Comment 70052

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted September 25, 2011 at 04:10:11

It's easy to tally the costs of welfare. It isn't easy to tally the costs which would be run up without it. What would 10% of Hamilton's population do with no legal income? If it makes us feel better, we can define it as health care spending or crime prevention, but let's not pretend that it's not achieving something.

If our economy isn't able to support us, then what's the point? Sure, it would be nice if there were jobs available for all, but there aren't. "Full employment" is defined as about 7% unemployment in a healthy capitalist economy, because anything less creates labour scarcity and drives inflation (or so sayeth the textbooks...). People still need to eat between jobs, and not all incomes are conducive to saving up for periods of prolonged joblessness.

"Today, the notion of progress in a single line without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century." — Lewis Mumford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds