moving half way around the world and starting a new life (not directed at you specifically, but people like Charles and Super Not Cosmo, mind you). Too bad most people in poverty don't have the $1000-2000 in disposable income at a bare minimum that is required to feasibly do so.

That's another conclusion I came to as well.

Welfare unfortunately traps people geographically where they are, even more so if their are dependents involved.

I speak of the US, in this case.

aelreth:

The contract is designed to create a noble class that will draw revenue directly from the taxpayers.

Hey, you got the same tinfoil hat I do, haha!
That is also what I believe is happening, or has already happened.

ShipofFools:

aelreth:

The contract is designed to create a noble class that will draw revenue directly from the taxpayers.

Hey, you got the same tinfoil hat I do, haha!
That is also what I believe is happening, or has already happened.

It could be a disease of mankind, ever since civilization began parasites big and small find ways to survive on the labor of others. It's easier to pick on the small example, such as the 'welfare queen' but the real welfare is to the parasitical elite.

aelreth:
It could be a disease of mankind, ever since civilization began parasites big and small find ways to survive on the labor of others. It's easier to pick on the small example, such as the 'welfare queen' but the real welfare is to the parasitical elite.

You'll also note that the "welfare queen" concept is a lie made up by the elite.

However, yeah, civilisation required leaders, and they've often been very bad at ordering themselves to do their fair share.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked