12-08-2015, 06:38 PM
(12-08-2015, 07:51 AM)gstanford Wrote: Not as good as they should and you would make their lives worse if you could!Depends if you think "working for a living" and being "a valuable part of the economy" is better than being a welfare case, hated by society.
If I ran the government, all assistance would be routed through corporations as subsidy for low skill manufacturing jobs.
So instead of giving people free housing, food stamps, and healthcare we would give that tax money to corps conditional on them paying it out to low skill factory jobs, in combination with wages they pay.
Why is this better?
1. The people become esteemed members of the economy again. Their labor producing products would support jobs for the rest of us in accounting, administration, sales, IT/IS, etc..
2. There is more dignity for them working 40 hours a week and being a good example for their kids.
3. The stuff they make does not get imported and ceases to be part of our trade deficit. Wealth stays in the country.
4. Corps get PR boost from affordable domestic labor.
We "sort of" have this now by giving benefits to really low wage jobs like burger flippers, but I like manufacturing better because the companies aren't as bottom heavy on jobs (more white collar jobs supported by the work) and burgers don't help with wealth leaving country through import of cheap goods.
There you have it GStan- what I think needs to happen for the poor. The government should help create an environment they can support themselves in. I'm truly a monster. How dare I think they would be better off working for a living, I should gladly surrender more of my cash to them so they can watch more tv, right?