Reply to Explain to me the American mindset around work, entitlement, and earning

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Explain to me the American mindset around work, entitlement, and earning"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

When it's about any left wing or moderately left policy - student loan debt forgiveness or free college, a public health system, a nationally higher minimum wage, family leave and childcare, public housing, the increased unemployment payouts over the pandemic, people like to mock these ideas and call them "free stuff" and "entitlements" for people who haven't earned them, as if that's some horrible thing.

I am not even arguing that I am in favor of every single one of these left ideas. There are valid criticisms of whether these things can be implemented soundly and whether we can configure a tax structure, without loopholes, that would pay for them, and whether as the assumed "world police" we can afford to reduce our military budget enough to have the social programs of the levels of other countries. There are obviously logistical criticism of any large scale government program in such a huge country being implemeneted from scratch.

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day (or at the very least deceive, manipulate, and rig the system every day). Why is it so offensive that somebody receives a home if you don't think their low income job means they didn't work hard enough for it? Furthermore, there is an attitude that glorified suffering, like "I had to work 80 hour weeks and suffer to get into the middle class, so you should too." Is it that crazy to want things to get better and easier for future generations? Is it offensive to your great uncle who died of polio that the polio vaccine was created and people don't have it anymore? Wasn't the innovative vision of the future supposed to be a world where automation and technology makes things easier, so less labor is needed to provide for the world, and people could have more leisure time? Instead, work productivity has doubled, more or less, and work weeks and work days have gotten longer.

I'll also say that I'm not a Communist. I don't agree with state control or everything and government-appointed roles for people. I am American by marriage, not by birth, and still, some ideas are foreign to me. Why is leisure time and vacations looked down upon? even if it's just spending time with your family, caring for children or the elderly? Why is this devalued in favor of work?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone, for the environment especially, and for health, [b]if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less[/b]? I think so many of the problems and needs that are especially prevalent in America are connected with overworking. So maybe it's not the end of the world if people receive food, healthcare, and shelter without having to "earn" it?[/quote]

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics