Should we help those who are unwilling to work?

[Happsborough]

This is true but you still have to qualify for such programs. And even so, food stamps aren't really such a massive hamper on the budget as people would think or as is portrayed by some politicians.

Right, but the qualification is entirely based on income. If you have little income, you get food stamps, regardless of rather you are searching for a job, or not.

The searching for a job thing was solely talking about unemployment, sorry if my wording was unclear there. In any case, all/almost all government benefits are based on income or other factors anyway so "it can be abused" arguments tend to fall through very easily.

[Saiwania]

Help should be given if using the help they're given, someone is able to get employed or become employable. This is a different matter of course, than the hypothetical of automation and AI making nearly every job obsolete and leaving the majority of the population with nothing to do and little to no income.

[NERVUN]

How many people are actually 'Unwilling to work' would be the question I would ask. I would also ask how many can actually find employment that is able to meet their needs.

After all, capitalism requires a certain pool of unemployed people in order to function.

Taking all that into account, is the pool of actual lazy people that large enough to mean anything? I have a feeling probably not.

[Saiwania]

What keeps me from working is that no one wants to hire me. I'm in that position maybe because of my own shortcomings, and that I perhaps find the resume, job hunting, and interview processes to be too difficult to navigate effectively. I don't know what education I need that'd actually pay off, it often takes too much time or costs too much, which discourages me from even considering more education as the answer. I tried that way, it did me no good.

When you get rejected enough, you don't want to job hunt anymore. It gets too mentally taxing to put in so much work to try to get noticed but no one ever calls you back or tells you how much you suck in which ways or how close you were to being selected but didn't quite make it. There is simply too much competition out there where if you're not good enough, its not worth applying if you know you'll be passed over. It gets worse the longer your employment gap gets.

It's also true that deep down, I'm not super competitive or ambitious. I'm content to make decisions at a more glacial pace. I'm too easy going for my own good. This is why people need to be able to temporarily work for free or have far easier paths into apprenticeships, so that if other people like the work they do, they can finally qualify for a paid job.

[Ethel mermania]

Well I did know a guy who quit his job as a welder cause "I can just live with my mom," so it does happen. And if we are worried about those with special needs falling through the cracks, we can take comfort in social security disability, which gives aid to people who are proven to have mental disorders. We shouldn't just willy nilly help someone though because " work is too hard"

Gives aid to people who are proven to have mental disorders..... but only if they have almost no money of their own and are living with a guardian, and once they get married they lose their benefits. The "protection" we give to the disabled is only valid if they live very restricted and lonely lives.
And how is someone supposed to get their mental disorder "proven" if they don't have money to go to a doctor?
Everyone deserves to live in a home, and have food and clothes. Some people will take advantage of the aid given to those who can't find work, but I think that would be a rare occasion. Why would someone willingly be homeless instead of getting a job?

You get a diagnosis, in the states it's not that hard. Medicaid exists.

[New haven america]

Gives aid to people who are proven to have mental disorders..... but only if they have almost no money of their own and are living with a guardian, and once they get married they lose their benefits. The "protection" we give to the disabled is only valid if they live very restricted and lonely lives.
And how is someone supposed to get their mental disorder "proven" if they don't have money to go to a doctor?
Everyone deserves to live in a home, and have food and clothes. Some people will take advantage of the aid given to those who can't find work, but I think that would be a rare occasion. Why would someone willingly be homeless instead of getting a job?

You get a diagnosis, in the states it's not that hard. Medicaid exists.

And what if you're not capable of filling out the paperwork required? Or what if your Medicaid doesn't cover mental health issues?

If we have a UHC system then none of this would matter, but we don't, so how are people in those positions supposed to get the help they need?

[Drongonia]

Those who are unable to work should be supported by the government in whatever ways are practical. Those who are unwilling are leeching off the system, especially because if they never get a job, they'll never pay income tax and contribute to the system. So screw them.

[Cappuccina]

How many people are actually 'Unwilling to work' would be the question I would ask. I would also ask how many can actually find employment that is able to meet their needs.

After all, capitalism requires a certain pool of unemployed people in order to function.

Taking all that into account, is the pool of actual lazy people that large enough to mean anything? I have a feeling probably not.

That's an interesting statement. Though I detest capitalism, I don't see how it "requires a pool of unemployed to function".

[New haven america]

How many people are actually 'Unwilling to work' would be the question I would ask. I would also ask how many can actually find employment that is able to meet their needs.

After all, capitalism requires a certain pool of unemployed people in order to function.

Taking all that into account, is the pool of actual lazy people that large enough to mean anything? I have a feeling probably not.

That's an interesting statement. Though I detest capitalism, I don't see how it "requires a pool of unemployed to function".

If you don't have people who need to work in order to survive then how are you going to find people willing to do work?

[Rojava Free State]

How many people are actually 'Unwilling to work' would be the question I would ask. I would also ask how many can actually find employment that is able to meet their needs.

After all, capitalism requires a certain pool of unemployed people in order to function.

Taking all that into account, is the pool of actual lazy people that large enough to mean anything? I have a feeling probably not.

This isn't a debate about ending welfare or letting people die though. There could be only one lazy person on earth and I would still make this thread, because it's all hypothetical. People are misinterpreting what I said as being cold and indifferent lack of regard for the poor, or people with autism, without realizing that I'm not talking about people who are actually struggling. I'm asking should we help someone who is definitely just unwilling to get a job? No poverty. No special needs. They just would rather smoke weed and play Overwatch all day as opposed to actually working. Should we help those guys?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

I detest capitalism

Has a car that he/she could only ever own in a capitalist market as his/her pp.

[Cappuccina]

That's an interesting statement. Though I detest capitalism, I don't see how it "requires a pool of unemployed to function".

If you don't have people who need to work in order to survive then how are you going to find people willing to do work?

That's not what they said, they implied that having people that don't have jobs are required, not needing to have a job to sustain themselves. My question is how would having unemployed people benefit capitalism, and why is it required?.

[Rojava Free State]

That's an interesting statement. Though I detest capitalism, I don't see how it "requires a pool of unemployed to function".

If you don't have people who need to work in order to survive then how are you going to find people willing to do work?

Good point. Corporate America couldn't survive a world where people can grow their own food or create their own stuff. In a world where we have to buy everything to survive,we all gotta work.

[Alta Californians]

how do you know they are too lazy?
You just assume this, that because they don't have a job they are "lasy"

[New haven america]

If you don't have people who need to work in order to survive then how are you going to find people willing to do work?

That's not what they said, they implied that having people that don't have jobs are required, not needing to have a job to sustain themselves. My question is how would having unemployed people benefit capitalism, and why is it required?.

They are required under capitalism, as without them then you would have a pool of potential workers. They benefit those who are in power or running the show, because they provide more workers to make the employers richer.

There's also the Law of Diminishing Returns, which requires there to be a limited number of those employed in order to get the fullest out of a job.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

How many people are actually 'Unwilling to work' would be the question I would ask. I would also ask how many can actually find employment that is able to meet their needs.

After all, capitalism requires a certain pool of unemployed people in order to function.

Taking all that into account, is the pool of actual lazy people that large enough to mean anything? I have a feeling probably not.

This isn't a debate about ending welfare or letting people die though. There could be only one lazy person on earth and I would still make this thread, because it's all hypothetical. People are misinterpreting what I said as being cold and indifferent lack of regard for the poor, or people with autism, without realizing that I'm not talking about people who are actually struggling. I'm asking should we help someone who is definitely just unwilling to get a job? No poverty. No special needs. They just would rather smoke weed and play Overwatch all day as opposed to actually working. Should we help those guys?

I have to agree with this. There are people who are simply too lazy to get a job. All that excessive social safety nets do is create an environment where lazy people have more incentive to be lazy. "Why should I work when I can basically just benefit from government welfare programs. I personally think these types of people should get nothing, no money, no nothing.

[Cappuccina]

I detest capitalism

Has a car that he/she could only ever own in a capitalist market as his/her pp.

You probably don't even know what kind of car is in my pp.....

You also act like my preference in vehicles has much relevance to my views on economics, nor do you even know what I support.

[Drongonia]

That's not what they said, they implied that having people that don't have jobs are required, not needing to have a job to sustain themselves. My question is how would having unemployed people benefit capitalism, and why is it required?.

That's so far from the OP's question. But for the record it wouldn't benefit capitalism. That sweet sweet neoliberal GDP growth isn't gonna happen with too many unemployed folks.

[Cappuccina]

That's not what they said, they implied that having people that don't have jobs are required, not needing to have a job to sustain themselves. My question is how would having unemployed people benefit capitalism, and why is it required?.

That's so far from the OP's question. But for the record it wouldn't benefit capitalism. That sweet sweet neoliberal GDP growth isn't gonna happen with too many unemployed folks.

That is true, no economy benefits from people being unproductive, whether willingly or not.

[New haven america]

That's so far from the OP's question. But for the record it wouldn't benefit capitalism. That sweet sweet neoliberal GDP growth isn't gonna happen with too many unemployed folks.

That is true, no economy benefits from people being unproductive, whether willingly or not.

Actually, under the Law of Diminishing Returns, an economy kinda does.

In order to keep the equilibrium between too few workers (Loosing money from lack of productivity) and too many workers (Loosing money in order to support workers), you need to keep people unemployed or businesses will loose money in order to support their employees.

[Ethel mermania]

You get a diagnosis, in the states it's not that hard. Medicaid exists.

And what if you're not capable of filling out the paperwork required? Or what if your Medicaid doesn't cover mental health issues?

If we have a UHC system then none of this would matter, but we don't, so how are people in those positions supposed to get the help they need?

If they are that bad off generally their parents get the process started, also the schools are suppose to identify those with special needs. Medicaid covers mental health through SSI.

Btw, even with UHC you have to go seek treatment, no one comes to you if you dont ask

[Kowani]

If you don't have people who need to work in order to survive then how are you going to find people willing to do work?

That's not what they said, they implied that having people that don't have jobs are required, not needing to have a job to sustain themselves. My question is how would having unemployed people benefit capitalism, and why is it required?.

Frictional unemployment.

[Cappuccina]

That is true, no economy benefits from people being unproductive, whether willingly or not.

Actually, under the Law of Diminishing Returns, an economy kinda does.

In order to keep the equilibrium between too few workers (Loosing money from lack of productivity) and too many workers (Loosing money in order to support workers), you need to keep people unemployed or businesses will loose money in order to support their employees.

That isn't the samething as saying they need unemployed people, it that a company can only support have a certain amount of employees in relation to their profit margin. If the company goes under, no one on their payroll will have a job.

[Barfleur]

I think in a rich society, no one should go hungry or be homeless. Conversely, the government should not be in the business of giving a comfortable lifestyle at taxpayer expense to those who can work but choose not to.

[Cappuccina]

I think in a rich society, no one should go hungry or be homeless. Conversely, the government should not be in the business of giving a comfortable lifestyle at taxpayer expense to those who can work but choose not to.

That's very utopian. A society should make is so as few people are destitute as possible, but there will be those that are.