Haven welfare & OTL parallels

And that´s the thing you can never allow yourself to forget if you´re trying to deal with this subject, people on welfare are people just the same as you and me are.

That's why I keep stressing the point of individual variation. People on welfare vary considerably in personality, upbringing, nature, nurture etc just like those of us on the Forum do. And even in the exact same situation different people will react wildly differently. So I have a strong preference for private charities which can do a much better job of tailoring programs to the individual than the one size fits all government programs. Government program flexibility may also be easier in small countries like Sweden with a pop of 10 million than the US with a pop of 300 million.

I have found the concept of "tough love" to be mostly an excuse for the ones providing it to be "unpleasant" and still be able to say "but it´s for a good cause!".

I partially agree with you here. The concept has been greatly abused. However, it is a valid technique and works well with some personality types (not all - individual variation again). So I tend to base my judgement on whether or not it is an excuse on the person calling for the tough love approach. If it is one of those sociopathic talking heads - it's an excuse. If it is someone working on the front lines with personal knowledge, I take that viewpoint very seriously.

In Sweden, currently, prisons are actually being closed down due to a lack of prisoners. In USA, you´ve got more than 10 times as many prisoners per capita, and the difference is increasing.

Be happy to ship you a few to fill up that extra space. If you can manage to rehab them, it would be a whole lot cheaper for us in the long run. Good luck.

I´ve still been in contact with literally thousands of people(and a fair portion of them, people with "unfortunate" lifes so to speak(because i´ve been chronically ill since i was 10)), and if there is one thing that is the same between people, a job is a defining thing, it can be being aknowledged or valued, it can be to be allowed to do what you want to do, it can be a way to get a decent life, interact with people etc etc etc, almost noone seriously wants to be outside of all of what a job can give.

I generally prefer the US and our government and culture. The problem of the semi-disabled is an exception to that. Those I know have it rather rough here. They aren't sick enough to legitimately qualify for government disability payments but they are sick enough for it to impact their lives including their working lives. They legitimately have to take extra sick days, extra time off to visit doctors, for those companies which self insure they cost more healthcare dollars etc etc. So when it's layoff time, guess who gets added to the layoff lists? It's not legal but a good lawyer can work around that. The talking heads keep talking about how if they're a great employee, the employer will be motivated to accommodate them in spite of the added costs etc. But in real life most aren't exceptional employees. Like everyone else most are good solid employees but aren't exceptional (exceptional people disabled or not are rather rare). Most work hard, do a good job etc but so do the non-disabled colleagues they are competing with.

The thing is that there seems to be a version of the prosperity gospel among some US conservatives, especially those that trumpet "personal responsibility". There seems to be a strong belief that if someone becomes destitute, it's inevitably his fault in some way.

Agreed. (Specifically - agree that the belief is present among a significant number of influential individuals, not that it is a correct correct belief. Conservatives can point to examples that fit this worldview. Liberals can point to the opposite. In reality both worldviews are correct just for different individuals. Back to that individual variation theme again).

Along with that protestant belief was also the belief that charity was an individual's responsibility. Americans give more to charity per capita than any other nation. In many ways welfare isn't charity but a right. It sticks in one's craw that someone has the right to mooch off of me. I already give to charity and don't mind supporting folks who need help through welfare. I do mind the welfare cheats who believe they have a right to mooch off of me. No one has the right to live off of my work but I do have the responsibility to help my fellow man.

Charity is something Americans are really good at.

biochem wrote:So I have a strong preference for private charities which can do a much better job of tailoring programs to the individual than the one size fits all government programs.

That might sound good in theory, but it isn´t.

Charity is provided because someone wants to give it, not because the recipient NEEDS it.

Charity can be very good for helping with onetime problems, but are usually poor at giving the steady longer term support that many need.

And, also important, most people hate accepting charity. Accepting something for nothing feels demeaning. It´s easier when it´s government based support, because then it´s based on an "everyone can get this if they need" legal statement, it doesn´t single out the receiver as much.

biochem wrote:Government program flexibility may also be easier in small countries like Sweden with a pop of 10 million than the US with a pop of 300 million.

Oh come on, that is complete and utter rubbish and you should know it!

That MIGHT be a valid argument if you counted population in the thousands, but anywhere beyond that, individuality already disappears into the crowd.

biochem wrote: If it is one of those sociopathic talking heads - it's an excuse. If it is someone working on the front lines with personal knowledge, I take that viewpoint very seriously.

Prejudice and naivety. You have no way of knowing if the former has personal experience or not, no more than you can know wether the experience or knowledge of either, is actually worth anything.

Too often with something like this, "experience" just becomes another way to describe a buildup of preconceptions and even outright prejudices.


And seriously, frontlines? Poverty, unemployment, bad choices, bad economy and just sheer bad luck can be found all around us, there are no "frontlines".

Tenshinai wrote:

biochem wrote:Government program flexibility may also be easier in small countries like Sweden with a pop of 10 million than the US with a pop of 300 million.

Oh come on, that is complete and utter rubbish and you should know it!

That MIGHT be a valid argument if you counted population in the thousands, but anywhere beyond that, individuality already disappears into the crowd.

There is a definite difference in how things are handled and work between a population of 10 million and one that's 300 times as large. Some things that will work for a smaller system won't work for the larger one because it's overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. It's a difference of scale and shouldn't be forgotten or ignored.

Zakharra wrote: There is a definite difference in how things are handled and work between a population of 10 million and one that's 300 times as large. Some things that will work for a smaller system won't work for the larger one because it's overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. It's a difference of scale and shouldn't be forgotten or ignored.

First of all, USA does not have a 3 billion population as you state above.

300M or 30 times, not 300 times.

And i say again, once you get above tens of thousands, the scale doesn´t matter in regards to welfare, because it still has to be handled "en masse".


And basic fact of scale? You realise why people tend to talk about economy of scale?
That´s because it is usually cheaper and easier to do something on a LARGE scale than it is at small scale.

Regarding support of people facing difficulties, my response overall is whatever works for your culture.

Far from claiming to be perfect here but we have a national government welfare net that looks after all the various challenged people using official regulations for specific circumstances.

We also have charities that contribute additional assistance. Where it gets a bit vague is that sometimes government (when conservatives are in power) contracts charities or private enterprise to deliver government funded assistance.

An ironic twist was that a new conservative government in the 1990s did this and an enterprising lady won a big contract. She subsequently built up a significant international business gaining personal worth in $100sM over a decade, which helped her husband lead the progressive opposition to defeat the conservative government.

Our society does have some resistance to charity led assistance as it is seen as demeaning, while government money is seen as a right after having paid tax previously. The same attitude restricts hospitality tipping where many a worker on $30 an hour would be insulted by someone offering a gift. Another difficulty is that many charities are religious based which many view with suspicion here.