Welfare (done right)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://ijr.com/2016/12/757242-ivanka-trump-calling-congress-childcare-legislation/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

 

Trump's child care position paper included a advocacy for policies such as mandating that companies provide six weeks of compensation for maternity leave, reforming the tax code to allow deductions for child care expenses and an expanded earned income tax credit for low income families.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Oh hey, it's similar to stuff the rest of the world has had for years. Nice to see the US catching up a little.

 

I don't personally see that much to discuss here, because the only real complaint is that this doesn't go far enough I guess, because it could do a lot more to ensure that people have the bare minimum kind of worker rights that most of the Western World has. And maybe that there's more efficient ways to do the latter few things, but I have no idea about the technicalities of this stuff so I can't really talk about it much more.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Welfare in America needs to be redone. Needs to be state capitalistic instead of the mess we have now

[Aerion Brightflame]

You mean state centralised right? As in the states themselves decide what's an acceptable standard of welfare to provide? Not state Capitalistic? Because unless I'm missing something, you don't run a Welfare system for profit. That kinda undermines the point of it as a system, it's not there to be profitable, it's there to hep people almost regardless of the cost sink.

 

Because it being state centred is an idea I could be behind if there's still certain minimum federal standards it's required to hit such that it actually can function as a welfare system.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You mean state centralised right? As in the states themselves decide what's an acceptable standard of welfare to provide? Not state Capitalistic? Because unless I'm missing something, you don't run a Welfare system for profit. That kinda undermines the point of it as a system, it's not there to be profitable, it's there to hep people almost regardless of the cost sink.

 

Because it being state centred is an idea I could be behind if there's still certain minimum federal standards it's required to hit such that it actually can function as a welfare system.

I mean like a planned economy. Where the government instead of providing welfare to individuals will funnel that money to create government projects that need to be done. Upon unemployment, the worker will be offered a job by these gov firms. He can either take it, or starve

 

Ideally you would make a profit out of it, which would go back to supplying the government surplus or paying off the debt or financing positive welfare

[Aerion Brightflame]

But welfare is more than just unemployment benefits for those who are currently between jobs. How does plan help people and individuals who, for a given period of time, are incapable of working? There are many who claim and use welfare because that's the only path that they can actually survive in the first place.  Or people, who even with jobs are below the poverty line say? Who need the additional government money to again, stay alive. How do they find time to then work an additional state job?

 

How do people doing these state jobs then find new jobs and such if the plan is to essentially give them a state job? Because the intention surely, as is the intention of any welfare system, is to help people stay on there feet till they can move to better pastures, how do you then give them the time and such to make these arrangements if the intention is to make them work for the state instead. 

 

How do you ensure a steady supply of these kinds of jobs across the nation without undermining other buisnesses?

 

I agree that welfare in America currently doesn't work, it's running into issues in a lot of places, but I don't think that America Works is the solution (Because that's what you are proposing right? Instead of giving money the government just arbtrailay creates jobs instead).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But welfare is more than just unemployment benefits for those who are currently between jobs. How does plan help people and individuals who, for a given period of time, are incapable of working? There are many who claim and use welfare because that's the only path that they can actually survive in the first place.  Or people, who even with jobs are below the poverty line say? Who need the additional government money to again, stay alive. How do they find time to then work an additional state job?

 

How do people doing these state jobs then find new jobs and such if the plan is to essentially give them a state job? Because the intention surely, as is the intention of any welfare system, is to help people stay on there feet till they can move to better pastures, how do you then give them the time and such to make these arrangements if the intention is to make them work for the state instead. 

 

How do you ensure a steady supply of these kinds of jobs across the nation without undermining other buisnesses?

 

I agree that welfare in America currently doesn't work, it's running into issues in a lot of places, but I don't think that America Works is the solution (Because that's what you are proposing right? Instead of giving money the government just arbtrailay creates jobs instead).

You can mess with AG Supply by dropping and increasing regulations to modulate a living wage, and if you can self sustain the economy and run a net trade deficits, you can mess with tariffs to generate the ideal revenue to keep the living wage stable

 

America works is a pretty nice name for it. Should work based on Keynesian economics :)

[Aerion Brightflame]

I didn't understand any of that (Because again I know sheet all about economics other that on a national level it's really complicated), but I did notice you completely ignored the point about; What about the people who legitimately need welfare to survive as it stands? People who physically cannot work because of illness, disability or injury? This doesn't help them, the people who actually need welfare, it throws them out to the dogs. What is your plan for these people? It is the duty of th state to have a system in place for them.

 

I don't really need for you to go into a more simplified explanation of the economics, because if your underlying principles are wrong someone else will point it out for me. I also don't really care for the proposal of workfare, because I'm an advocate for UBI, which is just the simplier way of achieving the end goal, and I think that it's a modern inevitability, and that changes to a given welfare system should work towards gradually implimenting this sytem.

 

Yeah America Works is the name for it in House of Cards. Because that's where I thought you'd gotten this idea from, the tv show.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

There's some form of work they can do. Not every job has to be building bridges. I would expect most are gonna be infrastructure, but not all

I was thinking Stalin, but let's go with HOC

[Aerion Brightflame]

And I didn't mean infrastructure only jobs either. But yes, there are probably menial jobs you could find for a lot of them to do, but that doesn't mean it's in there best interests to do so. Everyone in the US who is on any form of welfare will be on welfare for a reason. Some because they are unemployed. Some because they are disabled. Some because of persistent illness. Some because even though they have a job as it stands, the pay is just too shitty to live on. It's very hard to find a one size fits all program as a result (Even UBI suffers from this issue because of relatively different costs of living)

 

If we ignore Medicaid, there's some 68 million American's in somekind of welfare service (Like 20% of the population). Some 41 million recieve Food Stamps. Only about 9 or 10 million recieve unemployment insurance. Then the rest recieve say housing assistance or other forms, as quoted from here http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics. Given these figures, how does revoking all welfare and swapping it for government jobs do anything to help the people on food stamps, if at most only 9 or 10 million are unemployed?

 

Are people going to be forced to work there normal job, and a government job now? Significantly lower quality of life by forcing more and more hours from them, and less and less time doing other things? Less time on hobbies and such, less time spending money in the economy? Welfare is not simply paying for the unemployed; Welfare is about ensuring a certain standard of life for everyone, or at least in theory. And (Whilst it's only one source I've not crossrefernced) don't support the idea that most of the people on welfare are so because of unemployment.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And I didn't mean infrastructure only jobs either. But yes, there are probably menial jobs you could find for a lot of them to do, but that doesn't mean it's in there best interests to do so. Everyone in the US who is on any form of welfare will be on welfare for a reason. Some because they are unemployed. Some because they are disabled. Some because of persistent illness. Some because even though they have a job as it stands, the pay is just too shitty to live on. It's very hard to find a one size fits all program as a result (Even UBI suffers from this issue because of relatively different costs of living)

 

If we ignore Medicaid, there's some 68 million American's in somekind of welfare service (Like 20% of the population). Some 41 million recieve Food Stamps. Only about 9 or 10 million recieve unemployment insurance. Then the rest recieve say housing assistance or other forms, as quoted from here http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics. Given these figures, how does revoking all welfare and swapping it for government jobs do anything to help the people on food stamps, if at most only 9 or 10 million are unemployed?

 

Are people going to be forced to work there normal job, and a government job now? Significantly lower quality of life by forcing more and more hours from them, and less and less time doing other things? Less time on hobbies and such, less time spending money in the economy? Welfare is not simply paying for the unemployed; Welfare is about ensuring a certain standard of life for everyone, or at least in theory. And (Whilst it's only one source I've not crossrefernced) don't support the idea that most of the people on welfare are so because of unemployment.

I'm talking solely as unemployment when I talk about welfare. I view Medicaid and medicare as a right. 

 

Atleast Medicare, Medicaid is a harder problem to tackle, but a living wage manipulation in the market should in theory remove the need for it