Does the welfare system predispose people to unhappiness?

[mentalchik]

I can only speak for Turkey, but there's very little there. Effectively none in fact. And this despite the lack of a welfare state in the Western sense.

know it's from last year but....

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/de...urkey-suffer-from-lack-of-care8217-2011-09-02

 

[phildwyer]

Are you aware of the plight of trans people in Islamic countries? Hirjas in Pakistan, for example. Forced into a life of homelessness, begging and being seen as outcast and constantly ridiculed.

That's really shitty treatment to me, to outcast a group like that. What happened to their families? Oh wait, they disowned them for simply trying to live their life the way they want. Where's the social resources to stop them from living a life of misery? I am aware that they have now been granted ID cards and can now do some jobs, but they have no access to surgery or hormonal treatment should they wish to physically change their bodies.

Hang on just a second, I believe you're simplifying a very complicated situation here. The treatment of the hijras which you denounce long predates Islam, for one thing.

 

[purenarcotic]

I can only speak for Turkey, but there's very little there. Effectively none in fact. And this despite the lack of a welfare state in the Western sense.



To be homeless you'd have to be both disowned by your entire family and incapable of supporting yourself. I'm not sure how many people that would be--far fewer than in the West for sure. I imagine the local mosque takes care of any such, though I can't swear to it...

How is life for trans or people who identify as lesbian or gay or bisexual in Turkey? Would they feel they could seek help from the mosque? What about young people? How would getting pregnant out of wedlock be seen? Would the mosque help them?

I have no idea what the answer to those are btw, I'm interested to hear your thoughts though.

 

[purenarcotic]

Hang on just a second, I believe you're simplifying a very complicated situation here. The treatment of the hijras which you denounce long predates Islam, for one thing.

Okay, fine, it predates Islam. But if there's so much that's so great about Islamic states, how come it's still so shitty for them?

 

[caoineadh7]

I can only speak for Turkey, but there's very little there. Effectively none in fact. And this despite the lack of a welfare state in the Western sense.



To be homeless you'd have to be both disowned by your entire family and incapable of supporting yourself. I'm not sure how many people that would be--far fewer than in the West for sure. I imagine the local mosque takes care of any such, though I can't swear to it...

Like many Orphans and disabled people or those with mental illness who live on the streets in the third world.

 

[caoineadh7]

That depends entirely on what you mean by social unrest. If you mean "vibrant anti-government politics where people shout slogans and have marches, but never actually crystallise anything approaching a fart, let alone a revolution", then I'm sure you're absolutely correct.
If you mean "issue-based social unrest that has the potential to develop into a wider assault on extant culture" then you're talking out of your arse.
You're putting the cart before the horse. It's a payoff to stop wider unrest developing, to allow the revolutionaries to feel comfortable that they achieve something, while never getting hungry enough to do anything that actually threatens the state itself.
100+ years of British history show me that the reason the British rarely rebel is because we get neither the bread nor the circuses. We're kept hungry, and we're kept down. We're given just enough and no more.

I mean proper revolution, where people put themselves on the line all the way. Why do you think the north of Ireland was never subject of Tory cuts under Thatcher ?

Im not talking about student wankers having a jolly.

 

[phildwyer]

How is life for trans or people who identify as lesbian or gay or bisexual in Turkey? Would they feel they could seek help from the mosque? What about young people? How would getting pregnant out of wedlock be seen? Would the mosque help them?

I can only speak for Istanbul, but there's a lively enough gay scene there. And there's a whole subculture of transvestite entertainers who are loved by all. I imagine the attitudes of the mosques to the situations you describe would vary greatly, as there is a wide range of opinion within Islam on such matters.

 

[purenarcotic]

I can only speak for Istanbul, but there's a lively enough gay scene there. And there's a whole subculture of transvestite entertainers who are loved by all. I imagine the attitudes of the mosques to the situations you describe would vary greatly, as there is a wide range of opinion within Islam on such matters.

Goodness, a Utopian country.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you can do better, go ahead.......

The "welfare state/social security system" is a mirror of capitalism.

No, it's may distortedly reflect the values of capitalism due to political interference, but it exists in spite of the current mode of capitalism, not because of it.

Unemployment is a integral part of modern neo liberal capitalism.

Is a basic of neoliberal economics - maintain a reserve labour pool of a suitable size to create downward pressure on employment remuneration and rights - why repeat whateveryone already knows when you could say something informative?

Capitalism provides a minimal welfare state to stop people from starving and thus revolting. How much it provides in payments depends on how easily its security forces could be overwhelmed and how much chance of unrest there is. In Ireland revolution could potentially happen in days, thus the state gives unemployed people 180 euros a week to appease them

Nothing to do with
insuring against your political culture developing anywhere beyond the "mouthy sloganeers in leather trousers" stage, then?

In Britain there is little chance of the population ever rising up...

Your conclusion is base on...?

...history has broken the peoples spirit, many are heavily institutionalised in belief in the state and Monarchy etc...

Bag of arse. Remove the Jubilee nonsense, and the Olympic bullshit, and there's bugger-all belief in the state, and the main stumbling block to a republic is concerned with some fuckwit part of "the state" taking on the role of "head of state". President Osborne, anyone??

...most resistance comes from the offspring of immigrants, thus unemployment benefit is 70 pounds a week.

Again, you base this on...?

The most resistance comes from the working class, of any and all colours and national derivations. We have more to lose from not heeding the discourses around conforming behaviour, but we also have less to lose in terms of emoluments, because we haven't had the bread or the circuses anyway.

People who have fulfilled lives are not unhappy.

Hippy bollocks.

Engels said the Industrial revolution had created a Souless, dysfunctional society never before seen in the history of the world.

He never saw just how dysfunctional post-industrial life is, did he?

 

[Greebo]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

Not necessarily. Some of us have been on the receiving end of charity. IME it's degrading.

Edited to add: There's a local "carers fix yourself a break scheme" (for a payment of up to £200, with several limitations on how you can spend it and which you can only request once every 3 years). The application form is worded similarly to standing in front of a charity panel and pleading your case. After the usual questions about your personal circumstances, income, condition of your caree etc, it asks: "What difference would this award make to you if you were given it?" You can't refuse to answer it.

So I shredded the form. I needed a break (and still do), but I need my self respect even more.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

Charity as a concept is fine, just as charity without strings is fine.
Often, though, charity comes with strings attached that are unacceptable to some people.
Few people expect the state to always provide, and in fact the state never has and never will. We should be able to expect it to fullfil those obligations to us that it has extracted prior payment for, though.

 

[caoineadh7]

No, it's may distortedly reflect the values of capitalism due to political interference, but it exists in spite of the current mode of capitalism, not because of it.



Is a basic of neoliberal economics - maintain a reserve labour pool of a suitable size to create downward pressure on employment remuneration and rights - why repeat whateveryone already knows when you could say something informative?



Nothing to do with
insuring against your political culture developing anywhere beyond the "mouthy sloganeers in leather trousers" stage, then?



Your conclusion is base on...?



Bag of arse. Remove the Jubilee nonsense, and the Olympic bullshit, and there's bugger-all belief in the state, and the main stumbling block to a republic is concerned with some fuckwit part of "the state" taking on the role of "head of state". President Osborne, anyone??



Again, you base this on...?

The most resistance comes from the working class, of any and all colours and national derivations. We have more to lose from not heeding the discourses around conforming behaviour, but we also have less to lose in terms of emoluments, because we haven't had the bread or the circuses anyway.



Hippy bollocks.



He never saw just how dysfunctional post-industrial life is, did he?

All you are doing is mirroring what I said. I dont live in that world, come up with something original and I will reply.

 

[scifisam]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

I think it's mainly that the govt are trying to move basic needs, like food and schooling, towards charities, despite the fact that basic taxation could well pay for them and we all pay national insurance for them. Charities should be for extras, like the rspca, for example. You shouldn't have to prove your worthiness to eat.

 

[purenarcotic]

Charity as a concept is fine, just as charity without strings is fine.
Often, though, charity comes with strings attached that are unacceptable to some people.
Few people expect the state to always provide, and in fact the state never has and never will. We should be able to expect it to fullfil those obligations to us that it has extracted prior payment for, though.

I think a lot of it depends on what the charity is offering and the power relationships that form through that too.

 

[Nylock]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

Charities are fine when they fill in gaps in state provision or are 'extras' (as mentioned above wrt RSPCA etc). However, the problem with charities is the fact that they are open to being used to push an agenda and are therefore vulnerable to being set up/taken over by people with an agenda. Benefits/welfare/call it what you will ought to be universal and not provided to those who 'fit the bill'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All you are doing is mirroring what I said.

Nope. I can see why you might wish to claim that, though.

I dont live in that world, come up with something original and I will reply.

I have, you've chosen not to by claiming that all I've done is mirrored what you said, which anyone with eyes and an ounce of wit can see is rubbish.

 

[Greebo]

I think it's mainly that the govt are trying to move basic needs, like food and schooling, towards charities, despite the fact that basic taxation could well pay for them and we all pay national insurance for them.<snip>

Word.

 

[toggle]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

it is suggesting that someone should get a handout at whim that they should be greatful for, that could be taken away at whim.

 

[BigTom]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

In addition to what others have said it's because I think everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living and I think the victorian age showed that charity does not do that. You should not have to beg for things that you have a right to.

 

[_angel_]

If you drew a graph of the countries in Europe which pay the most dole money against the chance of social unrest, I guarantee the countries which pay the most have the biggest chance of social unrest.

You think there's no social unrest in Greece?
This argument means places like Scandinavia are more likely to revolt than Greece or Spain. Not quite right.

 

[caoineadh7]

You think there's no social unrest in Greece?
This argument means places like Scandinavia are more likely to revolt than Greece or Spain. Not quite right.

You need insurance to get dole money in Sweden.

Otherwise you get the same as 55 pounds a week in Krones. Even less then the UK.

In Greece a single person gets nearly 100 euro a week.

 

[scifisam]

You need insurance to get dole money in Sweden.

Otherwise you get the same as 55 pounds a week in Krones. Even less then the UK.

In Greece a single person gets nearly 100 euro a week.

By insurance, do you mean national insurance?

I'm not sure people in Ireland do get such huge sums. Aren't you including rent in that?

 

[Idaho]

The problem seems to be that any discussion that suggests that the welfare system may cause unhappiness is rounded upon by those who, quite rightly, want to defend their meagre source of income, and by those who use any justification to villify those recieving benefits and to reduce the amount they get. Of course we can't ignore either of those, but it's not unreasonable to discuss the psychological impact of being dependant on benefits.

There is quite a lot of research that shows that people are happiest when they have control over their lives. The more control you have, the happier you are. Inevitably, if you are dependant on a faceless, and often frustrating and arbitrary system, your happiness is going to suffer. Likewise there is a distorted sample when it comes to benefits. While many on benefits may be able and intelligent people, there is naturally going to be a much higher proportion of people with less education, fewer employment options, and long term health problems. To say that benefits cause the unhappiness is to get causation backwards.

It's a problem that is only going to get worse. Humans are expensive to maintain, and they go on getting more expensive. Capital is constantly finding ways of ridding itself of as much of these expensive things as possible. The burden then falls on the state, who is then unwilling to get capital to shell out for the people it has hung out to dry. These people are a burden unwanted by the state, unwanted by capital, and villified in the media. Are they unhappy? Fucking right they are.

 

[caoineadh7]

By insurance, do you mean national insurance?

I'm not sure people in Ireland do get such huge sums. Aren't you including rent in that?

You have to work and pay in before you can claim in Sweden.

No.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it's mainly that the govt are trying to move basic needs, like food and schooling, towards charities, despite the fact that basic taxation could well pay for them and we all pay national insurance for them. Charities should be for extras, like the rspca, for example. You shouldn't have to prove your worthiness to eat.

"Trying to", Sam? It's been happening ever since Blair's enticements to "the third sector" more than 10 years ago. It's a neoliberal imperative - let welfare be paid for by those who give a fuck, not the state!
Of course, the state being the state, while services are reduced, the taxes they take from us to pay for those services aren't. Strange, that.

 

[_angel_]

You need insurance to get dole money in Sweden.

Otherwise you get the same as 55 pounds a week in Krones. Even less then the UK.

In Greece a single person gets nearly 100 euro a week.

Guess they're not the ones forced to give up their kids because they can't feed them.
Social security is more than just unemployment benefit. From what I've read about the American unemployment allowance is it's more generous than ours but time limited and they don't have the provision we (at least used to) have for other things.

 

[8ball]

Of course, the state being the state, while services are reduced, the taxes they take from us to pay for those services aren't. Strange, that.

Exactly - a big Government redistributing wealth is the Tory way.
They only differ from the understood model in terms of who they want to redistribute it to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Exactly - a big Government redistributing wealth is the Tory way.
They only differ from the understood model in terms of who they want to redistribute it to.

And, of course, their definition of "big government" echoes that of US Republicans, insofar as provision of services, infrastructure and apparatus is decreased, while centralised power is increased, which conveniently facilitates that there wealth redistribution.

 

[Idaho]

And, of course, their definition of "big government" echoes that of US Republicans, insofar as provision of services, infrastructure and apparatus is decreased, while centralised power is increased, which conveniently facilitates that there wealth redistribution.

The irony being that the two great flag bearers of the crusade against big government - Reagan and Thatcher - oversaw the largest increases in state spending, power and pervasiveness in their respective countries.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The irony being that the two great flag bearers of the crusade against big government - Reagan and Thatcher - oversaw the largest increases in state spending, power and pervasiveness in their respective countries.

Yup. Remove the "credit crunch" from the picture, and no-one since has managed it, not even (and according to the media he was looser than an Etonian's knee-britches with the public purse) Gordon Brown.