I used to be the guy upset at the "Lazy libs who want my tax money to do nothing" As I get older, and learn more about human nature. I have learned that while some may actually be VERY lazy, the majority probably are not.
I have learned that the thing that compels people the most, are Self-Preservation and Specific Motivation.
When I think of the word Self-Preservation, I used to immediately think of life or death situations. However, human nature applies to the entirety of your life, not just specific moments of exhilaration or fear. The decisions you make, what you do day in and day out, are all micro decisions you make for yourself. I like to think self preservation and selfishness come hand in hand. However, I don't necessarily look a those two things negatively any more. The definition says, 'Adjective:(of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.'
You view this as negative, and I used to. Now, I see it differently. You could say someone who donates time or money to charity is selfish because they only do it to make themselves feel better.
 |
| Lets get this guy working. |
You could also state that someone who is motivated by money is selfish for using it as motivation to climb the corporate ladder, or open his or her own business to make it. The difference is in those scenarios of motivation and selfishness, is that the byproduct is a good thing for others. Hard working employee, or employer who hires many people. Which is sometimes called selflessness. At the end of the day people do good and bad things by specific personal motivations and some form of selfishness.
As I mentioned above, I don't really believe that these people are lazy, I just see them being specifically motivated to not work. In our current climate, most individuals on welfare make more money for doing nothing, than they could make at a job doing something. They are not lazy or dumb, they are smart. They make a lot more money doing nothing than they would doing something. When i think about it I am dumb for working. (which is bad thinking for a good economy)
Here is the big issue with this. When people are paid, and no tangible goods or services are produced. It reduces the value of the dollar in the market (Especially when 40 cents of that dollar paid, is borrowed). It is better for the economy when more people are producing goods and services for monies paid.
So the big question is, what could the Government do differently to specifically motivate people to WANT to work? The simple answer to me is, pay them to work. I think we need to keep some form of welfare to help those who cannot work. I also think those who choose not to work should be paid a lot less. Then if they get a decent job, we don't cut them off, we have a match program.
I will use hypothetical numbers to illustrate my point. Lets say Bob gets $600 every two weeks on welfare to do nothing ($1200 a month). He could get a job as a janitor or a fast food worker or whatever. But maybe it is only 12/hr and 30 hrs a week ($1400 a month). He looks at this and says, "If i work 120 more hours a month, I will get an extra $200. NOT WORTH IT!" Its $1.66 an hour extra. He is not lazy, he is smart. If you have a good job. Would you take on a 100% workload increase for an extra dollar an hour? HELL NO!
There would be no proper incentive to do this. So i propose, instead of cutting Bob off when he does get a job, we pay him to work. How about match 50% of his bi weekly paycheck up to a certain dollar amount.
So if Bob works and makes 12/hr at 30hrs per week he will make roughly $16,800 per year.
Thorough out the year the government is supplying a match program (50%) with a cap of $10,000 per year
Bob would revive an additional $8,400 for WORKING.
So Bob made $25,200 that year or roughly $17/HR, that is real money. Enough financial motivation for Bob to WANT to work. When Bob wants to work, he will be a better employee, and potentially seek promotions to make even more. (Selfish...But Good.)
Now you are asking, "How does this help everyone else?" Well right off of the bat, Bob is now producing goods and/or services instead of nothing. For every dollar he receives, more is being produced now, than before. Secondly lets analyze what the government actually paid Bob.
Before, when Bob was doing nothing he stood to make roughly $14,400 per year. Of straight tax payer money.
Now Bob makes $25,200 however only $8,400 comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
This helps Bob make more money, helps the economy by adding another worker, and reduces the burden of entitlement programs on the taxpayer by
$6,000. We saved the tax payer $6,000 AND got a guy working.
That is real change (Pun Intended).
I am well aware the United States government is more complex than my hypothetical, but not by that much. We would have to put match limits in so we could eventually ween Bob off of the plan. The idea would be to teach Bob to fish instead of just feeding him from the trough.
