Some time ago, Michigan "reformed" their welfare system. As usual, I may not have all the details right but, last I heard, it went something like this: The way it was before, by the time you paid for childcare and transportation, you could actually lose money by getting a job and going off welfare. Some people believed that the welfare programs were too generous, but I think the problem was that the jobs didn't pay enough, and still don't. The first thing they did was change the name of the welfare department to "The Family Independence Agency". Then they made it so that you could go to work and, if your job didn't pay as much as you had been getting on welfare, they would make up the difference. They also require that, unless you are disabled, you have to either work or go to school at least 20 hours a week. I think they subsidize your childcare and tuition costs, but I'm not sure about that. The intent was that welfare would be a bridge to financial independence instead of something you become dependent on for the rest of your life. It was probably a good idea, and I'm sure it has helped some people, but the jobs still don't pay enough. My plan was to give people jobs that pay substantially more than welfare and, if the private sector couldn't or wouldn't do it, then the state should do it. You're right, though, it would cost more than the present system, and Michigan allegedly can't even afford to properly maintain their roads and bridges as it is. (Actually, I think that they could if they did it right, but that's a whole nother story.)
In my opinion, productivity is not always measured in tons or gallons. I like your idea that it should make the world a better place, but we can't all save the world singlehandedly, so anything that makes the world even a little better should be considered productive. When you were tending bar you must have been helping to make your customers happy because they were willing to pay for your services. Of course too much happiness can make a person sick, but part of your job must have been to tell them when they'd had enough happiness for one night. I agree that, if somebody is willing to pay you to do it, it's probably productive. Picking up litter and sweeping the streets may not be necessary for the survival of civilization, but they certainly make the world a better place.
I agree that different people have different levels of ambition. They tend to call others who have less ambition than themselves "lazy", and call the ones who have more ambition than themselves "workaholics". That's just human nature, "I'm normal, it's everybody else who's weird".
I'm starting to get the impression that ending poverty will require more than just putting everybody to work, if that's even possible. I think it's unlikely that automation will ever make human labor totally unnecessary. If the machines ever get to the point that they don't need us anymore, they might turn against us and kill us all. Smarter people than you and I have already thought of that, so I'm sure they won't ever let it go that far. Well, I hope they're smart enough to never let it go that far. Nevertheless, the demand for human labor has been declining for some time, and will continue to decline until it bottoms out somewhere. We need to find some other way for people to make a decent living. Welfare and low paying jobs will never lift people out of poverty, the best they can do is maintain people at their current level of poverty and keep them from sliding backwards. Education isn't the magic bullet either. I understand that a lot of college graduates are currently working in low paying jobs that don't even require a college degree. We need something else, and I don't know what that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment