Look Mum, no hands
Over at Just Left, Jordan Carter has written asking how to cut-through to those stuck in the mire of generational welfare dependency. Given the high number of trolls on Jordan's blog, I suspect this debate will go downhill fast, despite Jordan's best intentions, and lo and behold the second commenter, Billy, delivers the usual frothing beneficiary bash:
This right-wing line that welfare is the problem troubles me considerably. I find the idea of living in a country where your own government doesn't support you when you are in need abhorrent.Continuing to pay them to do nothing but have children is certainly guaranteeing that they never have any incentive to change their lot. Welfare is not the solution: it is the problem. Give that this government has just extended welfare to the highest income earners in the country via working for families they are probably least equipped to come up with a solution.
What would happen to the vulnerable in a nation without a safety net? Where getting sick, losing your job, or being unable to find one, ageing, being a child or a student, having dependents to look after, sentences you to an unpleasant life as Hobbes might have imagined it?
It's hard to imagine being so vulnerable when you are young, healthy and moneyed, particularly if you have no one dependent on you for care or support. But anyone of us can find ourselves at the rough end of this stick at any time - I would like to think I am contributing to a society which looks after those in need, doesn't ignore them.
What could be the outcomes for those ignored? Starvation, no water, no power, no housing, constantly moving, cadging off friends and family, wearing out your welcome with everyone, missing out on education, no social interaction, ill health, no transport, going to the local library to keep warm, relying on substance abuse to get some form of oblivion, I could go on and on (no doubt some will think I already have). What about the children in those families? Do they deserve to miss out on an education, go to 18 schools in a few short years, have little to eat, be unable to get warm, not be able to join the others playing soccer or netball? Does anyone deserve to live a life so alienated and marginalised, regardless of their age?
I just find it difficult to imagine that there are people out there who would rather be able to buy a few more CDs, and ignore all of this. It shouldn't surprise me, it already happens now, with a benefit system. The trolls on Jordan's blog are evidence that there are those out there who don't see "them" (i.e. poor people) as human beings. How depressing is that.
11 comments:
I agree about the abatement rates, they need to be addressed. However just repeating, yet again, that "welfare dependancy is the problem" is not really an incisive comment - saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
I'm sure there are cases where people are taking advantage. BUT I would be surprised if it's much more than 5%, which is the general rate of false accusation/fraud you get with most things.
So why should we label and punish the 95% doing their best?
Jordan, I'm glad to hear the abatement rates have been cut.
Unfortunately I'm not as optimistic about the dog whistle politics as you are. When I have heard in my staffroom from Labour voting people the same racist and anti-poor statements I am reading from some of the RW bloggers, I start to despair.
Just as Howard used bashing immigrants and refugees to get re-elected, so we already know that Brash et al aren't above similar tactics. They weren't in 2005 and they came close, too close.
Gavin, what is your alternative to welfare for those in need?
How would you expect to be looked after if you couldn't support yourself or your family?
What about crime rates? That's one thing that the right seem to care about, and without welfare, the starving homeless people will be committing a *lot* of crime.
Good point CMT - I orginally had something about this in the post but thanks to the vagaries of blogger I lost the first version and had to write it again. It never ceases to amaze me that those who want to get tough on crime are often also the very same people who want to slash or abolish welfare. Either they can't join the dots or they really just want an excuse to put poor people behind locked doors, as far away as possible.
Does anyone deserve to live a life so alienated and marginalised, regardless of their age?
And following on from that, is it even in our best interests to allow this? I think not. The alienated and marginalised are the ones CMT is alluding to.
Look back to the 70s, where we went from a few beneficiaries to a great many. That's when the current multi-generation families we're wringing our hands about got started. In the late 70s and early 80s the former wage-earners in those families learned that there was nothing out there for them, and turned their backs on the rest of society. And three decades later they've taught their children. So was it welfare that did it to them? Surely not, because there was 40 years of welfare state before then. I'd say it was the death of the hope of anything better, myself.
There is incentive to get a job, but sometimes there just aren't enough jobs, or the incentive isn't enough, or someone is genuinely trapped.
Here's some incentives off the top of my head:
- self-esteem and pride (in a good way)
- not being labelled a bludger anymore
- possibly having some disposable income, and everything that goes with that
- more social interaction
But the number of unskilled jobs is dropping, and access to education is a difficult thing these days, especially for those who dropped out of school early and haven't had positive experiences with Govt agencies/education.
If society (the media, politicians, Govt agencies that you interact with, other people) treats you like crap why would you feel you have to give anything back to it?
After all there are plenty of moneyed right wing people who have lived pretty good lives who feel they shouldn't have to give anything (i.e. tax) back to their community, imagine how much more resentment there is from someone who has actually had a rough deal from school, family, the police, etc etc.
Brian I have a lot of time and respect for the work that the many many charities active in NZ do, it is worthy stuff.
However too often they are forced to do work that should be supported and funded by the Govt directly (eg health research a la the Cancer Society), or to pick up the pieces due to the paucity of care from the Govt (eg the Auckland City Mission papering over the cracks with their foodbanks etc).
(as an aside, I also find it distressing how charities are so competitive these days, particularly in producing things to give people to acknowledge their donation - I don't need to be given a flash badge or anything in return for my donation, it is just lessening the amount of money free for doing the good work they do).
I guess you and I have a fundamental disagreement that probably can't be resolved though, Brian. I believe that part of living in a society is to pay tax, so that we can pool our collective resources and provide those things that we decide as a nation we want and are better off clubbing together on. You think tax is theft - I think it is a necessary part of a democratic structure, and indeed that you can't have democracy without some form of taxation to pay for it (and whatever it is decided democratically that the group want to do).
Charities may be willing to do things they believe to be necessary but which the government fails to do, but that doesn't mean the people involved wouldn't rather be doing other things. Why should these people be forced to do all the work, while those without social consciences contribute nothing? And charities tend to be struggling at the best of times; how would they cope if the government gave up on welfare altogether and expected charities to pick up the slack? "The slack" being far more than charities are already hard pressed to manage.
What if giving out badges increases a charity's share of donations, but doesn't increase the total amount people are willing or able to donate? Competition will then result in all charities giving out badges just to end up back where they started, only worse off because of the extra expense of badge production. Yipee.
What CMT said, about charities being "forced." I should have used a different word in the context of this discussion, sorry about that.
Brian, I suspect how you and I would define what a govt ought to do would fall out quite differently - e.g. does your idea of life include access to health care, or just protection from harm? Would that protection from harm extend to things like food safety standards, or would it be restricted to assault? And then what about protection from harm to quality of life, rather than just actually dying? You see what I'm getting at here - your minimal state can grow quite quickly.
Also I'm sceptical about competition always making things more efficient. I've worked in private businesses and seen them be horrifically inefficient, even when the industry itself is highly competitive. Having a competitive environment can actually result in a lot of waste, particularly in the areas of advertising and promotion.
Just a few thoughts in my lunch break. Interesting discussion.
Brian S - and thank you for your sarcasm.
I could equally argue that a lack of government involvement could harm life, liberty and property. This is a bit of a pointless argument, as I said earlier, neither you nor I are going to give way anytime soon.
Besides which, governments do not monopolise problem-solving, far from it. Community groups of all sorts are always taking different approaches to problems in their communities, independent of Govt - churches are a good example.
Post a Comment