Topic: Why are people who choose to live on benefits considered to be harming society?
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM started this discussion 15 years ago #16,326
The unemployment rate will remain the same, whatever these people do.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #281,256
Some people consider not contributing to be harming. Those people probably wouldn't be able to even define society if you put them on the spot, though.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,258
@previous (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
But there will always be an equal number of people not contributing, whether everyone tries to or not. The only time unemployed people become a problem is if there aren't enough workers to fill jobs.
But there will always be an equal number of people not contributing, whether everyone tries to or not. The only time unemployed people become a problem is if there aren't enough workers to fill jobs.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,259
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
If people didn't have other people to scorn and look down on, they would have to deal with their own shitty lives. Things like 'truth' or 'facts' are irrelevant. Everybody has some other segment of society that they despise so they can make themselves feel better. Even I am doing it, right now.
If people didn't have other people to scorn and look down on, they would have to deal with their own shitty lives. Things like 'truth' or 'facts' are irrelevant. Everybody has some other segment of society that they despise so they can make themselves feel better. Even I am doing it, right now.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,260
I don't think it's so much the benefits themselves, I think it's more its association with chavs who could work, but instead go around getting drunk and commiting petty crimes. Those sorts of idiots make people on benefits look bad.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,261
If they're capable of working for a living and don't do it because they don't want to I consider for them to be harming society.
They're sucking up resources that their peers pay for while not contributing themselves. Resources that are intended for those who are not capable of taking care of themselves.
They're sucking up resources that their peers pay for while not contributing themselves. Resources that are intended for those who are not capable of taking care of themselves.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,266
@previous (E)
> They're sucking up resources that their peers pay for while not contributing themselves.
If they weren't "sucking up resources", someone else would be. If they take a job, that's one less job that could go to someone else. Like I said, them trying harder to get a job won't affect the unemployment rate, and in fact will create more competition for those of us who intend to work. I'd rather we left them alone.
> They're sucking up resources that their peers pay for while not contributing themselves.
If they weren't "sucking up resources", someone else would be. If they take a job, that's one less job that could go to someone else. Like I said, them trying harder to get a job won't affect the unemployment rate, and in fact will create more competition for those of us who intend to work. I'd rather we left them alone.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,267
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
You don't think that just a few more people on benefits could be working? The unemployment rate could be lower.
You don't think that just a few more people on benefits could be working? The unemployment rate could be lower.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #281,268
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> The unemployment rate could be lower.
Someone filling a job does not lower the unemployment rate. If they didn't get the job, someone else would.
> The unemployment rate could be lower.
Someone filling a job does not lower the unemployment rate. If they didn't get the job, someone else would.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #281,269
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
Er, I'm not sure that's the way ot works. Unemployment rates aren't just fixed when they hit a certain level.
What about jobs that aren't filled? And there's always the potential for more jobs to be created or setting up a business.
Er, I'm not sure that's the way ot works. Unemployment rates aren't just fixed when they hit a certain level.
What about jobs that aren't filled? And there's always the potential for more jobs to be created or setting up a business.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #281,270
@281,268 (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
This is a gross oversimplification. Unemployment is never as simple as "x" jobs and "x+y" people--structural unemployment is a big factor in the unemployment rates. There are currently a LOT of unfilled jobs in the US (manufacturing, high-tech, transportation), but people are unskilled (and unwilling/unable to learn), can't/won't move, or won't take the pay being offered.
This is a gross oversimplification. Unemployment is never as simple as "x" jobs and "x+y" people--structural unemployment is a big factor in the unemployment rates. There are currently a LOT of unfilled jobs in the US (manufacturing, high-tech, transportation), but people are unskilled (and unwilling/unable to learn), can't/won't move, or won't take the pay being offered.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #281,276
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Thank you for the response. Admittedly, I haven't researched the US too much. I dealt with the employment/interviews for the company I used to work for and we had many, many suitable applications for each role. I know there are a few exceptions (like you mentioned, skilled jobs), but in general I can't see how adding to this would help.
I also applied for a job in London recently which had over 300 applicants! Amazingly, I got the job, but had I not bothered someone else would have got it (and now that person is still unemployed, obviously).
@281,269 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> setting up a business
For most people, this is quite a risk.
Thank you for the response. Admittedly, I haven't researched the US too much. I dealt with the employment/interviews for the company I used to work for and we had many, many suitable applications for each role. I know there are a few exceptions (like you mentioned, skilled jobs), but in general I can't see how adding to this would help.
I also applied for a job in London recently which had over 300 applicants! Amazingly, I got the job, but had I not bothered someone else would have got it (and now that person is still unemployed, obviously).
@281,269 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> setting up a business
For most people, this is quite a risk.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #281,277
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
Maybe, but if they wanted to at least a few people could manage it, which would in turn create more jobs.
My point was that if they were willing to do it more people could work and thus lower the unemployment rate.
Maybe, but if they wanted to at least a few people could manage it, which would in turn create more jobs.
My point was that if they were willing to do it more people could work and thus lower the unemployment rate.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,584
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,589
I guess another thing to consider is that there isn't a fixed number of jobs. Unemployed people who are having trouble finding jobs amongst current offerings could always start their own business/create their own job.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,593
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
except you need shitloads of capital to start one up, something unemployed people don't have
except you need shitloads of capital to start one up, something unemployed people don't have
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,686
Because they're leeches. Living on the safety net because you have to is one thing, but choosing to live on someone else's dollar simply because you'd rather not support yourself is despicable.
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,705
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,706
@previous (dw !AIy/L67q.s)
> >safety net
> >us
> social security
> medicare
> medicaid
> unemployment
> food stamps
> welfare
> disability benefits
> WIC
> >safety net
> >us
> social security
> medicare
> medicaid
> unemployment
> food stamps
> welfare
> disability benefits
> WIC
(Edited 1 minute later.)
dw !AIy/L67q.s replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,710
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,711
@OP to distract from the criminals running the economy who are all robbing us blind.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,712
@281,706 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Don't forget the safety nets for the rest of the US…
> EITC
> mortgage interest deduction
> gift tax exemptions
> student loans
> capital gains taxes
Don't forget the safety nets for the rest of the US…
> EITC
> mortgage interest deduction
> gift tax exemptions
> student loans
> capital gains taxes
HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,750
@previous (L)
> student loans
> safety net
Pick one. Hell, they shouldn't even be needed; public colleges should be COMPLETELY, rather than partially, covered by the taxpayer.
> student loans
> safety net
Pick one. Hell, they shouldn't even be needed; public colleges should be COMPLETELY, rather than partially, covered by the taxpayer.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #281,752
They are a safety net, child. They are unsecured debt at very low rates. The amount of loans required, beyond the obvious issue of them being required at all, are problematic.