Skip to main content

Sorry, Hube, but it was too good not to steal . . .

I usually try to avoid stealing stories from other Delaware blogs, but over at Colossus Hube got me this time with The Smallest Violin, about British families that now live completely on the dole and believe it is their absolute right not to have to work, ever.

According to the original story in the Daily Mail:

Six million Britons are living in homes where no one has a job and "benefits are a way of life", according to a report by MPs. Shock figures also revealed that 20,000 households in Britain are pocketing more than £30,000 a year in state benefits.

With thousands of children growing up in families where their parents and grandparents have never worked, a senior government adviser warned this week of a "terrible legacy" of youngsters who had no expectation of ever getting a job.


The quotes from the ten-member McFadden family are so unnerving that even Daily Mail readers (and Hube!) at first thought the piece must be a satire:

"I left school at 15 with no qualifications and worked in a sewing factory for a short while then gave it up and went on the dole instead. Even when my kids were older, I didn't go back to work because I didn't want to. I never get bored. I just sew, knit and clean. I don't worry about the example I set to my kids or the fact that two of them don't work. It's up to them what they do, it's their life, not mine, so it's not my problem"...

Steven says: "Mum never really made us think about work. I did do a plumbing YTS scheme after school. They paid £27 a week, but it was so boring looking at pipes and sinks all day. When I told my dad I was bored, he said I should never stick with a job I didn't like.

"So, eventually, in my 20s, I thought: "I've tried security work and plumbing and I've even been a taxi driver for six months, but I just don't like working". My mates all left school and became mechanics, sweating it out in stinking, dirty garages for a couple of hundred quid a week.

"I'm much better off than any of them. The highlight of their day is going to the bakery to get a pasty for lunch and they've aged 20 years from the stress of working for a pittance and being stuck indoors all day. It's my right to claim benefits. We're all entitled to do what we want in life.

"I could have trained as a fireman or something, but I didn't want the responsibility. All I've ever wanted is to chill out and have easy money. All my family and friends live in council houses - my parents included."


This story points out one of those politically incorrect problems nobody wants to talk about today, especially in America. There are millions of working poor, and they are struggling to make ends meet, to get their children medical care, and to get respect as American citizens.

Unfortunately, there are also millions of non-working "poor" in America, and educators in our universities and public schools see them and their children all the time. I have had students tell me--without the slightest sense of shame--that they only come to school because their parents know they'll lose their benefits if they don't, and they expect to be passed along just for showing up.

Conservatives love to talk about the non-working poor and not admit the existence of the working poor.

Progressives love to talk about the working poor and not admit the existence of the non-working poor.

Both need to get over it, and start having the real discussion about both dynamics. I have no problem whatsoever discussing health care solutions or better working conditions or even a living wage for the working poor. But I will be damned if I feel any social or moral obligation to support those who can but will not work.

The first step is to actually document the existence and prevalence of both categories of people, and then to start talking about the issue.

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
The problem is that Republicans refuse to believe the working poor exist and Democrats refuse to believe that the refusing to work crowd exists.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...