Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want To Be

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Have you noticed the little recession we're in?

They also might want to click the link above showing 4000 unemployed people who are able out looking for work.

if that's not being responsible, I don't know what is.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You don't know what tomorrow will bring. Because of your situation you may believe that you will have your job 'forever' but you never know what may happen that *POW* you could be unable to work.

Kevin not everyone's life is like yours, people on GC have told you that time and time again and I don't think you get that. It's not everyone has the ability to find a job 'just like that' and it's not for a lack of trying. Like others on here, I have friends with multiple degrees who can't find work regardless of the income spectrum they are looking.

I also agree with AGDee, libramunoz and MC have said. It's not as 'easy' or 'simplistic' as you say...hell if you want to be a help, give libramunoz a hand, make yourself useful, start a job bank or something so that way you can at least feel like you've helped someone who needs it. It kills me also the people that complain that unemployed people are lazy but aren't doing anything to help them.


Kevin it really amazes me how you come out looking when you enter into these kinds of debates...and you keep coming back.

Bravo. This is the first time in a long time that I've completely agreed with you!

Kevin, God forbid, nothing ever happens to you and your job. God forbid that you never lose your license for whatever reason. God forbid YOUR CLIENTS, who you live off of, never lose their jobs and therefore end up not being able to pay you. God forbid, the area you live in doesn't end up like the areas we live in where people can't afford lawyers anymore.

Godspeed asshole.

[LegallyBrunette]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I hope you're right about being gainfully employed the rest of your life. But I wouldn't take that for granted, if I were you. I know too many former lawyers who prove the assumption wrong.

This.

Kevin, I don't know where you went to law school but I've gathered that you are a recently barred attorney. Do you REALLY not have any classmates who are unemployed (not that most of them can take advantage of unemployment benefits)? Even Harvard Law School has been having issues with placing the classes of 2009 and 2010. Better yet, and more relevant to this discussion, call your Career Services office and ask how many older alumni report being laid off.

Originally Posted by Ggirl617

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this issue, but I don't understand why people who aren't mentally or physically disabled can't be completely self sufficient and take total responsibility for themselves

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course you can. You can come to the conclusion that one size doesn't fit all -- that one answer doesn't cover all situations, that every case is different. I know you learned how to do that in law school.

Some people are indeed resting on the dole. Others are doing everything within their power to find work -- any work -- and to make ends meet, but because of the job market in general, inability for one reason or another to move, health issues (their own or family members) or a host of other reasons, it's not happening for them.

The simplistic thinking comes in by assuming that what applies to some people applies to all people.

Well, I could go all philosophical on you and say because no man is an island entire of himself and because we are a society, not a mere collection of individuals, but I really don't think that advances dialogue.

These questions are a somewhat different discussion. I'll readily grant there can be a wide variety of political solutions to the problems of how to deal with the unemployed from total socialism to total reliance on personal and private charity and everything in between. These are hard questions and there are no easy answers. It's easy enough to say "they should find work," but what about children? It's easy enough to say "why should I pay their bills" but what about my (and your) health insurance premiums and other bills that are higher to recoup what others can't pay?

The blithe "well, they just don't really want to work so why should we help them" is a cop-out, a rationalization. It avoids asking the hard political questions about what society's role is or should be and what the implications to society as a whole of doing this, doing that or doing nothing at all actually are.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't mean this as a "Rah, Rah, Welfare." My point is simply that it's a complex and complicated issue (or set of issues) that requires real thinking, not platitudes.

I hope you're right about being gainfully employed the rest of your life. But I wouldn't take that for granted, if I were you. I know too many former lawyers who prove the assumption wrong.

Brilliant, as always! The bolded made me chuckle.

Some of the posts in this thread are...interesting. They must be written by people who have never experienced unforeseen troubles and/or don't know anyone who has. The unemployed range from the average citizen who was always living paycheck to paycheck (some people commenting in this thread are probably doing the same--don't get brand new now and act like you'd be AWESOME if you lost your job)-------to people with PhDs who are standing in unemployment lines.

In fact, ALL of the unemployed people who I know have MBAs, masters, or PhDs. And they have ALL managed to get over the fear and depression to constantly seek employment. As someone said before, they are denied a whole lot of jobs because they are overqualified. Many companies would rather EXPLOIT low wage or moderate wage labor than hire someone with a higher degree who may be more conscious and demanding of everything.

So, many of these people have started their own businesses (thank GOD for savings investment money to invest in a business when you're unemployed, eh?); found SOMEONE who will hire them while they keep their eyes open for a CAREER option instead of a JOB; or done things like gone back to their cleaning business backgrounds and started power washing and cleaning homes for money.

Can you imagine how heartbreaking and time consuming it is to have a DOCTORATE and to be passing out cards for a power washing business where YOU are the main power washer on almost a full-time basis? That can be taxing on your mental and emotional health, your savings account (you have to buy things in order to clean things), and you possibly can't tend to your family as well because your new job isn't like your former position in your CAREER.

The people who are fucking the system are the EXCEPTION, just as with social welfare. People are giving the exception too much weight. It goes without saying that people who fuck the system should not get over on the system. DUH.

[DrPhil]

I'm not trying to be evil or get personal but, honestly, what makes Kevin so special that he could find a job "just like that?"

I don't think he's as different as he thinks he is unless he has strong and influential social ties that prevent any hint of struggle regardless of the circumstance.

Seriously.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ggirl617

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this issue, but I don't understand why people who aren't mentally or physically disabled can't be completely self sufficient and take total responsibility for themselves

Completely self-sufficient with total responsibility for themselves? Most of us can't meet those criteria. If you're employed by someone else, you are not completely self-sufficient nor do you have total responsibility for yourself. You rely on your employer for income and benefits. Even if you're self-employed or own your own business, you likely rely on others to provide materials you need for your business or, at the least, enough others who will (and can) pay for your services.

True self-sufficiency is rare in modern economies.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Brilliant, as always! The bolded made me chuckle.

And you make me blush.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I'm not trying to be evil or get personal but, honestly, what makes Kevin so special that he could find a job "just like that?"

He's working in his dad's firm.

Not that there's anything wrong with that -- not at all. But I've been around long enough to know that doesn't necessarily provide eternal job security.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

He's working in his dad's firm.

Not that there's anything wrong with that -- not at all. But I've been around long enough to know that doesn't necessarily provide eternal job security.

Ohhhh, bless his heart.

I say this with sincere warmth in my heart because I feel like I'm talking about a 10 year old. NOT because he works for his dad's firm (family firms and other businesses are fantabulous ) but because he thinks that means instant eternal employment. Awwwwww *pinches his cheeks*

[agzg]

This may get me flamed, but has anyone (especially those against welfare/unemployment benefits) thought about the fact that some wealthy white people prefer to KEEP some on welfare collecting welfare?

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by agzg

This may get me flamed, but has anyone (especially those against welfare/unemployment benefits) thought about the fact that some wealthy white people prefer to KEEP some on welfare collecting welfare?

Not literally, but I do believe that the upper class needs the underclass.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by agzg

This may get me flamed, but has anyone (especially those against welfare/unemployment benefits) thought about the fact that some wealthy white people prefer to KEEP some on welfare collecting welfare?

Right, let's not think for a minute that there is not an institutional, political, and social investment in keeping the status quo--welfare included. That get's to the complexity of the issues that MC references, which trite, politically expedient declarations don't even begin to take into consideration.

ETA: @ Sen I, exactly. Much as they like to complain and point fingers.

[sceniczip]

I think what irritates me is the only person I know who is unemployed is just totally using the system. She found out she's losing her house and just said "oh well they won't take it for at least a year so whatever." She was offered a job and didn't take it because she couldn't ride her bike there even though she drives her car everyday to the barn where she has a horse. Since I know no one else who's unemployed that colors my opinion and could make me think most people just are misusing the system. I know that's not true because of things other people have said but I can see how people could have bad opinions about people who are unemployed/on welfare.

[agzg]

Well, theoretically, keeping the "poor white trash" and others from being able to afford anything to better their own lives - either by making it impossible to find a job that would lift them out of poverty while on welfare or by gaining the education necessary to move up the social/class ladder, and allowing that cycle to loop from parent to child for eternity, certainly does lessen the competetition for me, doesn't it?

It doesn't necessarily have to be conscious thought - perhaps subconsciously.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course you can. You can come to the conclusion that one size doesn't fit all -- that one answer doesn't cover all situations, that every case is different. I know you learned how to do that in law school.

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

The simplistic thinking comes in by assuming that what applies to some people applies to all people.

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Well, I could go all philosophical on you and say because no man is an island entire of himself and because we are a society, not a mere collection of individuals, but I really don't think that advances dialogue.

These questions are a somewhat different discussion. I'll readily grant there can be a wide variety of political solutions to the problems of how to deal with the unemployed from total socialism to total reliance on personal and private charity and everything in between. These are hard questions and there are no easy answers. It's easy enough to say "they should find work," but what about children? It's easy enough to say "why should I pay their bills" but what about my (and your) health insurance premiums and other bills that are higher to recoup what others can't pay?

With my health insurance, I get to choose my risk pool and pay for the coverage voluntarily. If I don't pay my taxes because I don't want to be a part of that particular risk pool, I go to jail. I see that you're trying to correlate those two things, but private insurance and public entitlements aren't as comparable as you suggest.

The blithe "well, they just don't really want to work so why should we help them" is a cop-out, a rationalization. It avoids asking the hard political questions about what society's role is or should be and what the implications to society as a whole of doing this, doing that or doing nothing at all actually are.

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I'm not trying to be evil or get personal but, honestly, what makes Kevin so special that he could find a job "just like that?"

I don't think he's as different as he thinks he is unless he has strong and influential social ties that prevent any hint of struggle regardless of the circumstance.

Seriously.

Exactly...and that is my whole point...just because he has these ties doesn't mean everyone else has the wherewithal to do so, as demonstrated by the statements of people.

Same as he knows he will have a job 'the rest of his life'.

Tomorrow is never promised.

Trading Places, anyone?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

Kevin, what you don't seem to understand is that you are arguing from a false premise, and it is that false premise -- the blanket assertion that all unemployment is essentially the fault of the unemployed -- that I am challenging.

Where have I ever said that there should be no cut-off or advocated indefinite guaranteed mimimums? I haven't suggested either. I've merely said that dismissing the entire problem with "well, it's their own fault" is a cop-out. One rarely gets to the right solution if one doesn't at least attempt to understand the problem.

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Simplistic thinking is never needed. Real problems require real thinking.

But if you're really concerned about the overall economy, maybe we should add "corporate welfare" to the discussion. Oh, wait, that's a complicated issue ill-served by simplistic sound bytes, too.

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.

Clearly, you are assuming facts not in evidence, as I've never said society's role should be bigger, unless you mean bigger than nothing. I don't know what "my way" is, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Frankly, I readily admit I don't know what the right answer is. But I do know that ignoring or dismissing the problem isn't the right answer. I know that refusing at least an attempt to understand the problem isn't the answer. And I know that every option, including doing little or nothing, can have unintended consequences, and that sometimes those unintended consequences turn out to be bigger problems than the original problem. Which is why critical thinking skills, not simplistic explanations, are called for.

And to be honest, it's why when I hear someone offer a response of essentially qu'ils mangent de la brioche, I assume they don't have any real clue what they're talking about or insights worth paying attention to.