Social Question

stanleybmanly's avatar

If 55% of the population now relies on some form of government entitlement and the percentages are climbing, who will rescue capitalism?

Asked by stanleybmanly (22178points) 4 weeks ago from iPhone

Are we already at the point where civil service is the only life preserver remaining for the middle class

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

kritiper's avatar

The rich. They can’t live without it.

seawulf575's avatar

Well, before Covid-19 shut everything down, President Trump was doing a pretty good job of it. He had cut unemployment, especially in minority groups, had increased median wages, helped businesses big and small to be more properous, and things were going great. When you put people to work the side effect is that they come off the public dole.

stanleybmanly's avatar

But were people less dependent on the public dole and moving away from it as a rule? What if Trump is the reaction to the reality that for the majority it is impossible for a decent existence minus government assistance. When Burger King is the norm for employment, aren’t food stamps the necessary bulwark against open revolution?

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

1) Where do you get this number?

2) What percentage of that is retired people receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits? How about veterans’ benefits?

3) Civil service employees are not dependent on “entitlements”. They are working for wages.

Merely repeating the number feeds the Republican fantasy that armies of “minorities” are on “the dole” and leeching off working people.

jca2's avatar

To add to what @Call_Me_Jay says, if you are lumping unemployment into the number, that makes it inaccurate.

Jeruba's avatar

Good question. I’ve been wondering that for many years, since the big push in Silicon Valley to outsource tech jobs to India and elsewhere. Do American companies’ workers who live abroad pay into funds that will aid unemployed American-based workers whom they displaced?

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Do American companies’ workers who live abroad pay into funds that will aid unemployed American-based worker

That’s a horrendous idea. The workers aren’t outsourcing the jobs.

hmmmmmm's avatar

Nothing can save capitalism, and that is a good thing.

zenvelo's avatar

Well none of this would be a problem if corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes. But the Republicans prefer to run monstrous deficits to buy their way to power.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Shit, capitalism loves public assistance. It funnels huge sums of money towards the corporations and their owners. Welfare might just be the best friend capitalism has ever had.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m not sure you are asking the right question. Capitalism doesn’t care that people are poor. Not until the masses fight back by striking or voting for change will things change.

I think maybe the question is who will rescue America? We won’t be a prosperous nation with a large middle class if we stay on the trajectory we are on.

Trump did nothing to bring down the national debt when the economy was strong, and plenty of people were making money who could have been paying taxes, but he made more cuts and loopholes for them.

We have hurricanes, floods, fires, an aging population, technology and robotics doing more and more of our work, and we have zero money to handle these things, instead we have debt. It’s totally irresponsible. People ok with this should ask themselves would they run their personal finances that way? Bad things happen and we are unprepared as a nation to handle it.

It’s a horrible situation.

We need a lot of changes made to maintain the overall lifestyle in America. If it doesn’t happen we very well might wind up with full blown socialism when the masses can’t take the pressure anymore if they still have the power of the vote.

Great minds have been pondering the question of what will happen when the job market shrinks drastically for a while now. Talk of a UBI has been floated. Andrew Yang had that in his campaign.

I think what saves capitalism is a higher wage for the people at the bottom, get rid of a lot of the tax loopholes for the rich, move many jobs to a 4 day work week, control healthcare costs and socialize it, or at minimum bring Medicare age down to 55 so people can retire early. We need money in the hands of people who will spend it, and best if they can earn it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575When you put people to work the side effect is that they come off the public dole.” Not necessarily. My son works 40 grueling hours a week. He has 4 kids and a wife, and they still get food stamps, based on his income.

I still received food stamps when I was working, supporting 4 kids by myself.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III and @Darth_Algar This is an interesting article that shows the trends between employment, economy, and SNAP participation. Basically, as people go back to work, they tend to come off SNAP…even if they are still able to participate.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “Basically, as people go back to work, they tend to come off SNAP…even if they are still able to participate”

The article does not establish, or even necessarily make, that particular claim however.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar I’d suggest you read the whole thing instead of the title. They make that tie quite a few times as a matter of fact.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I did too. It doesn’t say that people drop off even if they still qualify for benefits.

seawulf575's avatar

Okay, for those with reading comprehension issues, let me help with some quotes from the article

“But analysts say that while reinstating work requirements has contributed to the drop in program participation, so has the better economy, since fewer people are in need. Data show that the share of the U.S. population participating in SNAP tracks with the share at or below the poverty line. So the lower number of recipients, says Melissa Boteach, vice president for the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, is “a good thing if more people are finding jobs and finding higher wages.”

“The number of people receiving SNAP benefits has previously fallen, between 1981 and 1988 (a decline of 3.8 million people), and 1994 and 2000 (10.3 million fewer). Analysts say an improving economy contributed to the decreases in those periods too.”

I’m sorry but there are direct ties between improving economy and SNAP participation dropping being explained throughout this article.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The problem isn’t our read comprehension, Wulfie. Though perhaps yours is an issue. The problem is that you’re trying to use lose correlation to claim something that the article just doesn’t make any attempt to establish.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s a no brainer that the more prosperous a family is, the less they rely on government assistance. However, you claimed that people were dropping off of food stamps, even if they still qualified for them, even after going to work. No where in the article does it say that.

Focus, Wulfie.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The question isn’t about whether levels of entitlements will vary with the economy. That only makes sense. It’s the fact that the pressure to extend such benefits is inexorable, and must only increase in a place distinguished by a declining middle class where the citizenry has the vote. The creeping socialism of which conservatives complain is our fate simply because people will not settle for their own privation in the midst of opulent wealth.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther