Uber for Welfare • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber for Welfare

#41

Post by anon1385 » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32

pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial; there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes; as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health problem. At least that's how it's turned out in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...

Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved. Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation. Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an…

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/coroners-ground-breakin...

>A coroner has demanded that the government takes action to prevent future deaths of disability benefit claimants, after concluding in a “ground-breaking” inquest verdict that a disabled man killed himself as a direct result of being found “fit for work”.

>It is believed to be the first time that a coroner has blamed the work capability assessment (WCA) process for directly causing the death of a claimant.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#42

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #34

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for thems…

"expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not. Could you explain that?" Could those workers get a similar income and similar working conditions without a functional society? Unless those workers are subsistence farmers, the answer is "no". Society is supporting them, so forcing workers to support society is not exploitative.

Could those non-workers on welfare get a similar income without a functional society? Society is supporting them, so forcing welfare recipients to support society is not exploitative.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#43

Post by danjayh » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

fredfoobar42 wrote: post #5

This is ridiculous. The stereotype of welfare recipients as lazy, unemployed people is completely inaccurate. I'm a former Welfare Clerk, and the vast majority of welfare recipients I dealt with---in a district that covered West Philadelphia---were employed. The work varied: childcare, retail, and hair salon work were the most common, but there were also school staff, church secretaries, and construction workers who…

If the vast majority were employed, then the proposal to require able-bodied individuals to work as a precondition for receiving welfare should only affect a small minority of people who have chosen to live off the system. Why is that ridiculous?

Re: Uber for Welfare

#44

Post by anon1385 » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32

pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial; there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes; as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health problem. At least that's how it's turned out in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...

Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved. Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation. Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an…

https://archive.is/qNa9T

>An unemployed dad stabbed himself twice through the heart when his family faced losing their home to housing benefit cuts, an inquest heard. Desperate Richard Sanderson, 44, drew up meticulous suicide plans after learning he could no longer afford the flat he shared with his wife and nine-year-old son. The family had received a letter stating their housing benefit would be cut by £30 a month, leaving them with ‘nowhere to go’, Westminster Coroners Court heard. Mr Sanderson was found dead in the bath by wife Petra on Sunday, May 29 with three stab wounds to his chest and abdomen. A diagram showing the position of the heart in the body had been mounted on one wall and three kitchen knives were on a folding table next to the bath. Suicide notes addressed to his family and the police had been placed on his bed, along with more anatomical diagrams. Recording a verdict of suicide, coroner Fiona Wilcox described the case as ‘particularly tragic.’ She added: ‘This appears to have been done by a man who was fully compos mentis and was not suffering from a depressive illness. ‘He carried out a considered act in response to his inability to find employment and the fact that his housing benefit was about to be cut and the family would have faced having no-where to live.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#45

Post by brbsix » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

dccoolgai wrote: post #17

This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read. Uber and the "gig economy" are the death throes of an economy that is suffocating itself with rotten ideas about globalism ("We can all be rich if we stop making things and have other people do it for us!") hatched by corporate economists... Suggesting that we should all do each others' laundry more is just a brutal exacerbation of the underlying prob…

Very few people in the U.S. see the value (and necessity) of production. Classical economics is dead and in it's place people seem to think wealth can be created through consumption. It is absolute madness. Unfortunately government benefits from this mass delusion and is happy to oblige it. This isn't going to end well.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#46

Post by anon1385 » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32

pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of assessing fitness to work then becomes much more controversial; there is a crackdown; genuinely disabled people fail to tick the right boxes; as their money supply is cut off, so is their food; this results in starvation, suicide, or at the very least exacerbation of their health problem. At least that's how it's turned out in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...

Your link provides no evidence of causality or even correlation between welfare cuts and death, or any evidence that even a single person starved. Strangely, the activists hyping these numbers don't seem to have even a single coroner's report of a person where cause of death is starvation. Clinton's welfare reform program in the US did not have this effect. The main effect was a reduction in the welfare rolls and an…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232911/Mother-leaps...

>A pregnant woman jumped to her death while clutching her baby son after her benefits had been stopped, an inquest heard. Philosophy graduate Christelle Pardo, 32, plunged from the balcony of her sister's third-floor flat, killing herself and five-month-old Kayjah.

>She became pregnant shortly afterwards, but in December her JSA was withdrawn because she was within 11 weeks of giving birth and was considered unable to work. As a result she also lost her automatic entitlement to housing benefit. The mother, from Hackney, east London, was advised to apply for income support but her application was rejected because the Department of Work and Pensions said she had not proved that she had been in continuous employment in the UK for the previous five years. This was despite having worked or been a student in Britain since 1997.

>In April, her application for child benefit was also rejected when officials learned she had been denied income support. Hackney council then demanded she repay £200 in overpaid housing benefit.

>Coroner Dr Andrew Reid said: 'She was not in a position around the time her son was born to be actively seeking work, and was not in a position to claim Income Support, which eventually stopped her housing benefit.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#47

Post by creshal » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

danjayh wrote: post #35

clavalle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example)…

> Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Friend, hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive, and it makes society as…

So what exactly is Denmark's problem? Unemployment is still lower than average. Gini, HDI, GDP, all metrics you could wish for are excellent. Companies not finding enough engineers is a complaint you hear world-wide, from Germany to the US, usually followed by "so please reduce immigration restrictions so we can get Indians for half the wage instead".

Re: Uber for Welfare

#48

Post by lentil_soup » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #40

clavalle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example)…

Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. The article doesn't propose threatening anyone with pain or death. Did you read it? All it proposes is requiring people receiving free money to be willing to work for money instead (same as…

"the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time"

So in your view, all welfare recipients are just sitting around watching TV?

"The person with $10M is probably working hard"

why? what makes you say that? Do millionaires work extra hard compared to everyone else?

Re: Uber for Welfare

#49

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #38

yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds? I totally missed that part of the article.

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are…

We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people.

If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy.

We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work.

The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed."

Did you read it?

I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there.

Welfare recipients are disgruntled people who are unpleasant to be around?

I thought they were just regular folks who were down on their luck, who wanted to work but are unable to find a job.

Re: Uber for Welfare

#50

Post by creshal » Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #42

bryanlarsen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not. Could you explain that?" Could those workers get a similar income and similar working conditions without a functional society? Unless those workers are subsistence farmers, the answer is "no". Society is supporting them, so forcing workers to support society is not exploitative.

Could those non-workers on welfare get a similar income without a functional society? Society is supporting them, so forcing welfare recipients to support society is not exploitative.

Forcing is absolutely exploitative.

Either you can pay them a wage worth working for, or you have a so crippling structural problem that this whole discussion is a distraction.

If human labour is no longer worth the money it needs to sustain humans, should we really centre our whole society around it?