Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Social Safety Net

MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 2:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think most people will agree that citizens living in developed nations should have the privlege of a societal safety net; unemployment subsidies, workman's compensation, etc etc. Where people tend to differ in opinion is on how that social safety net should work. Should it be a hand out, or a hand up? How generous should benefits be and how long should they last? What programs are immoral and moral? I made this topic to discuss the social safety net in developed countries.

I personally believe that the social safety net should have a "hand up" philosophy. I think we should get rid of welfare entirely, and keep the unemployment and disability benefits; I see these two programs as a form of insurance, you pay into them when you're working and if you get hurt or laid off you get to collect.

I think we should introduce micro-loans to impoverished neighberhoods and allow the people there to improve their own communites and create their own jobs. Micro-loans are basically small loans given out with low interest rates to poor people so that they can start up local enterprise; an example would be the man in India who borrowed $1500 and used it to repair broken factory machinery, which he would sell back to companies.

Furthermore I think that we should create tax free zones in impoverished neighberhoods, so that businesses will migrate there and create new jobs as well and so that the poor residents will be able to keep as much of their money as possible (they'll be working though, rather than living off welfare.)

Something unrelated, but helpful, would be to cancel all Peace Corps missions abroad and relocate the Peace Corps to poor neighberhoods in America. Get your own house in order first.

Those are just some ideas I had running through my head.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 2:21:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 2:08:19 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think most people will agree that citizens living in developed nations should have the privlege of a societal safety net; unemployment subsidies, workman's compensation, etc etc. Where people tend to differ in opinion is on how that social safety net should work. Should it be a hand out, or a hand up? How generous should benefits be and how long should they last? What programs are immoral and moral? I made this topic to discuss the social safety net in developed countries.

I personally believe that the social safety net should have a "hand up" philosophy. I think we should get rid of welfare entirely, and keep the unemployment and disability benefits; I see these two programs as a form of insurance, you pay into them when you're working and if you get hurt or laid off you get to collect.

I think we should introduce micro-loans to impoverished neighberhoods and allow the people there to improve their own communites and create their own jobs. Micro-loans are basically small loans given out with low interest rates to poor people so that they can start up local enterprise; an example would be the man in India who borrowed $1500 and used it to repair broken factory machinery, which he would sell back to companies.

Furthermore I think that we should create tax free zones in impoverished neighberhoods, so that businesses will migrate there and create new jobs as well and so that the poor residents will be able to keep as much of their money as possible (they'll be working though, rather than living off welfare.)

Something unrelated, but helpful, would be to cancel all Peace Corps missions abroad and relocate the Peace Corps to poor neighberhoods in America. Get your own house in order first.

Those are just some ideas I had running through my head.

Nothing should promote dependence on the government. Unemployment should be contingent on training and job searching(real job searching, take a $9/hr job if you can't find anything else, apply to more than 1 job a month).

There are a lot of great ideas out there that could really help America, but everybody is too busy blaming each other and toeing the party line. It's sad, really. The politicians act like children, and the citizens act like sports fans routing for their team.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 2:54:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Social safety nets only appear necessary because of class inequalities, a necessary byproduct of the separation of the worker from the value of their labour. If the capitalist class were not to appropriate this value in an exploitative manner, their would be no need for safety nets in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 3:09:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 2:54:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Social safety nets only appear necessary because of class inequalities, a necessary byproduct of the separation of the worker from the value of their labour. If the capitalist class were not to appropriate this value in an exploitative manner, their would be no need for safety nets in the first place.

Elaborate on what you consider the capitalist class to be, and then elaborate on how they manipulate the value of a worker's labor in an exploitative manner. Also elaborate on why social safety nets only appear necessary and why they aren't in fact necessary.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 7:32:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 3:09:14 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 6/14/2012 2:54:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Social safety nets only appear necessary because of class inequalities, a necessary byproduct of the separation of the worker from the value of their labour. If the capitalist class were not to appropriate this value in an exploitative manner, their would be no need for safety nets in the first place.

Elaborate on what you consider the capitalist class to be, and then elaborate on how they manipulate the value of a worker's labor in an exploitative manner. Also elaborate on why social safety nets only appear necessary and why they aren't in fact necessary.

The capitalist class is the class of people who own and control the means of production. Bosses, entrepreuners, venture capitalists, etc. are all members of the capitalist class. They exploit the value of the worker's labor by taking part of it for themselves in the form of surplus value. If the worker is not paid in full the amount of value they created with their labor there is obviously some left over, this goes into the hands of the capitalist class in the form of surplus value like I said. If however, workers were paid the full aspects of their labor instead of just whatever the capitalist class can get away with, they'd be far less poverty stricken then they are currently and not in need of a safety net.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 8:02:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The capitalist class is the class of people who own and control the means of production. Bosses, entrepreuners, venture capitalists, etc. are all members of the capitalist class. They exploit the value of the worker's labor by taking part of it for themselves in the form of surplus value. If the worker is not paid in full the amount of value they created with their labor there is obviously some left over, this goes into the hands of the capitalist class in the form of surplus value like I said. If however, workers were paid the full aspects of their labor instead of just whatever the capitalist class can get away with, they'd be far less poverty stricken then they are currently and not in need of a safety net.

Your initial definition is very broad, because production includes: goods, services, and labor; yet you try to narrow it down to the people that produce the goods. Without the production of goods there can be no market for labor or services, and without services and labor goods cannot be produced. If this is true then the means of production are controlled by private citizens in a capitalist society, because even the poor own their own means of production (labor.)

Now value is a determination of how much something is worth. If there are one-hundred janitors and one businessman then the businessman's labor is going to be worth more than a single janitor's, because his skills are in higher demand. Nobody is exploiting laborers by paying them the actual value of their labor.

To reiterate; the value of your labor, goods, or services are determined by what people are willing to pay for them; not by an arbitrary force.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 8:03:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 8:02:03 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
The capitalist class is the class of people who own and control the means of production. Bosses, entrepreuners, venture capitalists, etc. are all members of the capitalist class. They exploit the value of the worker's labor by taking part of it for themselves in the form of surplus value. If the worker is not paid in full the amount of value they created with their labor there is obviously some left over, this goes into the hands of the capitalist class in the form of surplus value like I said. If however, workers were paid the full aspects of their labor instead of just whatever the capitalist class can get away with, they'd be far less poverty stricken then they are currently and not in need of a safety net.

Your initial definition is very broad, because production includes: goods, services, and labor; yet you try to narrow it down to the people that produce the goods. Without the production of goods there can be no market for labor or services, and without services and labor goods cannot be produced. If this is true then the means of production are controlled by private citizens in a capitalist society, because even the poor own their own means of production (labor.)

Now value is a determination of how much something is worth. If there are one-hundred janitors and one businessman then the businessman's labor is going to be worth more than a single janitor's, because his skills are in higher demand. Nobody is exploiting laborers by paying them the actual value of their labor.

To reiterate; the value of your labor, goods, or services are determined by what people are willing to pay for them; not by an arbitrary force.

That doesn't negate socialpinko's point. If there is any left over funds, they belong to the laborer because they are part of his labor.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 8:26:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are no left over funds if he paid the full value of his labor. If you are referring to the profits then that is absurd. It would be absurd to give the profits you make to your workers, because then there would be absolutely no reason to even provide those jobs in the first place.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 8:32:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love this week.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 10:48:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since when did everybody think they are "entitled" to a hand up? If one dude gets a hand up in the form of tax breaks, benefits, etc., who pays for it? Everybody else by taxes. And those taxes leech from the people who work hard enough to earn money. In the natural free market, everybody can get a job based on their merits, and if they work hard enough, they will rise. If taxes are minimized, the consumer base is stronger as well as the businesses side of the economy.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 10:53:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 7:32:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/14/2012 3:09:14 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 6/14/2012 2:54:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Social safety nets only appear necessary because of class inequalities, a necessary byproduct of the separation of the worker from the value of their labour. If the capitalist class were not to appropriate this value in an exploitative manner, their would be no need for safety nets in the first place.

Elaborate on what you consider the capitalist class to be, and then elaborate on how they manipulate the value of a worker's labor in an exploitative manner. Also elaborate on why social safety nets only appear necessary and why they aren't in fact necessary.

The capitalist class is the class of people who own and control the means of production. Bosses, entrepreuners, venture capitalists, etc. are all members of the capitalist class. They exploit the value of the worker's labor by taking part of it for themselves in the form of surplus value. If the worker is not paid in full the amount of value they created with their labor there is obviously some left over, this goes into the hands of the capitalist class in the form of surplus value like I said. If however, workers were paid the full aspects of their labor instead of just whatever the capitalist class can get away with, they'd be far less poverty stricken then they are currently and not in need of a safety net.

And every business would go under because it would have $0 to deal with any slow period, any new regulation, any needed upgrades.

Besides, who is going to go start a business if they know they aren't allowed to make any money off of it? The full value of production paid to every employee means the employer has to foot the bill for the means of production and can get nothing out of it, other than a warm fuzzy feeling of employing people.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 10:54:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 8:32:09 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I love this week.

You know what this week is? Kind of like every week but with a higher number of stupid arguments.

Has anyone switched from stupid arguments to not-so-stupid arguments?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 11:08:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 10:48:38 AM, Contra wrote:
Since when did everybody think they are "entitled" to a hand up? If one dude gets a hand up in the form of tax breaks, benefits, etc., who pays for it? Everybody else by taxes. And those taxes leech from the people who work hard enough to earn money. In the natural free market, everybody can get a job based on their merits, and if they work hard enough, they will rise. If taxes are minimized, the consumer base is stronger as well as the businesses side of the economy.

I don't believe in entitlements either, that is why I was careful to put "privlege" in my first post. Citizens of developed countries have the privlege of being able to afford a social safety net, and a social safety can actually be a positive for everyone if is designed to get people back to work rather than keep them unemployed.

Everyone becomes unemployed at one point or another and people make mistakes, and mistakes tend to compound. That's why it's good to have things like unemployment benefits, because you'll have money to live on while you look for that new job but the money won't last you forever, and it will be far less than what you were making before.

Also if we can get those that fall between the cracks working again they'll pay back the money they used or were exempted from paying, because they'll have taxable income.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 12:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 8:26:10 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
There are no left over funds if he paid the full value of his labor. If you are referring to the profits then that is absurd. It would be absurd to give the profits you make to your workers, because then there would be absolutely no reason to even provide those jobs in the first place.

That's not the point. Surplus value is clear exploitation. And your point relies on the false assumption that profits are the only way an economic system could be organized and the false assumption that separate classes (workers and bosses) are necessary for production and coordination anyways, see syndicalism brah.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 12:54:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Instead of welfare, which rarely solves the problem, people need equal access to opportunity. Things like education and job retraining. This is how other European countries have higher social and economic mobility.

It would be a hand up so that disadvantaged people can become self nurturant citizens, and then help society as a whole, aka common good.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 1:03:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 12:54:31 PM, Contra wrote:
Instead of welfare, which rarely solves the problem, people need equal access to opportunity. Things like education and job retraining. This is how other European countries have higher social and economic mobility.

It would be a hand up so that disadvantaged people can become self nurturant citizens, and then help society as a whole, aka common good.

+1

Although I'm not sure about how European countries compare to the US for upward mobility.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 1:12:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 12:32:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/14/2012 8:26:10 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
There are no left over funds if he paid the full value of his labor. If you are referring to the profits then that is absurd. It would be absurd to give the profits you make to your workers, because then there would be absolutely no reason to even provide those jobs in the first place.

That's not the point. Surplus value is clear exploitation. And your point relies on the false assumption that profits are the only way an economic system could be organized and the false assumption that separate classes (workers and bosses) are necessary for production and coordination anyways, see syndicalism brah.

The fallacy in your logic is that it isn't exploitation if the other party is benefiting from it. The laborer is benefiting from the businessman's profit, because the profit motive makes the laborer's job possible in the first place. If there was no profit there would be no job, thus it is a fair and equal trade between employer and employee.

Also seperate "classes" are necessary for production and coordination; there will always be someone necessary to "lead" and his skills will always have more value than the "follower," otherwise you just have one big uncoordinated mess.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 2:48:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 1:12:50 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 6/14/2012 12:32:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/14/2012 8:26:10 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
There are no left over funds if he paid the full value of his labor. If you are referring to the profits then that is absurd. It would be absurd to give the profits you make to your workers, because then there would be absolutely no reason to even provide those jobs in the first place.

That's not the point. Surplus value is clear exploitation. And your point relies on the false assumption that profits are the only way an economic system could be organized and the false assumption that separate classes (workers and bosses) are necessary for production and coordination anyways, see syndicalism brah.

The fallacy in your logic is that it isn't exploitation if the other party is benefiting from it. The laborer is benefiting from the businessman's profit, because the profit motive makes the laborer's job possible in the first place. If there was no profit there would be no job, thus it is a fair and equal trade between employer and employee.

First, benefit on both sides doesn't mean exploitation is non-existent. For instance, say I take something of yours and sell it back to you for a high price. Obviously you technically do gain from the exchange but you're at a lower utility then before as per my original theft. Benefit does not mean exploitation is not there.

On the profit motive, you haven't actually upheld the proposition that production is only possible via a profit motive. Your claims seems to ignore entirely the entire production for use possibility and all of the non-profit related relationships throughout the world i.e. churches, charities, familial economics, etc. Also, remember that I also brought up the fact that even if profit is a motive, that doesn't mean that one group should benefit at the exploitation of another. You ignore syndicalism (worker owned cooperatives) entirely wherein workers democratically manage the business so there is no unnecessary class benefiting from their surplus labor value.

Also seperate "classes" are necessary for production and coordination; there will always be someone necessary to "lead" and his skills will always have more value than the "follower," otherwise you just have one big uncoordinated mess.

Lack of exploitative leaders does not mean coordination is not present. Self-management is a concept that runs far in the syndicalist movement. See my above point for reference.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 7:17:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everyone should be able to get vocational education, without incurring more debt than they could pay back in a few years with a small percentage of their pay.

One definite thing -- people on welfare should be kicked off if they parent additional children, even it that means they would custody of their children. DNA testing should be required as necessary to enforce this.

At 6/14/2012 2:08:19 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think most people will agree that citizens living in developed nations should have the privlege of a societal safety net; unemployment subsidies, workman's compensation, etc etc. Where people tend to differ in opinion is on how that social safety net should work. Should it be a hand out, or a hand up? How generous should benefits be and how long should they last? What programs are immoral and moral? I made this topic to discuss the social safety net in developed countries.

I personally believe that the social safety net should have a "hand up" philosophy. I think we should get rid of welfare entirely, and keep the unemployment and disability benefits; I see these two programs as a form of insurance, you pay into them when you're working and if you get hurt or laid off you get to collect.

I think we should introduce micro-loans to impoverished neighberhoods and allow the people there to improve their own communites and create their own jobs. Micro-loans are basically small loans given out with low interest rates to poor people so that they can start up local enterprise; an example would be the man in India who borrowed $1500 and used it to repair broken factory machinery, which he would sell back to companies.

Furthermore I think that we should create tax free zones in impoverished neighberhoods, so that businesses will migrate there and create new jobs as well and so that the poor residents will be able to keep as much of their money as possible (they'll be working though, rather than living off welfare.)

Something unrelated, but helpful, would be to cancel all Peace Corps missions abroad and relocate the Peace Corps to poor neighberhoods in America. Get your own house in order first.

Those are just some ideas I had running through my head.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 7:29:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 2:08:19 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think most people will agree that citizens living in developed nations should have the privlege of a societal safety net; unemployment subsidies, workman's compensation, etc etc. Where people tend to differ in opinion is on how that social safety net should work. Should it be a hand out, or a hand up? How generous should benefits be and how long should they last? What programs are immoral and moral? I made this topic to discuss the social safety net in developed countries.

I personally believe that the social safety net should have a "hand up" philosophy. I think we should get rid of welfare entirely, and keep the unemployment and disability benefits; I see these two programs as a form of insurance, you pay into them when you're working and if you get hurt or laid off you get to collect.

I think we should introduce micro-loans to impoverished neighberhoods and allow the people there to improve their own communites and create their own jobs. Micro-loans are basically small loans given out with low interest rates to poor people so that they can start up local enterprise; an example would be the man in India who borrowed $1500 and used it to repair broken factory machinery, which he would sell back to companies.

Furthermore I think that we should create tax free zones in impoverished neighberhoods, so that businesses will migrate there and create new jobs as well and so that the poor residents will be able to keep as much of their money as possible (they'll be working though, rather than living off welfare.)

Something unrelated, but helpful, would be to cancel all Peace Corps missions abroad and relocate the Peace Corps to poor neighberhoods in America. Get your own house in order first.

Those are just some ideas I had running through my head.

Damn, the quality of recent threads have really discouraged me from participating in this week's activity. Wtf. If we had a million silly threads questioning truth and darkness and core scientific principles, it would be soooo easy and fun.

But, no, people keep making thoughtful and interesting threads.

So, I'll continue out of character --

Add to that improvements in education (though massively expensive), the dissolution of racism, and the redefinition of Americanism to fit an ideal rather than a birthright, then you have what I would theorize to be the "perfect" fix.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 8:47:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree with the OP from the very first sentence. I rarely get to use those words outside the religion forum.

The handout culture is probably the worst thing that could happen to a society. The past two generations have been raised believing that the government has their back; that if the make a mistake, the government will bail them out.

Now, the kids think that all they have to do is collect unemployment. Why work? The feds will pay for your house, your car, your booze; and when they are slow in paying, just steal it from someone who has it. We have an entire youth culture based around the concept "The world owes me a living."

I find that concept morally repugnant. I pay my way. I work for what I have. And you know what? That means I don't always have the nicest, newest things. I've never driven a car with less than 150,000 miles on it. I've never owned a house. I don't have the posh "three cars, a suburban home, and a boat" lifestyle that everyone seems to be going into debt for these days.

And that's fine.

What I have, I own. I didn't get it from the government. I didn't steal it.

And neither should anyone else. I help people out when I can, when I know they are going through hard times. Everyone's been there. Just don't vote yourself perpetual payments from my pocket.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 9:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 2:08:19 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think most people will agree that citizens living in developed nations should have the privlege of a societal safety net
Ad populum.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.