Is european welfare society/culture making people soft/passive/lazy?

[Brumerican]

Also, i read an article (on the BBC?) saying how we were now in the post-work era.

Something like 80% of the population of the world is under-utilised / under-worked or don't work. 

Automation and technology has made this possible, and so already people are changing their lifestyle to accommodate the post-work era.

 

The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.

[Jarpie]

Although not altogether desirable, compared with the Stakhanovite movement and Strength Through Joy, I think sitting on your arse is definitely the better alternative.

Not sure were you serious or not, but I don't think I called for anything like that.

I was suggesting that the present system allows people the freedom to opt out if they so wish, where other systems had no such freedoms.

Whether they use that freedom wisely is another question entirely but whatever they do with their time, it can't really bring any less dignity to their lives than making minimum wage in a McJob.

I know that Finland has a particular problem with youth unemployment (24%) compared with the UK's (14%), but it does look like the government made a decision based on cost when they raised retirement age to 65.

Presumably they did this because paying benefits to young people is cheaper than paying pensions to old people.

But ultimately if the government want young people to work they need to incentivise them not punish them, like they do for corporate tax-payers.

I think it was more to do with certain amount of leaving the workforce vs how many people enters the workforce, than actually purely the monetary reason, but it's probably both.

I agree that incentivising should always be the first option, and part of the problem is that some people who really wants to work can't get a job, and people who don't want to work at all turns down jobs.

I know one of the problems is that companies are wary of hiring new people because getting rid of the poor workers is very hard, so they don't want to risk taking people in who are not good workers...there's been some calls for changing the employment laws for terminating the employment contract but the unions are against it, naturally, which I get why, but I think it should be considered to help to fight unemployment or at least studied if it'd actually make the difference.

I was wondering is anyone else in here thinking that european welfare society/socities might be gradually making european peole soft and/or lazy?

I think the 'soft and/or lazy' hints at social Darwinism, which suggested the need for authoritarian systems.

My english vocabulary isn't as good as it should be so someone else might've chosen different words, but despite of what people might think based on my posts I actually despise authoritarianism - generally the more freedom for self-determination people have from their own state/government, the better, but it doesn't mean free from the consequences of your choices.

Pardon me if I misunderstood you but I don't think it needs to be binary, that either you have complete freedom to do you what you want without consequences, or that expecting something in return from the citizens for the benefits they reap is/or needs to be authoritarian.

Also what's wrong with calling people lazy or soft, if they are that? When I was working in helpdesk, on semiregular basis I got calls from the mothers of about 18-22 year old youths, usually guys, that their kids internet has stopped working, and when I finally got their kids on the phone, I was barely able to get coherrent sentences out of them because they were usually mumbling. Sometimes their mothers had even driven to call for their adult kids from another city.

I don't understand why we shouldn't expect normal people to be able to have normal conversations, or to have to basic regular life skills, such as paying bills, which some young adults don't know how to do...or, I can't believe I'm actually saying this...doesn't know that you need to remove the meat from the plastic packet when putting them on the frying pan to cook.

[snowychap]

Which is why I have this ideal about exercise. I think a panacea for most of modern society's ills is lots of exercise.

When people strive for better athletic performance, they have drive in their entire outlook on life.

I think all of government and society should be based around being fit, active and healthy. e.g. http://www.healthandfitnessparty.org.uk/

I'm searching for the do not like button that ought to be part of our brave new VT world.

Edited September 11, 2015 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

Although not altogether desirable, compared with the Stakhanovite movement and Strength Through Joy, I think sitting on your arse is definitely the better alternative.

Not sure were you serious or not, but I don't think I called for anything like that.

I was suggesting that the present system allows people the freedom to opt out if they so wish, where other systems had no such freedoms.

Whether they use that freedom wisely is another question entirely but whatever they do with their time, it can't really bring any less dignity to their lives than making minimum wage in a McJob.

I know that Finland has a particular problem with youth unemployment (24%) compared with the UK's (14%), but it does look like the government made a decision based on cost when they raised retirement age to 65.

Presumably they did this because paying benefits to young people is cheaper than paying pensions to old people.

But ultimately if the government want young people to work they need to incentivise them not punish them, like they do for corporate tax-payers.

I think it was more to do with certain amount of leaving the workforce vs how many people enters the workforce, than actually purely the monetary reason, but it's probably both.

I agree that incentivising should always be the first option, and part of the problem is that some people who really wants to work can't get a job, and people who don't want to work at all turns down jobs.

I know one of the problems is that companies are wary of hiring new people because getting rid of the poor workers is very hard, so they don't want to risk taking people in who are not good workers...there's been some calls for changing the employment laws for terminating the employment contract but the unions are against it, naturally, which I get why, but I think it should be considered to help to fight unemployment or at least studied if it'd actually make the difference.

I was wondering is anyone else in here thinking that european welfare society/socities might be gradually making european peole soft and/or lazy?

I think the 'soft and/or lazy' hints at social Darwinism, which suggested the need for authoritarian systems.

My english vocabulary isn't as good as it should be so someone else might've chosen different words, but despite of what people might think based on my posts I actually despise authoritarianism - generally the more freedom for self-determination people have from their own state/government, the better, but it doesn't mean free from the consequences of your choices.

Pardon me if I misunderstood you but I don't think it needs to be binary, that either you have complete freedom to do you what you want without consequences, or that expecting something in return from the citizens for the benefits they reap is/or needs to be authoritarian.

Also what's wrong with calling people lazy or soft, if they are that? When I was working in helpdesk, on semiregular basis I got calls from the mothers of about 18-22 year old youths, usually guys, that their kids internet has stopped working, and when I finally got their kids on the phone, I was barely able to get coherrent sentences out of them because they were usually mumbling. Sometimes their mothers had even driven to call for their adult kids from another city.

I don't understand why we shouldn't expect normal people to be able to have normal conversations, or to have to basic regular life skills, such as paying bills, which some young adults don't know how to do...or, I can't believe I'm actually saying this...doesn't know that you need to remove the meat from the plastic packet when putting them on the frying pan to cook.

It is probable that I misinterpreted your words because no doubt as a Finn your perspective is rather different to my own, what with all that Nordic hardiness the Scandinavia culture is famed for, laziness and softness must be considered anathema.

As for your disappointment with youth, I think that anyone of any maturity suffers from the realisation that the next generation does not start where the last one left off, but has to more or less relearn the same lessons over again.

That is a depressing and frustrating realisation.

[meregreen]

No

[Jon]

Most young people today expect everything to be given to them and not work for it

 

 

'Most'? Evidence? Or just a bollocks generalisation? 

[El Zen]

My personal experience as a teacher is that a majority today's teenagers are very ambitious and hard working. I frequently have to remind them to relax, have a little fun and not to worry so much about results and performance. 

Edited September 12, 2015 by Michelsen

[jjaacckk91]

I'm 24 and work in biotech, I worked pretty hard for a career in science, and when I graduated it took me 9 months to get a 'career' job at 22, despite applying for hundreds of jobs I was well qualified for.Supposedly scientific graduates were in a shortage as well when I graduated.

I joined my company at the same time as 4 others All older than me(up to 30) and similar stories, graduated couldn't get a good job and were working in a 'Mcjob' or similar.

Now I compare those first few years with the rest of my coworkers who are almost exclusively 45+.

They were all taken on as 16 year olds or just later but with little relevant experience, they were put through college and degree courses whilst getting paid and had a job to walk in to afterwards.

I know this situation isn't limited to just science, but I think it is interesting

This is an example of 5 people that really wanted and sought after a career, and about 50 where you could almost say a career found them.

So is it the 'soft lazy youth' that can't be bothered to get a job, and have no education, or is it the fact that getting a decent fulfilling career job is tough, the education system is broken, and so many people were sold(or given whilst in school) educations that there aren't careers in.

[Jarpie]

My personal experience as a teacher is that a majority today's teenagers are very ambitious and hard working. I frequently have to remind them to relax, have a little fun and not to worry so much about results and performance. 

Out of curiosity, where do you teach and what age? I imagine those who wants to study and get the good job are ambitious, but based on the people who's worked with the youths, at least in Finland, there's been gradually increasing amount of kind of the youths I've described, who don't have even basic life skills. I just can't get into my head why their parents didn't taught them and prepared their kids for adult-life, which I think is one of the most important things parents should pass on to their offspring.

--

Part of the reason why I'd like people to get proper education and work for a living, as in provide for themselves and being self-reliant unless they are mentally or physically unable to do so (such as being mentally ill, or having physical disabilities etc) is that in my belief that the less people you have being reliant on the state to give them what they need is that then the social security etc can use the money to help those who are not able to work, such as, before mentioned, physically or mentally unable to work, or the retired elderly people.

It's also better for the economy as people who gets salary for work will pay more taxes, and they give more than what they take from the social security, so as I said above, then the resources can be used for those who needs the aid, instead of those who choose to "opt out" and live on benefits instead of working for living. All resources are limited and IMO they should be prioritized and not wasted if it can be prevented.

Parents should teach their kids to be self-reliant and teach them importance of getting good education and taking care of themselves because you can't always rely on other people, society or the state, and I think that partly due the welfare society where we've taught that the state will take care of the people, which has lulled their parents to think that they can then raise their kids inside the bubble, and I've seen many parents like this. What if something huge happens, for example something that they have to make drastic cuts to benefits, or prices would suddenly increase, so you'd have to work to get food or money for rent? then you suddenly need even basic vocational diploma to get work, because most businesses don't hire people without education. People imo should try to prepare for the worst case scenarios within a reason, because you never know what can happen.

Couple other important things should be taught to the teens, preferably when they turn 12-14: A] world is really shitty, cruel and unfair place, B] you can't rely on anyone else to do things for you, and vast majority of the people don't care about your problems, C) most people are assholes, D) most people are idiots and E) No one owes you a damned thing... you want it you work for it.

My parents always taught me to be helpful, friendly, polite and nice to the other people, for example always help people if you can, but within a reason and not to be naive as there's always someone to take advantage of you, and never to expect that everyone else would do the same for you, so prepare to take care of it yourself.

I'm not saying that they should be taught to be cynical assholes or sociopaths but to teach them to be realistic about the world, and as I said before, to be as self-reliable as possible because you never know what future entails.

I would've had more points to write but I thought to spare you from my rambling.

[meregreen]

No

[El Zen]

My personal experience as a teacher is that a majority today's teenagers are very ambitious and hard working. I frequently have to remind them to relax, have a little fun and not to worry so much about results and performance. 

Out of curiosity, where do you teach and what age? I imagine those who wants to study and get the good job are ambitious, but based on the people who's worked with the youths, at least in Finland, there's been gradually increasing amount of kind of the youths I've described, who don't have even basic life skills. I just can't get into my head why their parents didn't taught them and prepared their kids for adult-life, which I think is one of the most important things parents should pass on to their offspring.

(snip)

I teach secondary school in the Greater Oslo area. 

My experience is that the vast majority of youths do want to go on to do a degree or get a job, and are prepared to work very hard for it. I really do believe the overall share of teens who say 'f*** it, I'll just live off benefits my entire life' is quite microscopic (not that it's that simple anyway). It certainly isn't high enough to blame welfare state ideals for those who do end up leading unproductive lives (for lack of a better term). I'd argue that the neo-liberal paradigm carries more of the blame. Increasingly blurred lines between work and private life will inevitably produce negative consequences in terms of parenting. The (near) disappearance of manual-industrial  employment in the Western world, leaving those with more practical talents with fewer vocational options, means that we consistently try to force kids through an education that wasn't really designed for them at all. Neo-liberal dogma is, essentially, knowingly creating a minority of 'losers'.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Michelsen

[snowychap]

I was wondering is anyone else in here thinking that european welfare society/socities might be gradually making european peole soft and/or lazy? At least parts of it. In Finland I've seen quite a many young people who don't have any initiative, common sense and are utterly clueless how to function in society.

Thank god not all young people are like that, but way too many. We have tens of thousands youths without anykind of job or even proper profession/education, and they just sit at their homes and collect benefits, because they've been taught that the state (and/or parents) will take care of them no matter what, I wonder if this is happening elsewhere in the europe, or is it just in Finland?

 

There are always, have always been and will always be people who 'don't have any initiative, common sense and are utterly clueless how to function in society'. (I guess I'm one)

It is necessary for all of those people who aren't able to put themselves in to the groups that you describe to find sufficient people in those groups or sufficient, and clear, examples of those groups in order to reinforce the fact that they aren't those kinds of people.

Of course, in society, there are the feckless, the lazy, the moribund, & many other types but not all of them are those in receipt of social security payments nor are all of those in receipt of social security payments the feckless, the lazy or the moribund.

*The point of the above is to formulate a response to the argument put forward rather than get in to a discussion about who is the feckless, lazy, &c. and what kind of moral position one ought to take about those things in and of themselves.

There are many discussions to be had about social security (surely a much, much better term for a policy discussion than 'welfare'?) and there are many more about where this may lead in the future. I fear that a simple, superficially moral talk with overtones of a victorian, presbyterian notion of a 'work ethic' isn't fit for a modern world that will have to deal with increased automation, its associated alienation and the possible surprising results of that automation (e.g. that the next level of jobs to go may well be things viewed at present as 'skilled' - analyst type jobs and the like).

Edited September 25, 2015 by snowychap

[Jarpie]

I was wondering is anyone else in here thinking that european welfare society/socities might be gradually making european peole soft and/or lazy? At least parts of it. In Finland I've seen quite a many young people who don't have any initiative, common sense and are utterly clueless how to function in society.

Thank god not all young people are like that, but way too many. We have tens of thousands youths without anykind of job or even proper profession/education, and they just sit at their homes and collect benefits, because they've been taught that the state (and/or parents) will take care of them no matter what, I wonder if this is happening elsewhere in the europe, or is it just in Finland?

 

There are always, have always been and will always be people who 'don't have any initiative, common sense and are utterly clueless how to function in society'. (I guess I'm one)

Sure, but the people I know who works with the kids, teens and young adults have told me that the amount of the people who are utterly clueless how to function in real, adult life has been steadily increasing for about 15 years, and they do say that they've seen the shift in the parenting styles from the previous generations, as nowdays many more parents are for "the free upbringing" where they think that they should let their kids to "form their own personality" and "value system", instead of "imposing" their own, I know there are people who will disagree with me but based on what I've heard and seen, it'll create more people like I described above than with more "old fashioned" methods, although there's of course much more than what makes a person than just upbringing by parents but it's a huge part of it.

It is necessary for all of those people who aren't able to put themselves in to the groups that you describe to find sufficient people in those groups or sufficient, and clear, examples of those groups in order to reinforce the fact that they aren't those kinds of people.

Of course, in society, there are the feckless, the lazy, the moribund, & many other types but not all of them are those in receipt of social security payments nor are all of those in receipt of social security payments the feckless, the lazy or the moribund.

Yeah, of course not. One of the big problems in the finnish job market is that the jobs and the people don't meet; jobs are offered to the people who don't want to work, and those who want to work, won't get hired. One of the problems (at least in finnish) in society (for the lack of better word) is that the valuation or respect for more traditional jobs have lowered, so people don't go for them as much as before even if there'd be need for them, such as nurses in hospitals etc.

Part of the blame is in the current benefit system where people don't value the more low paying jobs as much as before because they see that the benefits are "too close" to the salary they'd be getting after taxes, so it doesn't "pay" to go for them, it's not of course only reason but part of it.

*The point of the above is to formulate a response to the argument put forward rather than get in to a discussion about who is the feckless, lazy, &c. and what kind of moral position one ought to take about those things in and of themselves.

There are many discussions to be had about social security (surely a much, much better term for a policy discussion than 'welfare'?) and there are many more about where this may lead in the future. I fear that a simple, superficially moral talk with overtones of a victorian, presbyterian notion of a 'work ethic' isn't fit for a modern world that will have to deal with increased automation, its associated alienation and the possible surprising results of that automation (e.g. that the next level of jobs to go may well be things viewed at present as 'skilled' - analyst type jobs and the like).

I have to disagree with this vehemently, I think proper work ethic where working hard, no matter what the job is, will be much more important than before in the future when the job markets will widen even more toward the asia, and possibly to middle-east, south america and africa where they will a] work cheaper and b] work harder, so europeans need to keep up with the competition, also don't forget that they will still need at least couple people to fix those machines, and there's yet another place where the good work ethic comes into the question; they'll hire/keep those who are the most competent; working hard and doing good job is part of it.

When the employer can choose who to lay off from group of the workers, guess who will they choose, those who work hard, are more efficient and does better job, or those who aren't as diligent/industrious and are sloppy?

Take your example, analyst, the good work ethic also comes into this; the employer is looking at their analysts and how good job they do, and they decide to replace third of their workforce, guess who's gonna be the first ones to go; those with good work ethic (dilligent, effective, hard-working) or those who are sloppy, slow and inefficient?

When the time comes and people who don't have a good work ethic and are sloppy are laid off, and they start to complain that they were laid off or replaced, should maybe consider "Gee, maybe I should've done better job or worked harder" instead of blaming others or just the company, sure people might get fired because their boss just doesn't like their face or personality, but being sloppy or lazy doesn't certainly help in that situation either.

I don't like it anymore than the rest when companies lays off people just to get better bonuses for the bosses, which I find abhorrent but the cold hard reality is still the same; they'll keep those who think will bring the most value for the buck.

Good and hard-working workers will bring in more money for the company -> company has more money to invest -> investing money will create more jobs -> more people in work means more taxes -> taxes can be used to take care of those who are unable to work, better healthcare etc so I don't see why people, in this forum too, are (seemingly) against of good work ethic (Edit: if I've misinteprepted someone, correct me)? I know that's very simplified example and things don't always work like that but that's how economy in the simplest terms works.

Maybe it's lack of my understanding english but I've always thought that welfare and social security are the same thing? When it comes to welfare or social security I do like most things about it, such as cheap healthcare, free education (which I think works great at least here in Finland as everyone who's good enough will have the same opportunities to go as far as they can and don't have to pay for tuitions, no matter how wealthy they are), taking care of the elderly, mentally- and physically handicapped etc.

One of the big problems in Finland, combined with the (unemployment) benefits is that because it's almost impossible to get rid of the unproducrive and/or "problem" employees, the companies are very reluctant to hire new ones as then they'll be stuck with the very expensive ones who will just lose them money. This I think will also prevent the companies from growing, as they don't want to get the risk investing money to hire workers who would be operating at loss for the company, and who they can't get rid of.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Jarpie

[snowychap]

I have to disagree with this vehemently, I think proper work ethic where working hard, no matter what the job is, will be much more important than before in the future when the job markets will widen even more toward the asia, and possibly to middle-east, south america and africa where they will a] work cheaper and b] work harder, so europeans need to keep up with the competition, also don't forget that they will still need at least couple people to fix those machines, and there's yet another place where the good work ethic comes into the question; they'll hire/keep those who are the most competent; working hard and doing good job is part of it.

I haven't got the time to respond to your considered and lengthy post in full at the moment (or perhaps I can't be arsed right now ) but I will just pick up on what you say in the above quote.

You've slightly got the wrong gist of what I was saying in the line that you highlighted. It wasn't to say that an employer (or many or all employers) may or may not value a work ethic but that the discussion (about overall employment/social security/the future of employment and so on) doesn't benefit from that kind of talk and the implicit corollary that those who are out of the workplace don't have that ethic (and thus deserve to be where they are) and those that are in the workplace do (and thus deserve to be where they are).

I am quite concerned that people so obviously conflate hard work with efficiency with doing a better job and diligence with industriousness - they're huge mistakes to make in my experience and opinion and perhaps these conflations have something to do with productivity problems in western economies (obviously there are many other factors there, too).

Edited September 25, 2015 by snowychap

[CrackpotForeigner]

I was struck by a story in the news where an aid agency is in trouble because a couple of their volunteers went swimming while on their overseas trip and got swept away by a rip current.

It's a tragic story, but the thing is that the aid agency is in trouble for not having done a "Risk Assessment" on people going swimming.

Now I don't know if the answer to the thread question is yes or no, but if it is yes then I hold the Risk Assessment mentality partly responsible. How to make sure we're all safetified to within an inch of our lives?: Make Risk Assessments relevant to everything including scratching your arse. Lawyers and insurance companies will thank you for it.

[chrisp65]

I'd be wary about any story that involves responsibility due to lack of risk assessment or health and safety. Whilst this will undoubtedly be looked at, a risk assessment or lack of a risk assessment does not excuse an individual's lack of common sense or truly freak accidents.

If you employ somebody to work next to shark infested waters, you do not (contrary to public belief) need to give them a risk assessment that states 'do not go in the sharky water wrapped in bacon'. 

I've just done a course! You most definitely do not need to tell people that are used to working on roofs not to fall off the roof. You don't need to tell people working by the sea not to drown themselves.

[Jarpie]

I have to disagree with this vehemently, I think proper work ethic where working hard, no matter what the job is, will be much more important than before in the future when the job markets will widen even more toward the asia, and possibly to middle-east, south america and africa where they will a] work cheaper and b] work harder, so europeans need to keep up with the competition, also don't forget that they will still need at least couple people to fix those machines, and there's yet another place where the good work ethic comes into the question; they'll hire/keep those who are the most competent; working hard and doing good job is part of it.

I haven't got the time to respond to your lengthy post in full at the moment (or perhaps I can't be arsed right now ) but I will just pick up on what you say in the above quote.

You've slightly got the wrong gist of what I was saying in the line that you highlighted. It wasn't to say that an employer (or many or all employers) may or may not value a work ethic but that the discussion (about overall employment/social security/the future of employment and so on) doesn't benefit from that kind of talk and the implicit corollary that those who are out of the workplace don't have that ethic (and thus deserve to be where they are) and those that are in the workplace do (and thus deserve to be where they are).

I am quite concerned that people so obviously conflate hard work with efficiency with doing a better job and diligence with industriousness - they're huge mistakes to make in my experience and opinion and perhaps these conflations have something to do with productivity problems in western economies (obviously there are many other factors there, too).

I'll try to be brief as well.

What else is hard work then if not effiency, doing a better job, diligence and/or industriousness, or vice versa? During my lifetime as I've been on this rock I have noticed in myself, and in the others that when you work to get something, be it saving money from salary to buy something, or doing something, for example, being as simple as go to fish to catch your food once in a while, it feels better to get it and you appreciate what you get more, than just to get it without an effort.

As I said in another part of my message is that I don't think that all of those who don't have a job aren't hard working, or doesn't want to work, but I do think there are people like that, but to what extent? That'd be interesting to know, but it's very hard to measure into statistics, unfortunately.

Like I said, as it's almost impossible to get rid of the unmotivated and unproductive employee without months long "fight" (so to speak), which can potentially cost a lot to the smaller businesses and cripple them, they'd rather not hire anyone unless absolutely needed than take the risk which can cost them a lot of money. The employees knows that they don't have to put as much effort as needed because they're very hard to get rid of, so some will become unmotivated and unproductive. I and others have seen this happen in the work places, and it has slowly crept into the finnish (work) culture, and those parents will teach their children the same and so on. I don't know about british employment laws so I can't say if it's the same in there.

Part of the problem is obviously, at least in finland, that employee will cost 30-40% more per month to the employer than what their salary is due what they need to pay to the state, such as portion to the retirement funds, social security costs etc, and it obviously will make it more expensive to produce what the company is producing, be it service, physical products etc, and the world isn't getting any less globalized, and as we've seen the larger companies will go to the countries where it's cheaper to produce the goods, and move the jobs out of the europe/north america.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

But all work is not the same.

Working and just producing surplus value for the capitalist is 'alienating'; doing the same job for yourself or for those you have relationship which goes beyond the mere economic is not alienating.

Baking cakes for yourself and your family is satisfying and rewarding but sitting on a production line in a bakery putting a cherry on a thousand cakes for eight hours, is not.

 

[snowychap]

What else is hard work then if not effiency, doing a better job, diligence and/or industriousness, or vice versa?

...

Hard work is hard work; efficiency is efficiency.

Hard work can be very useful, it can also be pointless and, on occasions, it can be utterly counter-productive.

 

It's interesting that a lot of your previous two posts have been about employers/companies getting rid of the 'unmotivated and unproductive' and therefore taking them out of the job market. What then for these people? You wouldn't want them back in the workplace, would you? Because otherwise they'd be the same drag on productivity elsewhere.

 

[chrisp65]

There's an argument that if you're having to work hard you don't have a very efficient process. 

You should work efficiently whether the job itself is hard or not. Not the other way around.