- Nov 5, 2014
In general, with exceptions of people who live in reality, most everyone is afraid of COVID-19... not just the elderly.
Also, I know elderly who are afraid of credit cards, VCRs, tablets and phones, and if their stimulus checks will come. They are also afraid of the Flu, cancer, and respiratory diseases. People are afraid of a lot of things.
I see what you are saying, but it doesn't lend any credibility to anything. I don't see your point here as it doesn't advance your side of the debate/viewpoint.
Just because a group of people are scared of something, doesn't mean we all pay the price for it.
My wife is scared of mice. I don't make you put rat traps in your home all over the place when you don't have a mouse problem, do I?
Sure. I know a lot of them. I don't know what they would say as I haven't polled them. However, I know just based on logic some would care, some would not. It's just math/stats on that.
However, I am sure many would care if they were on social security or a pension and those checks stopped coming, like many workers have been done recently with their jobs or businesses. I bet they would care then. It's easy not to care when you still get a check handed to you.
I wouldn't care about toilet paper until it stopped becoming available. When things are going right for you, its easy to not care. People only care when they get FOMO or when shit hits the fan for them.
The government as it is right now is inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt. It should not have any business in "looking out" for anyone in the example you intend, meaning looking out for people when it comes to bailouts and checks and money. In other examples I could say yes, in this example.. no to any.
I could find examples when government should look out for people... but in this situation as you intend.. no
Have an older brother I met only 3 times, and I also have 2 younger brothers. Grew up in a step family.
While I can imagine families where parents played favorites for real, as you grow older you realize that many times some parents do what they can, when they can. That maybe it's not favorite playing. I can see how THIS could happen in other families, but since you are asking me directly I will speak on my example.
When I was 16, my parents didn't buy me a car. I bought my own. They had 0 money. It was run down and 30 years old and I had to pay for my own gas and insurance. When I was 18, my parents promised me to help afford me to go to college, but instead they told me to try community college first for 2 years to make sure I liked it.. so I did and 2 years later they told me they couldn't help me anyways. What a waste.... I paid for that 2 years on my own and all my books and everything else. Zero help.
My 2 younger brothers on the other hand.. both got newer cars ( within 10 years old ) when they turned 16. Both of them since have had at least 5 cars EACH since then that my parents gave them for free each time. One brother got his entire college paid for and the other has had at least $30k in legal fees paid for.
I could have said my parent played favorites right? I could have been mad and upset, right?
They got cars left and right each, and college and massive amounts of debt paid off.. I on the other hand had to scratch a living from nothing with not even as much as a school book paid for.
But 1 younger brother is 8 years younger than me, the other one is 16 years younger than me.
8 years can change a family dynamic. My parents didn't have money when I was 16 and 18. They did 8 years later and 8 years later after that. They have money now, but not then.
As a mature adult, I knew that the financial situation then, was not the same as 8 years later. My parents had money at X time, when they didn't at Y time.
That's not favoritism, it's just how life plays the cards handed to you, at the time you playing. You get multiple hands in the game as time goes on. The cards weren't there for me when I was 16, they were when my brothers were.
And this isn't all about money. Parents can play what seems favoritism in other ways, that are not really favoritism. It's just the situation at that time and place and under those conditions.
If my parents did play favorites, it paid off in my favor. I did get the favoritism in the end. Im the only one that hasn't needed a dime from them my whole life. I can pay my bills and Im not a heroin addict who got their kid taken away from them. I don't have to rely on my mom at 34 years old to supply me and my children supper at night.
Also at this time, my grandmother is doing her will and leaving her house/estate to 2 kids. There are 6 kids total. The other 4 are pissed off and saying grandma is playing favorites. Sounds reasonable to claim that, right?
But the 2 kids she is leaving her estate too are pretty much homeless and jobless and unmarried with no life or social skills. The other 4 own their own homes, cars, and are doing well and are married and from all other view points need no help money wise. So is this really favoritism, or making sure the ones that need help, actually get it while the others who don't need help don't snatch it away from the ones that do?
I am positive some families play favorites. I am smart enough to know that. However, again I don't see where this point adds to your debate/viewpoint though.
Why do you think lifting the quarantine would cause chaos? We have no data on that. We have never seen this in our lifetime to know it will do that. This is pure assumption going on.
We don't live in a vacuum. We have no proof it would.
There is no evidence you have that we would be led to stagnation or degradation if we lift the quarantine.
In fact, we are right now at degradation when it comes to how the markets are doing. So being in quarantine has actually produced this already.
Ok, you point out SSA. But you know what I meant.
We have never shut down the country or even put masks on our face before and stood 6 feet apart in any other time ( in our lifetimes ) for the elderly. You know what I was mentioning. Come on.
However you picked out the SSA instead as a counter.
Social Security, depending on when you define it as a program, was actually a system developed for the poor, not the elderly. It was brought over from "poor laws" that have been around since ancient times. Granted one could make an argument that the elderly are poor, but this concept was not just for elderly.
If we then forward to the first SS program that resembles somewhat helping people in the US, that program was actually intended for disabled civil war veterans and widows and children of those vets who died in combat. Again, not elderly.
Past that, Social Security ( as we know officially as SS monthly benefits from the SSA ) did not come about until 1935 as lump sum payments ( 1940 ushered in monthly payments ). This is what was called "old age pension" and it only came about as a result of the Great Depression. But it's not actually for old age, it's actually for a lot of other things too that do not involve the elderly like disabled people and orphans, etc.
If America really cares about the elderly with SSA, why do you have to pay into it all your life to get it? Why are your benefits determined by what you worked and how much you made? If American really cared, you would not have had to pay into it most of your life ( or be married to someone who did ) and then get a check that is determined by what you paid in. They determine you benefits by the average of the highest amounts you made over ( i think ) 25 years.
If America cared, it would just cut a check to anyone aged 67 or older for the same amount given to everyone. Not based on what your average pay in was over X years ( or what your spouse did ).
But no, its a tax you already pay into ( you or your spouse ) and MAYBE get later if you don't die before your old enough. if you die, you get nothing... gee thanks! So really, it's money YOU PAID IN YOURSELF AS A SAVINGS ACCOUNT, except you don't get it unless you live to be 67 ( or 64 if taking early ) and you only get little chunks of each month. Hope you don't die anytime soon once you start getting it... that's a waste of all your money!
Also if America cared, why would politicians have robbed it left and right for so many years to feed into other programs? This is why it's a tax. it can be used for other "causes" as deemed fit.
We don't care about the elderly. It's a ploy to get you to mind your p's and q's and do as you're told playing on your heart strings. A cause to get you to rally behind and look the other way while you get pulled over the barrel.
If you struggled by the bootstraps to get to where you are, it doesn't mean that everyone else has to go through the same experience too. This might be hard to accept, as it'll take a bit of self-forgiveness; but, if the state offered free college when you were younger, your life would be easier. Same with healthcare, retirement, and paying for children. There's only so many things that people deem important to life and, if the state can take care of those things, the quality of life for all individuals in that country would be better.
Here's a list of programs that I'm for:
- Children's money (Kindergeld) - 50% of the cost of having a child is given to the Head of Household, for up to 3 children. This way, any parent who wants to have children can. Parenting shouldn't be something that's reserved for those who can afford it. Likewise, a good childhood shouldn't be something that's reserved for those whose family can afford it. All children should get a good childhood.
- Permanent unemployment at the poverty line - If you don't want to work or can't work, you get to live at the poverty line. Will you go hungry? No, you won't be suffering from hunger; but, at the same time, you won't be living a comfortable life either. For entrepreneurs, this will allow them to take greater risks in projects that don't have a clear ROI right away. For example, Skype and Spotify came from countries where they had generous welfare programs. The founders there were able to make tools that didn't have to make a profit, yet are really valuable to society.
- Free Internet - Pretty obvious that people need Internet in today's society. It should be a basic right.
- Free college - Higher education shouldn't be reserved for the rich either. It should be accessible for all, as long as they can meet the requirements of attending the school. We shouldn't waste beautiful minds, just because they happened to come from a poor family.
- Free trade schools - Same as above but for those who want to work with their hands instead of with their mind.
- Free healthcare - Health care debt is what causes many people to go into bankruptcy. Also, a for-profit healthcare system is only set up to maximize profit. Healthcare shouldn't be about maximizing profit as this pandemic shows that there's other concerns, such as preparing for a pandemic.
If you happen to be an anarchist Libertarian, then you're more than free to be one; but, anarchy is not a realistic policy for a nation of 200 million people. That might be your desired Utopia, but it isn't realistic. You'd still need Government, which has sovereignty over you, like it or not. The fact that you're still in society implies that you consent to the Government.
Good post. I agree with a lot of it. Social security is interesting, and now I'm moving way off topic ... but I've been thinking a lot about this lately.
There are actually a few very valid points for having social security (and even universal basic income).
It's also more relevant than earlier.
Manual jobs are disappearing. I'm not talking about the whole A.I. is taking our jobs thing, but even simple jobs now require certain computer skills. Dealing with technology and computers is required for most jobs, even previously "simple" jobs.
Repairing a car now is way different than repairing cars 20 years ago. When you're in the military now, you deal with much more advanced technology, it's not just giving a person a gun anymore. There will always be manual jobs, just not enough, and still, intelligence is something people are born with.
Operating a computer, abstract problem solving, and learning multiple languages will take a certain intelligence, and more jobs are requiring these skills. Ideally, anyone that lost their job could just re-train for a new job, in something "hot" like coding - but it's not possible for many people. We're all at a forum for online marketing and building "online stuff", so chances are that most people in here are above average intelligence, and it may be hard to understand that many people don't even know how a computer works - or even have the cognition to learn how to use one.
So when the cutting point for employment increases, let's say in terms of IQ, a larger fraction of the population are unemployable. If average IQ is 100 (I have no clue, and I'm not saying IQ it the best measure), half will have an IQ below average. Though intelligence is an abstract measure, and hard to quantify, it's not something that can be trained beyond a certain point. Which has been fine for thousands of years - I guess.
Basically, more people are left behind as society progresses - but we all want progress.
For the same reasons, retirement, as we have it today, won't be around for many more years. Since jobs are less labor-intensive and people live longer, there is no reason why you should stop working at some arbitrary number like 62-67 years old.
From a cost point of view, it's cheaper to pay out money to poor people than the consequences of having more poor people. Paying some tax/contributions is a small cost to be able to have lower crime, a more educated population, and more stability, and you can make more money in the end in a society like that. To put out the fires afterward is much more expensive (prisons, crime prevention, hospital beds ..).
It attracts more business and build more wealth. Most people, even in high paying jobs in high tax countries, are barely paying their share. The bulk of the bill is paid by businesses and a few rich guys (really rich, not online money rich). But then again, they benefit by having a whole society full of consumers with purchasing power, with skills to fill the jobs they need.
It's easy to recoup the cost. Making money isn't that hard, and I'm sure it's probably harder in a poor country with no/low tax.
Basically, it's a cheap way of keeping stability in society - sort of an ante you have to pay to play the modern society business game. It seems unfair when you look at isolated cases, I think it's unfair too when people get free money and I don't, but it works well.
The systems: social security, taxes, education, and retirement haven't kept up with the dynamics of modern society though, so sooner or later it will have to change.
Yup. We need a welfare state in this day and age. Free market capitalism and Libertarianism came about when the Industrial revolution was just beginning. We went through Modernism and are not in post-Modernism. Those ideas served its purpose but we need a welfare state or else we'll be regressing.