I disagree that with social security comes social responsibility.
If a person wants to get as much from the state as they can and put nothing back in then big deal I say.
Why?
1) Because there are very few people like that anyway. This group of people, so-called welfare scroungers, are always trotted out in these arguments. I've never met one of them in all my days, I'd like to see actual proper percentages regarding this. I'm betting these people are < 1% of the population.
2) Besides there are all sorts of consumption taxes and what have you that funnel the money back into the state anyway.
3) Most people want meaningful work. What you find meaningful may not be what I find meaningful of course. And failing being able to find meaningful work most people choose to work at _anything_ at all rather than be idle. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how many people work at jobs they don't like because that's the only work they could get.
4) Society didn't wake up one morning and decide to take care of me. Social security has been and continues to be a continual struggle to redistribute the wealth from the have-a-lots to the have-very-littles and it's a struggle I identify with. Vigilance is needed as we have seen because all the gains are slowly rolled back when we're not paying attention.
---
This is all beside the original bone of contention I had with you. It was with your questionable statement "If fewer people got philosophy degrees or other majors of questionable utility in the work force and instead focused on getting an education in marketable skills with job openings maybe the story might be different." Did you ever stop to think why someone would want to study philosophy before you came out with that? You're full of what people ought to do, may I suggest you ought not think like that.
>The one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how many people work at jobs they don't like because that's the only work they could get.
People paying their bills amazes you?
There are very few 'career transition' positions that are entry level and only require a positive attitude and a willingness to show up. Those were 'upgraded' to require a degree and a few years of experience for complete strangers.
Also, some people try to avoid gaps of unemployment, and that means slinging pizzas with a couple of katanas for the Mafia when there's nothing else.
I read Snow Crash ages ago but didn't get the reference.
I've been thinking about how to respond to you. I realize how it must sound for me to say that it amazes me that people will take on whatever is available to them at a particular stage in their life to pay their bills. I didn't mean it in a disparaging way. I meant it more in a, "wow, I would find it very hard, I don't think I'd be cut out for that". I'm not suggesting I'm better or worse. I've had plenty of jobs that didn't inspire me at all but they were still decent jobs by anybody's standards: software testing, software development ... though many people I'm sure couldn't imagine being stuck in front of a monitor 8+ hours a day.
If a person wants to get as much from the state as they can and put nothing back in then big deal I say.
Why?
1) Because there are very few people like that anyway. This group of people, so-called welfare scroungers, are always trotted out in these arguments. I've never met one of them in all my days, I'd like to see actual proper percentages regarding this. I'm betting these people are < 1% of the population.
2) Besides there are all sorts of consumption taxes and what have you that funnel the money back into the state anyway.
3) Most people want meaningful work. What you find meaningful may not be what I find meaningful of course. And failing being able to find meaningful work most people choose to work at _anything_ at all rather than be idle. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how many people work at jobs they don't like because that's the only work they could get.
4) Society didn't wake up one morning and decide to take care of me. Social security has been and continues to be a continual struggle to redistribute the wealth from the have-a-lots to the have-very-littles and it's a struggle I identify with. Vigilance is needed as we have seen because all the gains are slowly rolled back when we're not paying attention.
---
This is all beside the original bone of contention I had with you. It was with your questionable statement "If fewer people got philosophy degrees or other majors of questionable utility in the work force and instead focused on getting an education in marketable skills with job openings maybe the story might be different." Did you ever stop to think why someone would want to study philosophy before you came out with that? You're full of what people ought to do, may I suggest you ought not think like that.
edit: grammar n stuff