Is our Welfare State sustainable? What will eventually happen?

uncivil war wrote:

Wow, someone who thinks spelling rules the world.

No model is required. You are quite foolish. You do not understand history. The reason there is a welfare state is to help avoid rebellions. Goodness, you are stupid.

Sorry, I am just trying to figure out how educated my opponent it, and I don't have much else to go on.

I understand history just fine. Of course welfare is there to prevent crime/rebellions. My question is, what is going to happen when it COLLAPSES? What form will it take?

Your reading comprehension is on par with your spelling. Keep at it, though, I bet it is better than it was a few months ago.

thejeff wrote:

bitter pills wrote:

Except he'll want that money for himself as well. It's a vicious cycle the OP is riding.

Although I do want my money, that was not my motivation for this thread. I fully understand that taxes are a necessary part of society running smoothly. They fund the police, fire, trash pickup, defense, and shoot, even some welfare programs.

It is the MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION of these payments that alarms me, not their existence. It CANNOT continue forever. My question isn't WHETHER it will collapse. It will. My question is HOW will it collapse?

You actually raise a good point, but I think that you're coming at it from the wrong way.

It's not sustainable to provide what we might consider a "comfortable living" to the increasing amount of people who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves while simultaneously trying to incentivize the activities that capitalist-thinkers value (investing, buisness-building, free markets, etc).

So this creates a test for what some might call late-stage capitalism. When the market becomes this efficient at creating wealth for companies and the individuals who own those companies at the expense of others, how do those in positions of power deal with the vacuum of wealth below them. Once jobs have been automated or exported to the lowest reasonable bidder, who buys your product?

I am always amused by people who consider the cause of our economic problems is that the poor have too much money.

If you had a vacuum of wealth below you then there would be no need to export jobs because your own citizens would be the lowest bidder. If you truly automated away every possible job then everything would be free since it cost nothing to produce and there'd be no motivation to profit since money would be worthless anyway.

In reality the world isn't trending this way. There always has been and always will be ways people can produce.

$1 trillion per year for the military, spying on all citizens, and foreign aid to colonial apartheid regimes is not sustainable.

That alone wrote:

$1 trillion per year for the military, spying on all citizens, and foreign aid to colonial apartheid regimes is not sustainable.

It is actually. It might be too much, but it can be sustained or lowered easily. Changing demographic trends are only continuing to make SS/medicare costs rise.

side piece wrote:

So this creates a test for what some might call late-stage capitalism. When the market becomes this efficient at creating wealth for companies and the individuals who own those companies at the expense of others, how do those in positions of power deal with the vacuum of wealth below them. Once jobs have been automated or exported to the lowest reasonable bidder, who buys your product?

Perhaps there will arise a new sector of society that consists of people whose job it is to determine what products/services are of worth, and direct money/value to the people who supply those services and products, regardless of whether those things are considered valuable in our current culture. I think we're already seeing a little bit of this. This is letsrun so lets take for example the typical professional runner who doesn't consistently win enough races to make a living. Does the public see what he/she is doing as a valuable service to society? If yes then maybe funds should be diverted to such a person, without having to promote some crappy product. Maybe a musician that a lot of people like but isn't backed by a huge media machine. Is that a valuable service? Sure. Give that artist some money. etc.

And the people who facilitate the funding are providing a useful service as well.

Blah Blah Blah. wrote:

I am always amused by people who consider the cause of our economic problems is that the poor have too much money.

Define "have".

thejeff wrote:

Blah Blah Blah. wrote:

I am always amused by people who consider the cause of our economic problems is that the poor have too much money.

Define "have".

You started this thread. Define "Welfare State."

system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits.

Define "have" as you meant it.

This just in.

According to a report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week.

Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year.

uncivil war wrote:

Those who are abandoned will solve the problem. The will kill off those who have and take what they want. This is how it has played out throughout history.

In the past there were physical assets that could be seized. What would a violent revolution look like now?

The rich no longer need to fear a revolt of the poor; revolt makes no sense.

jon secada wrote:

So I feel that "welfare" should be provided to anyone at a level to be able to survive but not to the level that it would be a comfortable life. Surely that isn't a very controversial belief? Even if I say that this means the rich will have to be taxed to keep the poor alive?

Hooo boy, you haven't been on a college campus lately, have you?

I'm dumber for clicking on this thread.

Do any of you use any facts at all before declaring social programs the end?

Yes, it is. The question is whether our private sector retirement programs are sustainable. And the answer is absolutely not. 401k's are woefully short of satisfactory in providing for retirement for most American workers. This is a huge disaster in the making and it won't take too long to start seeing the poverty rate among the elderly skyrocket from it. Social Security will absolutely need to be strengthened to prevent this disaster.

Here,Jeff education = 0.Me 4.0 Grad School, UCLA. PS. Those who result to insults lost the war. They have nothing to offer. It is beyond a person like to you to understand this simple fact of life.

thejeff wrote:

I DO NOT understand history....

^This is the truth.

Pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

I'm dumber for clicking on this thread.

Do any of you use any facts at all before declaring social programs the end?

No, you have always been an idiot.

Did you ever figure out how inflation works regarding bridges built 50 years ago or not?

themanontherun wrote:

uncivil war wrote:

Those who are abandoned will solve the problem. The will kill off those who have and take what they want. This is how it has played out throughout history.

In the past there were physical assets that could be seized. What would a violent revolution look like now?

The rich no longer need to fear a revolt of the poor; revolt makes no sense.

Revolt never makes sense to those in power. Then, revolt happens, and the powerful lose everything. This has happened since the dawn of man. Nothing will every change this simple fact of life. It is human nature.

Blah Blah Blah. wrote:

I am always amused by people who consider the cause of our economic problems is that the poor have too much money.

You're conflating "having too much money" with "being given too much money," and I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not.