What I was saying is this: MA has consistently hovered at a 5.0 to 5.1 percent unemployment. National average has been at 6 to 7, though at its lowest in the past couple years right now at 5.6. I don't know if there is a correlation, I was just wondering if it was a coincidence. If there is a welfare system, it can't be more lucrative than working one's ass off.
That said, there shouldn't be welfare. Sorry, FlyNavy, in hailing MA's high minimum wage, I guess I was just being defensive for MA. In principle, I agree, federally controlled wages are bull donkey. Every labor has a market value. The way it is here, however, that market value has been corrupted by federal standards.
The ideal system (reading this part is optional
) is the kind of capitalism that exists in China (minus the Communism) (work with me here
) : In China, if you lose your job, you don't wait on your ass for some money to arrive at your door. You go out the next day to the market and start selling whatever you can - your things, any fish you can catch, and so on, or you can bargain the worth of your labor and sell that. That's true capitalism. The US is pretty socialist in comparison.
As for social programs... (a little late or maybe off topic but it would be nice to see what people think). So.. there's this whole thing about "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, right? Well, that's obviously not true. The point of contention is, should the government instate corrections so that people can kind of start from the same place?
Whether or not you think they should, in the end, it's a democracy and people - rich, poor, screwed by the system or not - all get to vote. How much should we care about the education or otherwise well-being of others? The libertarian in me says, "F*** starving babies. They're not mine, and if their parents find them worth feeding, let them figure it out." Same with education etc. But then somewhere down the line when it came time to vote on the issue, some people, including the wealthy and literate, decided (I'm leaving compassion out of this, btw, since we're operating under the assumption that humans are animals), "Well, maybe it's not in my best interests to have a bunch of savages running around at the bottom of the socio-economic food-chain, because, I don't know, they might 1) steal from me, 2) sell drugs to my kids to make some money, 3) do something crazy cos they don't know better... the list goes on. Yeah sure it's illegal, but what do they have to lose?" So we educate them to the best of the system's abilities and financial resources. And for those itching for some religion in schools, give em vouchers to attend parochial schools. It's a well-known fact that parochial schools are more efficient about money than public schools anyway (in a cost-per-student way).
And meritocracy, well that's a fine idea. It would be ideal and affirmative action wouldn't be necessary, if only there weren't so many biases against minorities built in to the system. Reparations for slavery? Ridiculous. We should just agree that we're not gonna f*** black people over any more. Reparations for the Holocaust? Same thing. Just don't f*** over Jewish people. Reparations for the Japanese internment? Ditto. But we can't get rid of all the biases. The problem with affirmative action is that it's difficult to define an equity between the biases and the corrections.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but this should be enough to chew the fat for a while.
(go Sox!)
