[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Cuts to the "welfare state" have in many respects improved the economy in Australia, and benefits many people. I acknowledge that its probable that more "rich" people benefited and more "poor" people were worse off, by and large "middle australia*" has improve in leaps and bounds after shedding bureaucratic bollocks and benefiting from a period of economic growth where virtually everyone who is looking for work can find it.

That'll teach them for being poor!

I have four jobs, studying my Honours at Uni - and WA's unemployment rate is about 2% with ~4.5% nationally.

Some might say that you aren't the stereotypical unemployed person. There are deeper issues than being lazy. Social and cultural preoblems associated with growing up in poor neighbourhoods can create far more serious problems. Presentation and general attitude as well as the long-term mental effects of being surrounded by poverty 24 hours a day.

Low levels of expectation, much of which is genuine, can create what J. K. Galbraith calls the accommodation of poverty. In some situations it actually makes more sense to accept the poverty rather than wasting time and effort in actions that will probably fail. Why enhance your skills when you live an economic blackspot where there are no jobs anyway?

I believe that there is more benefit for people having a job than being a "dole bludger", and not only because of the way it affects the state's finances;

Whether it is better for someone to be doing mindless, physically draining labour all day for pittance, is really a matter of opinion. If you want to talk about the states finances you may want to consider the excessive focus of welfare on the middle and upper classes who don't need it.

Apart from the social and moral aspects of raising living standards generally, there are many arguments that are more convincing than 'the rich need tax cuts as incentives whilst the poor need the grinding burden of poverty', which is basically what you are arguing.

quite a bit of research shows that being unemployed for long periods is psychologically damaging.

This is true, but it does not equate that all work causes you to enter into a state of Buddist enlightentment. Human beings need some work, it is part of who we are. It just so happens that the most labourous work is the work with the least financial rewards.

Welfare states that Europe has seems to prolong and increase the proportion of long-term unemployed,

This is false.

presumably leading to more psychological damage to less employable people (which are usually the poorest people with the least skills, and/or people who are somehow unfit for normal work, neither of whom can afford anything resembling proper psychological treatment).

So these are the 'dole bluggers' you were complaining of earlier?

All that aside, the argument that reduced spending on social welfare immediately and only benefits the rich through a tax cut clearly doesnt follow.

Not even when welfare payments are cut to fund tax cuts for the rich?

If anything, in Australia, social welfare is still too high, with "middle class welfare" being the means for considerable electoral success for the previous commonwealth government - "sorting out" that kind of crap needs to be done, imo, as its a waste of money. Welfare should go to those who need it, not to those whose votes need buying.

But this doesn't get done due to electoral issues. These are the people who vote, if you don't appease them then they will vote for the other party offering what they want. This is part of the reason for the lack of divergence between mainstream parties.

Your definition of those who 'need' welfare seems to be rather narrow, and it has been argued that the best way to provide for the poorest is to provide universal coverage, to ensure the compliance of the middle classes. At the end of the day, even if the working class did start voting in huge numbers their interests would still be in conflict with the capitalist system as a whole. When it comes to the crunch, it is the interests of the poor which will bew neglected.

As a case in point, the emphasis on curbing inflation rather than unemployment. There are good reasons to believe that reducing unemployment through tax rises in a recession is better than curbing inflation through raising interest rates, but these are politically unsound methods so what is believed is what is conveniant to believe, even though it doesn't work.

*unlike britain, middle australia is a huge proportion of the population due to being more or less un-stratified (at worst, there are three rough classes based on wealth, not birth).

That's funny because in the UK we have 24 separate social classes.

Inherited wealth and fortunes of birth tend to go hand in hand.

It is, and it isnt. There wasnt all that much success in India in the late 70's and 80's, but in other instances where the limitiations of such a policy were well known and used in a proper framework which sought to minimise harm from such a policy (ie, doing it "right"), has helped other economies quite a bit. iirc, New Zealand experienced this in the late 80's to mid 90's. I might need to go check that.

The limitations of these policies were well known, are well known and still they are being employed by world ifnancial istitutions such as the IMF and this dogmatic approach is wreaking havoc in many countires in the world, Argentina in 2001 being a notable example.

In australia, much of the people in the top tax brackets are actually small business owners as there is no distinction between their individual self and the business entity. I thought this was the same for britain, but then i suppose its just easier to blame the rich people for everyone's misery.

Do you think this is an accident? There are a number of political advantages to be gained from both politicians and the middle classes. Who is going to call for a higher tax on the rich or a new income tax bracket, who is going to risk freightening the middle class in such as way? Why would the middle class call for a tax on the richest when it could risk a tax rise for them as well?

In terms of social classes? Perhaps in Britain it does - i think i read somewhere that 7% of all schoolkids attend "public schools", however those 7% form 45% or so of all university entrants (with the remainder being those government schools who can discriminate by marks). In that case, yes i can see such a poor system doing nothing. In australia, this isnt the case. Private schools (similar to british public schools, but arent) are more likely to get kids into uni, but - once there - Public schoolkids are more likely to graduate.

I'm not just talking about going to university, I'm talking about going to the elite universities, Oxford and Cambridge, the ones where most pupils come from pubic schools and makes the social connections required to raise to the highest levels of politics, for example.

Going to university can improve your career chances but some univiersites are 'better' than others and getting into them is not easy for the poor. This imbalance reinforces the class structure.

Either way, a large number of people i know at uni are from the normal state education system. Could their families afford Private schooling? probably not, and thus in Australia kids who are more or less intelligent and/or willing to work hard are able to achieve social mobility (defined as going to uni - still not sure if Arts students qualify ) if they are so inclined.

My point is, its not the same in every country. Generally its shit in britain, but then that's the point of having the UK in all measurements.

You do realise the claim 'inferiority' of poor people is the result of social and economic forces rather them being geneticallt shit, right?

I think that is a contentious issue. Schooling should provide the person with the skills that they will need to find and keep a job, preferably in the field(s) to which they aspire to be involved in. Most jobs require some degree of human interaction and thus interpersonal skills. Most jobs require basic knowledge of mathematics, communication, and the ability to think for oneself. Anything that isnt menial labour requires specific technical training, from carpentry to medicine, which is usually to cumbersome to do at (secondary) school. Once out of school, having any school based qualifications become more or less irrelevant as previous occupations become paramount in consideration.

There's a good thread about education (which might be damaged by horns purges*), check it out.

***** you KaneD

I suppose, in australia, there isnt much point in teaching kids to "question authority", as being a larikin is a mainstay of our popular culture. BUt there is some limit to teaching kinds to 'thinking critically' - generally by some limited attention spans, plus the general vagueness of the topic makes it hard to teach and learn. An educations system that is grounded in practicality is important, imo, otherwise Art departments at uni get waaay over the top.

'Rebellion in social acceptable forms' is not thinking critically. Even if it were, this would still represent a tiny minority, who generally 'grow out' of it.

What is your problem with the arts?

Imo, you need to stop reading Orwell and et al, and get out and smell the roses. Apparently there are quite a few in Britain. Dont be so bloody dour and generally shit.

Well, i do suppose it could be the weather.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly that the points I'm making have any substance. IF they did, how could we all be so happy?

What really enforces the class system is not attending school, not being motivated whilst there, and doing **** all work. If you then blame the state or the rich or others for your squandered opportunity and personal failure, then all you do is make yourself more miserable.

Yes, everyone has exactly the same oppertunities and exactly the same social situation. If you can make it roughing it through your hardcore private school, then surely all those other people who come from single parent families living on welfare on run down estates, rife with crime, unemployment and a generally bleak future almost guranteed, well they can make it as well. Otherwise they're just lazy and should be made to suffer for it. Maybe more poverty will spur them on to better things. It hasn't worked yet, but maybe next time will be different. Meanwhile you can sit back and relax safe in the knowledge that the only thing you can do is support the increase of suffering by cutting welfare benefits whilst coincidentally improving your own economic situation through a tax cut, because let's face it, you've earned it!

The plight of the poorest in all societies - that there are always too many placed too close together and generally neglected - is essentially a constant.

Oh well, I feel better already!

Nothing you say is new, or is likely to change significantly.

Surely this is more of a reason to keep raising the issue rather than accept it meekly and be content in my own self-satisfaction?

The welfare state definitely doesnt help, given that britain has massive slums. The free market of the US doesnt help, given their situation is perhaps worse. Former "communist" countries, everyone was living in a slum. Your whining about the plight of people doesnt stop it from happening. What are you going to do about it?

We can argue about whether alleviating poverty is possible in a capitalist system, but that can be for another thread. What is clear however, is that reducing benefits to the poor to give benefits to the rich only exacerbates the problem of social inequality. This in turn makes the problems worse, more difficult to rectify and more challenging to escape. These policies will lead to gettoisation like in America and that is something I want to see in Britain. At least if it does happen all the poor people will be firmly out of sight.