Sweden's way of dealing with the poor

[a_cermak]

The US response to the lowness of wages for unskilled labor has been transfer payments from the gov’t such as the EITC and refundable tax credits rather than reducing the amount of laborers and therefore increasing the wages each laborer can earn.

There are pluses and minuses to this. One minus is that companies that hire labor at low wages essentially get part of the employee’s actual cost paid by the feds. One plus is that by having as many people earning as possible, even if the feds wind up paying some of the freight, the US as a whole benefits from the stuff produced by the workers.

Sweden takes a different approach.

I don’t know that there is a better way. I don’t like the fact that people who are mentally ill tend to be homeless, it seems like there ought to be a better way to deal with it than let them be out on the streets in mortal danger from one another as well as other assorted menaces.

 

[thomfra]

Having experience is a lot like having common sense…

If you don’t have it, you not going to understand why you need it.

Well. I guess I probably have the “experience” you are talking about…

But I certainly wouldn’t use my subjective “life experience” as a basis for accepting or rejecting a social model, or ideas from somebody who I percieve to have less life experience.

Life experience doesn’t necessarily mean you have actually learnt anything either. Sarah Paulin is a prize example. Big on “real life hockey mom” experience. Light on for **any **knowledge of the world she lives in. Doesn’t even skim the major papers from abroad!?!??!?!?

 

[RubyT]

This not an opinion or any kind of supposition.
But I can’t help thinking of the leper colonies. Of course its nothing like that or is it?

Please don’t take offense its just the first thing that came to mind.
I know too little about this to actually formulate an opinion. I guess we would have to ask those that are involved in this system to really get the jist of it.

Well heck I’ll pray for them anyway… :bible1:

 

[TLDenmark]

The irony of this debate, is that the whole hikikomo concept is totally alien to Scandinavian politics . Any politician who would publicly choose to endorse such an idea in my country, would find himself the enemy of both the right, the center and the left. The reason for this is not only economics, even thou that would be an issue in any society with limited resources, but rather it would come down to the issue of human dignity. Our goal should be to help people gain a dignified life, not to hide them away so they can submerge themselves in a shallow make-belief computer fantasy.

But I can’t help thinking of the leper colonies. Of course its nothing like that or is it?

Neither can I .

 

[wabrams]

Well. I guess I probably have the “experience” you are talking about…

But I certainly wouldn’t use my subjective “life experience” as a basis for accepting or rejecting a social model, or ideas from somebody who I percieve to have less life experience.

Life experience doesn’t necessarily mean you have actually learnt anything either. Sarah Paulin is a prize example. Big on “real life hockey mom” experience. Light on for **any **knowledge of the world she lives in. Doesn’t even skim the major papers from abroad!?!??!?!?

Open mouth insert foot.

Oh wise one, it is Palin, not Paulin. If you had taken anytime to watch her interviews or read her interviews, you would find she is very intelligent, business savvy (help broker the largest deal in Alaska re: the oil pipeline)) and is well read, plus she has real world experience.

 

[cynic]

Too bad she addressed the American public as if they were idiots.

(wink)

 

[Oscarthecat]

The irony of this debate, is that the whole hikikomo concept is totally alien to Scandinavian politics . Any politician who would publicly choose to endorse such an idea in my country, would find himself the enemy of both the right, the center and the left. The reason for this is not only economics, even thou that would be an issue in any society with limited resources, but rather it would come down to the issue of human dignity. Our goal should be to help people gain a dignified life, not to hide them away so they can submerge themselves in a shallow make-belief computer fantasy.

I think you make a good point. But I would add that one of the key deficits of the welfare state is that it lacks a proper understanding the nature of human dignity.

The Church teaches that human dignity is proper to all people, in all states of life. It isn’t a quality that can be gained in proportion to what a person has, where they live, whether they are homeless or wealthy.

This common sense of the dignity of all human people is validated by our ability to empathize with one another one another, and we act on this recognition in the form of Charity.

The already present human dignity of a person in need is validated, not given, by the very act of another human person freely choosing to reach out to them out of genuine concern.

Human dignity is made manifest in the commission of charitable acts, which are as much an expression of the dignity of the giver as they are the dignity of the receiver.

But the welfare state robs us of this experience, because it teaches us that individual acts of charity are insufficient and ill advised. We are taught to just pay our taxes and leave actual works of charity to the paid professional bureaucrats assigned the task of “helping people gain a dignified life.”

The very act of the Government providing shelter, food, health care, and all kinds of other “things” is an affront to human dignity because the driving force behind the act is the compliance with some government legislative demand, rather than the individual’s recognition of the dignity of a human person in need, the experience of empathy and compassion which gives rise to charity.

When a government bureaucrat doling out government goods talks about “helping people gain a dignified life,” they aren’t referring to helping the poor, they are simply referring to a filling out particular combination of “check boxes” on some government form. Once they check off the right boxes, by giving the person shelter, food, medicine, or whatever else they need, then the government workers closes that file until the next time that person needs to have another box checked off.

The person “giving” the government goods doesn’t recognize the dignity of the person in need. And after being treated in this manner, it doesn’t take long for the person in need to question their own human dignity, too- they start to believe, like the OP in this thread, that they have nothing to contribute to society, that theirs is a life without value, and so they become content with a life of substance abuse, dependency on others, social ostracism, etc.

The welfare state is as much more than an affront to the dignity of those in need- it erodes the dignity of the entire society.

 

[wabrams]

Too bad she addressed the American public as if they were idiots.

(wink)

How so?

 

[cynic]

The dignity of the recipient is maintained when government gets involved, because the welfare of another is put AHEAD of individual liberty,(while you rank it as of less important), and this form of government (to varying degrees) is voted in by a vast majority, including the highly taxed, who vote republican.

Voting for a such government might be “getting out of” a responsibility to help the poor at an individual level, but it adraws a line in the sand, we will not allow people who cannot help themselves to fall below this standard of living, if resources alow, and that will not be dependant on chance or how many feel inclined to give at any particular time. The outcome is more important than the means, more important than appearing righteous or getting the kudos,

 

[Mimi]

Life experience doesn’t necessarily mean you have actually learnt anything either. Sarah Paulin is a prize example. Big on “real life hockey mom” experience. Light on for **any **knowledge of the world she lives in. Doesn’t even skim the major papers from abroad!?!??!?!?

WHO ??

If you mean Sarah P-A-L-I-N – how do you know she doesn’t read ANY foreign news sources. Maybe she gets the headlines via the internet.

I’d back her in the next election for PRESIDENT (of the US, not the Hockey Moms Assoc.). I think she may become known as the female Ronald Reagan.

Mimi

 

[Oscarthecat]

The dignity of the recipient is maintained when government gets involved, because the welfare of another is put AHEAD of individual liberty,(while you rank it as of less important), and this form of government (to varying degrees) is voted in by a vast majority, including the highly taxed, who vote republican.

Voting for a such government might be “getting out of” a responsibility to help the poor at an individual level, but it adraws a line in the sand, we will not allow people who cannot help themselves to fall below this standard of living, if resources alow, and that will not be dependant on chance or how many feel inclined to give at any particular time. The outcome is more important than the means, more important than appearing righteous or getting the kudos,

You keep using the word “we.” I’d like to know who you’re including in that- because there are a few different groups of people in this socialist welfare state you’re dreaming of…

-there are the people who receive the benefits of the system,
-there’s the group of people who control everything and decide who gets taxed and who gets helped- these usually include the politicos, who write the laws and give themselves nice fat tax breaks, and socialist elitists, who tend to fall just below the tax line.
-and then there are the workers and business owners who don’t receive the benefits of the system, are just being cannibalized by the two parasitic groups, and who are chastised as “selfish” whenever they dare to ask for permission to keep a little of their own money.

So, as you can see, there is no “we.”

Interestingly enough, only one of those three groups I mentioned is actually able to exist independent of the other two.

Also, in reference to your last line…who exactly were you referring to when you mentioned “appearing righteous or getting the kudos”? I just ask because, at least where I live, average people go about quietly doing charitable acts, but politicians make sure to get it all on tape for the media- and it just so happens that the politicians are the ones passing welfare state legislation. From what I can tell, they seem to build their elections on “appearing righteous or getting the kudos.”
So maybe you could just clarify what you were talking about with that last line.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The dignity of the recipient is maintained when government gets involved, because the welfare of another is put AHEAD of individual liberty,(while you rank it as of less important), and this form of government (to varying degrees) is voted in by a vast majority, including the highly taxed, who vote republican.

There is dignity in one person recognizing your value as a human person, and freely giving you what you need.

There is even dignity in the government providing other incentives to encourage a person to give to the poor, as it still respects the importance of the relationship between the giver and receiver.

There is no dignity in having a government bureaucrat steal from one person to give you something that you didn’t earn.

And by the way, when people say that “the ends justify the means,” they’re just trying to justify something that they know to be morally reprehensible.

If you’re just worried about the ends, and not the means, then why not just embrace the long tradition of Socialism and Communist leaders- How about you start by euthanizing all of the poor people? Or why not just put them into labor camps and force them to work for the good of the rest of society? Why not just put them all into medically induced comas, insert feeding tubes, and then use their bodies for medical experiments?

All of this, and more, has been done because people thought the ends justified the means.

 

[cynic]

You already have a socialist welfare state, by your standards, anyway.

When people vote republican, they are voting for government social spending, just to a lesser extent.

The vast majority of business owners and workers voted for one of the two major parties.

The didn’t vote libertarian, only a tiny minority of people do.

That’s the same in every democracy.

So “we” can justifiably be used to mean “almost everyone”, and “almost everyone” voted to have their incomes taxed and their money spent by government, to some degree.

 

[cynic]

There is no dignity in having a government bureaucrat steal from one person to give you something that you didn’t earn.
.

And there’s no dignity in receiving help from people who would constantly remind you that you didn’t earn it.

If you’re just worried about the ends, and not the means, then why not just embrace the long tradition of Socialism and Communist leaders- How about you start by euthanizing all of the poor people? Or why not just put them into labor camps and force them to work for the good of the rest of society? Why not just put them all into medically induced comas, insert feeding tubes, and then use their bodies for medical experiments?

lol, that’s crazy. The end is not some economic goal achieved through slave labour.

The end, in terms of the discussion, is mimimising suffering and getting people back on their feet. Gulags and euthanasia don’t help much with that.

 

[perfectpeach]

Yay, I am quitting my job and moving to sweeden. I will teach my kids they do not need to rely on themselves. Sweeden will do it all for them!

 

[RobbyS]

They are materially well-off and that is all that matters. They are protected from adversity. If they weren’t put away, they might be homeless or begging. I like this paradigm of putting people away and protecting them. (As in Sweden, this is not the same as putting them in an institution.) It is quite similar in Japan with their hikikomori population.

So what is your way of dealing with them instead of putting them away?

Materially well off is fine for pets, but you are dealing with human beings here.

 

[RobbyS]

They are materially well-off and that is all that matters. They are protected from adversity. If they weren’t put away, they might be homeless or begging. I like this paradigm of putting people away and protecting them. (As in Sweden, this is not the same as putting them in an institution.) It is quite similar in Japan with their hikikomori population.

So what is your way of dealing with them instead of putting them away?

Materially well off is fine for pets, but you are dealing with human beings here.

 

[thomfra]

WHO ??

If you mean Sarah P-A-L-I-N – how do you know she doesn’t read ANY foreign news sources. Maybe she gets the headlines via the internet.

I’d back her in the next election for PRESIDENT (of the US, not the Hockey Moms Assoc.). I think she may become known as the female Ronald Reagan.

Mimi

So sorry for the spelling error - it was typed in haste (silly foreign person that I am, speaking all these funny other languages). I should have checked it. Should we move on now?

RE: Foreign newspapers. She said as much on TV. Have a look at you tube. You get a nice compilation video showing her lack of understanding of foreign policy, and general ignorance about the world.

But I guess I shouldn’t derail the thread which is not a sarah PALIN (was that right?) thread.

 

[thomfra]

Yay, I am quitting my job and moving to sweeden. I will teach my kids they do not need to rely on themselves. Sweeden will do it all for them!

You better watch out. You spelt Sweden incorrectly (twice)…there are people on this thread who will correct you. WATCH OUT FOR THEM.

 

[thomfra]

Open mouth insert foot.

See post(s) above.