Re: The record industry, RIAA and US law

[Joe Hart <j.hart@orange.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

gray wrote:
>>> The welfare system is too lenient.  There are a number of people who
>>> refuse to work because they actually take a pay cut by getting a job.
>> Something wrong there. The welfare benefit should be less than the
>> minimum hourly wage. Can't blame anyone there, hell would you choose to
>> not work for more money or working for less? Are you sure you have that
>> right?
> 
> Chris - you are right to ask this poster to check the facts.  I wonder
> if he was ever on welfare and if so - for how long?  Also I wonder how
> easy it actually is to qualify for this welfare.

I assume you're talking about me as the OP in this case, but it would
help if you would include the "Username posted on Date" so that it is
easier to follow.  I already replied to Chris' message.

> 
> The differential between minimum wage and welfare does not mean 'the
> welfare system is too lenient'.  It means the minimum wage has been
> allowed to stagnate over a long period of time.  That is the problem
> in Australia.  (On the other hand social security here is becoming
> more difficult to access).
> 
> In many circumstances welfare recipients get financially penalised for
> taking on work.  But all the measures to remedy this do nothing to
> effect the root cause: the very poor wage rate of many low-status
> jobs.
> 
> I think we like to make sure our toilet cleaners and our supermarket
> workers are economically stranded.  Then they will all be forced to
> keep doing their jobs - for us.  And the wages of the other sector of
> the economy just keep escalating.
> 
> Why does this poster care about what 'they' do - is he worried there
> will be no one to clean his shoes?

Interesting observation.  I agree that there are workers in the labor
market needed, and certain jobs are not desirable for educated people,
so one could argue that it is better to purposely not educate a certain
number of people so that the only benefit they will have for society is
their unskilled labor.  IMO, it's not a very attractive policy.

Another solution is to pay a fair salary for the work.  Such as where I
lived in the US. A garbage collector earned a much higher wage than one
who worked as a stock-boy in a department store.  The cashiers at the
grocery stores were also paid a decent wage, but only because they had a
union that fought for their rights.  But everyone who had a job earned
more than the people receiving welfare, unless they had a lot of
children declared as dependents.

The problem is not a simple one to solve, because everyone should have
the right to board and housing, but someone has to pay for it.

I remember learning in my youth that "Nothing is free, somebody,
somewhere pays for what you get for nothing."  Even the air we breathe
costs money because there are people who monitor it, and that costs
money.  However, we don't individually have to pay for it (yet).

Joe

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGSsHviXBCVWpc5J4RAiFdAKDBNhkvSbD9pHOR7mfi6W3jMZspggCfb7Fc
tPu4YoQ6JcuxlzDy+nVJS1I=
=Lg4o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----