FT: The cost of burgeoning national debt

benood

ninky wrote: »

I think if you believe in a free market and survival of the fittest you should either live by that, doing whatever it takes to survive, or starve on the streets.

The alternative to the “every man for himself” philosophy is that we help, or rely on the help, of each other. This can either take the form of the help of private individuals / charity or it can take the form of the state.

The problem with putting the responsibility for this help in the hands of private individuals is that they can impose all sorts of criteria for the offering this help. For example, they may only offer it to friends and family (sons-in-law, for example). Or they might impose religious criteria for helping (as in the case of many charities). We get in a situation where a wealthy elite dictate who is the “deserving” and who the “undeserving” poor.

I think it is far better to put the responsibility for this help in the hand of the State, administered by a democratically elected government. As such, it is influenced by public opinion and (depend on how much equality has been advance in society) free speech. If you are a really civilized society you also make provisions to ensure that the jobs on offer have living wages and reasonable working hours and conditions. A really civilized society also realizes that all this has to be paid for from somewhere so you do this by preventing a disproportionate amount of extreme wealth to be siphoned off into certain sections of society.

You may call this “socialist”. I don’t, partly because the word has taken on the connotations of an insult similar to the word “feminist” in the 80s and partly because I don’t hold with Marxist ideology and the inevitability of its utopian vision. I actually just call it the means by which we free ourselves, through the civilizing process, from the tribal-based alpha-male dominanted existence of pre-civilized Man.

Obviously it helps you to make your argument to paint an extreme picture where the implication seems to be if you believe in the free market you must eschew any state benefits whilst if you are of a left wing bent the state will provide for you royally when you are down on your luck.

However, in my view this is wrong - that the state should provide benefits for the needy is a given, agreed by all reasonable people. It is the definition of needy which is open to interpretation.

ninky_2

benood wrote: »

It is the definition of needy which is open to interpretation.

but in this case the "needy" is a well educated man, with a previous employment record, choosing not to accept any employment while he decides what he wants to do in life, and choosing to accept instead the support of others.

i don't know, it's why i ask, but i also suspect he would deny the right of others to similar support from the state.

Wookster

ninky wrote: »

but in this case the "needy" is a well educated man, with a previous employment record, choosing not to accept any employment while he decides what he wants to do in life, and choosing to accept instead the support of others.

i don't know, it's why i ask, but i also suspect he would deny the right of others to similar support from the state.

I'm afraid you are quite out of touch with reality if you think that being well educated with a good employment record makes you instantly employable in the current climate :rolleyes:

As odd as it seems, employers don't want over qualified people as they tend to get bored.

ninky_2

Wookster wrote: »

employers don't want over qualified people as they tend to get bored.

absolute rubbish. australia has plenty of jobs - they may just not be the jobs OP thinks are "suitable". i lived in NZ for 18 months from the age of 28. i had a first class degree and several years of experience working at a high level in my sector (TV). when i couldn't find enough TV contracts to support myself i worked, for the minimum wage, full time in a shop.

Wookster

ninky wrote: »

absolute rubbish.

That just says it all. You are out of touch...

Have you ever recruited people?

ninky_2

Wookster wrote: »

That just says it all. You are out of touch...

Have you ever recruited people?

yes......................

Generali

ninky wrote: »

If you were currently entitled to state benefits would you claim them?

Only if it was necessary to support my family - my children are more important than my principles.

ninky wrote: »

Are you currently actively seeking employment?

Yes, very actively. I should be working by the weekend. I've applied for more than 100 jobs since arriving in Australia at the end of November.

ninky wrote: »

If you didn't have inlaws who were willing or able to support you and your family how would you currently be supporting yourself?

By working. Basically, I came to an agreement with the in-laws. I'd spend a few months looking for work at a similar level to where I was before. If nothing came up then I'd just take anything. I'll do anything legal and morally correct for work if it comes to it. I'd rather do a job that's interesting and challenging if possible but I have no problem emptying bins or sweeping streets.

ninky wrote: »

Do you think those who don't have inlaws or other private means to support themselves should be entitled to state benefits?

I think there should be a safety net. I think that the safety net in the UK is too generous currently as it can be claimed indefinitely.

ninky wrote: »

Do you think those who don't have inlaws or other private means to support themselves should make more effort to find employment than you are or accept jobs that you wouldn't be willing to accept yourself to support themselves?

No. I think that the welfare safety net should provide a decent standard of living for a short amount of time rather than a fairly low standard indefinitely. I think people should work rather than not work. On Saturday (and afterwards) I'll most likely be standing in Shopping Malls signing people up to be called by salesmen for a housing related product. It's a real 'bottom of the heap' job - I wasn't asked for qualifications or even for references.

It's certainly not what I'm used to but it's time for me to lower my sights, get what I can and build from there. I'm glad I took the time to look for a good job, I didn't manage to get one so I have to take what I can.

vivatifosi

Good luck with the job offer Gen.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Good luck with the job offer Gen.

Cheers. It's not my first choice of what I'd do for a living but it's paid employment and that's what I need right now.

vivatifosi

Hey, Gen, I'm in the same situation as you. I'm doing a PT admin job on top of running my own business because there just isn't enough work about. Its actually strangely cathartic, although I don't earn very much doing it its good to get back to working with people (rather than running a little business from home) and there's absolutely no stress because its just a nice, easy job.