99 Weeks Later, Jobless Have Only Desperation

[CatholicGerman]

Perhaps the solution is to make the unemployed work 20 hours a week doing government service and 20 hours a week looking for a job. The government service being, for instance, cleaning up trash on the side of the road.

I’m thinking Keynes here. Dig ditch. Fill back in ditch. Dig a new ditch.

Picking lettuce would be an immediate promotion!

 

[CatholicGerman]

Surely, there is no reason to be afraid of simple ordinary differential equations and saying one factor is proportional to another.

That’s what he says. He gets very frustrated with me and keeps reminding me that it is all very simple. But the variables move around and do dangerous things in my head.

 

[CatholicGerman]

No, see, the way it should work is this: some engineer was designing airplanes two years ago, and got laid off because orders dropped off. Now, he is obligated to accept $40,000, even though the plane isn’t any cheaper, and profits are up, because other engineers are unemployed. If he doesn’t do this, he is a moral derelict, a socialist, lazy, and probably deserves to be on the street.

No, he’s just being practical. Why accept 40k when you can wait it out on unemployment and have a chance at 60k again? Accepting 40k wouldn’t make any sense. So obviously, the system needs to be changed so that 40k starts looking right darn appealing again.

 

[Good_News_1]

And the employer is entitled to reject his offer and make a counter-offer at a lower price.

Exactly: and taking a too low offer, or an offer out of your field, isn’t necessarily a smart thing to do. The economy will recover, and finding yourself in a job where you aren’t using your skills is probably worse than holding out. I don’t think having the labor market give in to desperation is a good thing - I believe the “liberal media” when they tell me that, at the moment, we are in a jerky, slow recovery.

At any rate, I find it humorous that everyone thinks you are a “liberal”.

I sincerely appreciate that.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Exactly: and taking a too low offer, or an offer out of your field, isn’t necessarily a smart thing to do. The economy will recover, and finding yourself in a job where you aren’t using your skills is probably worse than holding out. I don’t think having the labor market give in to desperation is a good thing - I believe the “liberal media” when they tell me that, at the moment, we are in a jerky, slow recovery.

I sincerely appreciate that.

I agree that unemployment insurance makes sense to keep valuable human resources from being wasted. The controversy is over extended unemployment insurance. At what point are we seeing diminishing returns and merely subsidizing laziness?

Well… of course we are in a jerky, slow recovery. The question is… how far out is the full recovery? If it is too far out, it will feel like a depression to ordinary citizens, which (in my characteristically populist opinion) is the only thing that counts.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Oh, goody! It’s a fight of the Bible verses. Count me in!

Your quote was about private charity. This excerpt is dealing with communitarian resource transfers. Only those who are willing to contribute, as they are able, should be allowed to eat from the common table.

Sitting around playing on your Playstation and collecting a check should result in being “put to shame”. Not because he is an enemy, but because he is a lazy brother who should know better, and obviously needs to be reminded.

How is losing one’s job being lazy?
How is this charitable?

Remember what this thread is about: the jobless due to the crisis.
I don’t know, maybe your inner political monologue has somehow hindered your capacity to listen to anything else, such as what the thread is about: workers in hardship, not hobos (and what if it were hobos? Where does our Lord say love your neighbor except for the bums?).

We do not turn our back on our brother. We are Catholic. Leave that to the Ayn Rands and the Jean Calvins.

Caritas!

 

[CatholicGerman]

Oh my. We’ve brought out the Rand Bogeyman. It was only a matter of time before that happened, as the temptation is overwhelming.

Since you appear to be Christ’s official speaker for the day, and have used the debate-stopping Caritas, I shall have to cease and desist in voicing an alternative opinion immediately. What should we do without you? A lone voice of Christian piety on a Catholic forum. Who needs facts, debate, Biblical scholarship, or logic when we have magic words, subtle and insidious insults, and shaming language?

Thank you for clarifying that for us all. I’m grateful to have been thusly enlightened.

Not.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Delightful rhetorical wave of a hand…

Except that it contains no argument. You are irate, it appears, and although I feel your pain, it contributes nothing to the discussion.

If you do not like old Matt, Luke, Mark, Wojtyla or Vat II… maybe this is not your forum.

 

[CatholicGerman]

What a coincidence! I was just about to pay you the same compliment. You have contributed nothing to a constructive discussion except superfluous piety. The fact that this is a Catholic forum, and that you have identified yourself as being a Catholic, means that you don’t have to go on and on about how wonderfully and superiorly Christian you are. We are all duly impressed, but we would have all assumed the same even if you hadn’t informed us explicitly and used Latin. Your contribution is therefore nil.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming. Some of us are actually interested in the topic at hand, rather than merely pontificating to a captive audience.

 

[Good_News_1]

If you do not like old Matt, Luke, Mark, Wojtyla or Vat II… maybe this is not your forum.

Here is how I see it: denying any responsibility for anyone to provide the distressed aid in time of recession, is probably indefensible for a Christian.

Rejecting any government aid for the unemployed, particularly one set up on an insurance model, would seem Randian to me, with all the unChristian baggage that entails.

However, questioning when benefits should end, and how, is neither indefensible nor Randian. We are talking 99 weeks here: a long time. In my view, the benefits should continue. Even if many of the recipients were lazy, they would go on welfare, and we are just shifting the burden from one program to another. To me, denying the benefits is an admission that the situation won’t get better. But at some point - maybe 150 weeks - we would have to acknolwedge that there had been structural changes in the economy that we couldn’t ignore, and change the structure of unemployment benefits and potentially welfare to address those long term changes.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Exactly: and taking a too low offer, or an offer out of your field, isn’t necessarily a smart thing to do. The economy will recover, and finding yourself in a job where you aren’t using your skills is probably worse than holding out.

But that is precisely the issue: each unemployed person must make a bet on when – and if – the economy will recover. They are haggling in the job market, so to say. If they bet too low they lose out on future income (by selling themselves short), but if they bet too high they also lose out on future income (by overvaluing themselves).

It is similar to the workings of the marriage market. Women who think too highly of themselves end up alone and lonely, but those who undervalue their own worth to the opposite sex end up with someone who treats them less well than they might have otherwise.

So… decisions must be made. We will only know for sure which decision was the “best” one *after *the fact. Right now we can only offer advice based upon assumptions or predictions.

I think we also have to take into account that the state doesn’t just manipulate the market in one direction, but in the other, as well. It might be that a particular unemployed engineer really is worth as much as he thinks in a free market, but that regulation, tax changes, etc. are prohibiting him from being hired. This is undoubtably also the case for many unemployed people. They know that their market worth is high, but they are unable to find employment despite this. I can imagine that this is particularly frustrating.

But even these unfortunates will eventually have to take the plunge and decide in one fashion or another. Sink or swim.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Even if many of the recipients were lazy, they would go on welfare, and we are just shifting the burden from one program to another.

That is, of course, the snag in my argument. We have such an extensive safety-net that many of the long-term unemployed will simply land in some other welfare system, that is even more expensive, and leaves them even more entrenched in their unemployment.

I think we must also ask ourselves whether every unemployed person is an equal tragedy. We can all agree that family fathers are the most tragic (as so many people depend upon their income), followed by single mothers (as children suffer, but they have the possibility to “marry income”), etc. But what about the married mother who was working to “get out of the house a bit”? Or the 16 year-old who was working to save up for a car? Or the elderly person who could move in with her adult children?

They are all listed as equals in the statistics, but should we be equally concerned with their re-employment? Or could it even be that the job market is better off if they fade into long-term unemployment, so that the remainder of positions are more easily available to the more deserving? After all, the individual’s drive to find re-employment will be effected by his desperation. Should we not be putting the focus of our efforts and concern toward those who are most desperate? Should we not be working to make sure that family fathers are given first place in hiring, for instance? Or that traditional marriage (with the mother at home) is promoted over single-parent or dual-income families?

But at some point - maybe 150 weeks - we would have to acknolwedge that there had been structural changes in the economy that we couldn’t ignore, and change the structure of unemployment benefits and potentially welfare to address those long term changes.

That has been done extensively in Europe, but it merely results in an increase in structural unemployment.

I think the better option would be a resurgence in the world’s cheapest and most effective social welfare program: the family. Divorce is dropping, marriage rates are increasing, and extended families are again gaining in importance. Could the recession be good for restoring family to the centerpoint of our societal existence, rather than the side-show it has increasingly become? Wealth breeds independence and autonomy, but deprivation breeds interdependence and community.

In other words, does the current economic cloud have an extremely shiny silver lining?

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

What a coincidence! I was just about to pay you the same compliment. You have contributed nothing to a constructive discussion except superfluous piety. The fact that this is a Catholic forum, and that you have identified yourself as being a Catholic, means that you don’t have to go on and on about how wonderfully and superiorly Christian you are. We are all duly impressed, but we would have all assumed the same even if you hadn’t informed us explicitly and used Latin. Your contribution is therefore nil.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming. Some of us are actually interested in the topic at hand, rather than merely pontificating to a captive audience.

I’m so sorry I have troubled you with Christianity. Truly the Gospel and Social Doctrine of the Church contribute “nil” to any discussion on social and moral issues. I am so embarrassed!

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

“The social doctrine of the Church has particularly stressed the social function of property, since this is so often forgotten. To the extent that private possessions surpass the owner’s need for a decent standard of living, they must be disposed for the service of others; that is, for the common good. Otherwise, the owner is guilty of an unjust use of wealth. This principle, which is clearly rooted in the Gospel (the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus), was especially emphasized by the Fathers of the Church and is a constant theme of Catholic writers.”
-THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH (*)

“182. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern.”

-“183. …] the poor remain entrusted to us and it is this responsibility upon which we shall be judged at the end of time (cf. Mt 25:31-46): “Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren”[388].”
-COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH (*)

Oops! I did it again! I cited the Roman Catholic Church teaching! I am so embarrassed! Do I know no limits to my audacity, my shamelessness?

 

[CatholicGerman]

No, but there are obviously no limits to your predictability.

What we are discussing here is not whether we should be personally charitable to the poor and unfortunate, but to what extent, and with what methods, the State should be involved in such charity; particularly at the federal level (remember subsidiarity?).You might think that your preferred tools are the best for providing for the general welfare, but others may be in disagreement with you. That is no reason to accuse them of being unChristian, or generally uncharitable. This is a discussion about what economic methods will best promote and provide for the general welfare.

Despite the name, welfare systems do not always provide for the general welfare. They are often tools to promote sloth and indifference, and break down the patriarchal family.

Rerum Novarum:

That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, “at least equal rights”; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.
…
The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.** But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself.**
…
But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world… to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’” True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.” But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.” It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law.
…
The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.

 

[Good_News_1]

I think the better option would be a resurgence in the world’s cheapest and most effective social welfare program: the family. Divorce is dropping, marriage rates are increasing, and extended families are again gaining in importance. Could the recession be good for restoring family to the centerpoint of our societal existence, rather than the side-show it has increasingly become? Wealth breeds independence and autonomy, but deprivation breeds interdependence and community.

Possibly, if the pain is bad enough, some modest gains could be made. But I am not hopeful. The family is attacked from both sides. On the right, the gospel of the free market promotes an amoral society in which everything is seen as a market, and the values of the market seen as superior to all other values. From this comes the corrupting influence of consumer culture. On the left, the dismantling of the family comes from a distaste for patriarchy, which is seen as oppressive. Of the two, consumer culture is the more damaging. Since we all get to speak for God tonight, I can tell you that God holds all sides of the political divide is equal disgust, save on a few life or death issues (abortion, war).

 

[bbarrick8383]

Do I know no limits to my audacity, my shamelessness?

Obviously not.

Personally, I find it despicable that someone would promote socialism and call themselves a Christian in this country. Private property is the foundation of freedom, to promote the idea that government should have the power to confiscate what I own based on their assesment of your needs is just…sickening. To think that you somehow find that Christ would approve of me going to jail at gunpoint because I myself decided it was up to me to distribute my wealth based on my own judgement of the needs of others rather than at the threat of force…hmm, you people really amaze me sometimes.

You need to worry about yourself and those you see around you who might need a helping hand, and stop promoting government to do it for you as if it were the same thing as you doing it yourself.

 

[CatholicGerman]

It is therefore completely possible for a “welfare system” to be unChristian in nature, if its implementation leads to increased poverty, the promotion of vice, or the breakdown of the family. What we are discussing is whether the possible negative side-effects of extended unemployment (a form of state-financed welfare) is the best method for providing for the general welfare and protecting the poor from depravity.

I contend that it is not, especially as it is available for all of the unemployed indescriminately.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

CatholicGerman,

If those “boldfacings” (pls excuse the neologism) on Rerum Novarum are yours, then we agree more than you may think.

The problem with these discussions are the caricaturizations of opposite views.

We both believe in caritas* and helping people in distress and hardship. Am I wrong?
We both believe in virtue, specifically in this case, responsibility. Am I wrong?

---

• I mention it in Latin, as the English word “charity” is mostly confused with dropping a coin thoughtlessly in a can of someone derelict who has affected us with commiseration. Caritas is a sort of love and is a Christian virtue.

 

[Good_News_1]

Personally, I find it despicable that someone would promote socialism and call themselves a Christian in this country.

I keep looking around and wondering who is promoting socialism here. I crane my neck left and right, and I still can’t find anyone…

Private property is the foundation of freedom,

There was no freedom before the creation of private property? The things I learn on the internet!

to promote the idea that government should have the power to confiscate what I own based on their assesment of your needs is just…sickening.

Do you mean that private property is inconsistent with levying taxes for the general welfare? Surely not.

To think that you somehow find that Christ would approve of me going to jail at gunpoint

Better than the fate he embraced.

because I myself decided it was up to me to distribute my wealth based on my own judgement of the needs of others rather than at the threat of force.

Do you really think Christ would have much sympathy for someone who clung to their wealth such that they were carted off the jail, because they refused to participate in programs redistributing property to the poor?

hmm, you people really amaze me sometimes.

I just can’t find defending private property and fighting unjust taxes as big themes of Christ’s ministry. I’m sure he would have sympathy for the rich man who went to jail because he didn’t want to pay for government largess, but Christ was sympathic to most everyone. I don’t see anything that would indicate Christ would laud him.