
“Maybe jobs are for machines, and life is for people” - cedricr
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/02/24/robots-will-take-your-job/5lXtKomQ7uQBEzTJOXT7YO/story.html
======
stegosaurus
So as far as I can see, living in the UK, we treat life as a sort of 'survival
of the fittest' game, but with seemingly arbitrary conditions applied.

For example - we consider a person with a physical disability to be worthy of
support (presumably because we reason that they're unable to work).

We consider a person of advanced age worthy of support (again, they're unable
to work, and probably supported society in the past via working).

There are a few other categories of human that we think of as being deserving,
and income support recognises this.

The flaw here as far as I can see is that we basically say that if you don't
fit into one of the above categories, you must be fit to work, and so if
you're not working you're doing so via choice, and if you choose not to eat
that's your problem to deal with.

To me it's just a really basic error of logic and I don't know how to even
come close to correcting it.

People talk often about the fact that they don't want to be taxed, or
whatever. But why don't they care about paying for the disabled?

Is it that they don't want to pay for people who just aren't trying? It seems
to me that unless unemployment is at 0% such an argument could never be valid.

I think that income support is a great idea, by the way, I just find it an odd
situation that we're in, almost like a really bad compromise. Surely we should
try to help everyone, or help no-one, not unfairly select groups based on them
having a 'bad enough handicap'.

~~~
paulddraper
Some people believe that charity and wealth redistribution is not the
providence of the government.

It's not that they believe charity is bad, but rather that it is either
morally wrong or inefficient for the government to force it.

This opinion has become less popular over time, as the norm for government
jurisdiction has increased. Progressive income taxes are, historically
speaking, a new concept, starting in 1909 in the UK and in 1862 in the US (and
requiring an amendment to the Constitution).

Another reason for the dislike may be the large amount of welfare abuse (not
necessarily fraud, but abuse), which you will probably find even after only a
little exposure to the system.

~~~
stegosaurus
I think my issue is with the ridiculous compromise.

Either government has no authority in this domain (and thus we should have
extremely low tax rates and zero overt welfare), or we should actually aim to
fix the problem completely (and thus have high tax rates but ensure that
everyone has a decent standard of living).

The middle route is absurd. It creates situations in which 'abuse' is even a
meaningful concept; it gives arbitrary groups special status.

What does 'abuse' of welfare even mean? In the UK we have media stories about
people getting a few grand more than they 'need' (and thus not having to eat
rice and beans every meal). Or getting more than the 'median salary', which I
take to be evidence that median employees don't earn enough.

~~~
paulddraper
An example of abuse is the 20-something-year-old whose back "hurts" too much
for him to have a job, so his is disabled.

Sans state-guaranteed welfare, he would do fine at many jobs. But the allure
of someone else paying for everything is too much to pass up, so consciously
or unconsciously, he allows himself to be crippled. (Similar to abuse, of say,
painkillers.)

The argument is that legal entitlement to welfare creates increased
opportunity for abuse, because no one wants to deny it and then get sued in
legal courts.

~~~
stegosaurus
I don't personally consider that to be abuse because welfare is set at such a
low level that I don't begrudge anyone who is completely (or largely) reliant
upon it.

Abuse, to me, would be a wealthy person claiming benefits when they don't need
them.

To elaborate a little - let's imagine welfare gives ~6000GBP a year
equivalent, and any job this person can hope to get gives ~10000GBP a year
equivalent.

I think if we want them to work, then they should be offered more by
employers, not less in welfare. Essentially, giving them negotiating power,
rather than saying 'work for BigMegaCorp for $5 an hour or starve'.

------
yasky
Could the transition start by having a 30 hour work week, for example? If I
work 40+ hours and a certain percentage of my income goes towards sustaining
the unemployed, I would far rather work fewer hours and give that work to an
unemployed person.

