Welfare vs Minimum Wage Job

[vortigen84]

This question is purely hypothetical:

If the government enabled you to live off an unemployment benefit rather than work a minimum wage job, and assuming that the benefit provided greater income, do you think it'd be immoral to opt for welfare over work?

 

[CrashTestPoster]

Yes and no

 

[CrashTestPoster]

Sorry for the double post. I'm having trouble finding the delete button. I is smrt.

 

[morningstar2651]

This question is purely hypothetical:

If the government enabled you to live off an unemployment benefit rather than work a minimum wage job, and assuming that the benefit provided greater income, do you think it'd be immoral to opt for welfare over work?

No. It's common sense. If these were my only 2 options, I would maximize my income and minimize my energy spent.

Let's come back to reality... These guys are totally doing better than the people that flip burgers at McDonalds. It's a good thing they have all that great unemployment money to buy them everything they could ever want.

 

[Halossellar]

This question is purely hypothetical:

If the government enabled you to live off an unemployment benefit rather than work a minimum wage job, and assuming that the benefit provided greater income, do you think it'd be immoral to opt for welfare over work?

It's immoral to take something that you didn't earn.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't think they should do it, but you can hardly blame them for doing it either. Why work when someone who doesn't work has more money than you?

The answer seems to be to raise the minimum wage or raise it for a certain category of people.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Not immoral. The system is broken and already promotes that people go on welfare instead of work a minimum wage job. The system needs to change and the minimum wage needs to be raised to change the incentive from being on welfare to working a minimum wage job. Of course we need more jobs to even do that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This question is purely hypothetical:

If the government enabled you to live off an unemployment benefit rather than work a minimum wage job, and assuming that the benefit provided greater income, do you think it'd be immoral to opt for welfare over work?

It'd be ethically dubious, but moreso on the government's part.

 

[Tomk80]

Not immoral. The system is broken and already promotes that people go on welfare instead of work a minimum wage job. The system needs to change and the minimum wage needs to be raised to change the incentive from being on welfare to working a minimum wage job. Of course we need more jobs to even do that.

This reasoning is kind of strange to me. Just because a system is broken, doesn't mean that it is moral to make use of the loophole.

I don't think it is moral to put your money in tax havens so you can duck the responsibility to your country of paying taxes. Just because there are loopholes in the law that allow you to do so, doesn't suddenly make it moral. Same with your responsibility to work instead of getting welfare.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

This reasoning is kind of strange to me. Just because a system is broken, doesn't mean that it is moral to make use of the loophole.

I don't think it is moral to put your money in tax havens so you can duck the responsibility to your country of paying taxes. Just because there are loopholes in the law that allow you to do so, doesn't suddenly make it moral. Same with your responsibility to work instead of getting welfare.

I think its a grey area. I don't think its wrong to do whats best for you and your family, especially when everyone else will presumably be abusing the system as well. You'd be screwing yourself and those who depend on you if you don't do what you can for them. It would be better to fix the system instead of fixing the people.

If you can put more food in your kids mouths, ensure they never go hungry and have to be on welfare, I wouldn't consider that immoral. I would consider it immoral if you work your ass off and still can't feed your kids simply because you don't want to take welfare. Basically do what you have to do to feed yourself and your family, etc.

 

[motherprayer]

Unemployment (repayment of wages you actually earned, in so many words) is different from and pays more than welfare. Also, to collect UC Benefits (At least in PA) one must have lost their job through no fault of their own.

So. I lost a job in April, because they closed. I found out my weekly benefit would be $260. Minimum wage in PA is like 7 bucks times 35 is about the same. Ethically speaking, I see no problem if I had decided to take the money and stay home, but instead I went and found a new job that makes more. Why stay home for 260 a week when I can go to work for 450?

But, to answer the OP's question, if you are asking whether I see an ethical problem with taking UC benefits, no.

Now, welfare, however, pays, for a family of 3, 410 a month. Why, oh why, would I want to live off THAT?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If the government enabled you to live off an unemployment benefit rather than work a minimum wage job, and assuming that the benefit provided greater income, do you think it'd be immoral to opt for welfare over work?

I don't think that there is a simple yes-or-no answer to this. Context matters a great deal here.

However, I would assume that there is a certain moral obligation that comes with any offer of charity (which this sort of is), and that is to accept it only if you have no viable alternative, and to stop accepting it as soon as you are able to get back on your own two feet.

Then again, it may be the understanding that an unemployment benefit exists to give you a chance to get a job in the same field if this can be done in a timely fashion, not necessarily just any job.

I think the answer really comes down to whether or not you are manipulating the system, or using it for the purpose for which it was intended.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's immoral to take something that you didn't earn.

Perhaps so, but this is complicated by the fact that you've paid into the system and are, in a sense, recovering your own money (or stolen goods, if this was taxed).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Living in the Light]

If someone is physically able to work, I think it's better to be out in the world, engaged and working -- even if it's only minimum wage. Such a job could lead to maybe a better opportunity. I view welfare for those are disabled; blind, a veteran coming home with no legs, etc. Remember God provides the basics, but we have to do the work.

 

[motherprayer]

Does anyone here understand the difference between unemployment and welfare benefits?

 

[dbcsf]

This question is purely hypothetical:

If the government enabled you to live off an unemployment benefit rather than work a minimum wage job, and assuming that the benefit provided greater income, do you think it'd be immoral to opt for welfare over work?

I think that is is immoral not to work if you are able.

Humans were created to live communally. It is a part of our nature.

Communal co-existence can only continue if everyone follows their nature and pitches in and does their fair share.

If we do not work we violate our human nature (and society suffers as some people have to work harder than others to pick up the slack, and some jobs do not get done at all).

When a human violates their human nature they end up having to lie to themselves in order to justify their decision. Lying to oneself is evidence that they are choosing to do a moral wrong by violating their human nature.

 

[vortigen84]

Does anyone here understand the difference between unemployment and welfare benefits?

In the USA? No.

This thread is not USA specific, however.

If there is a big difference in your country, I apologize, I did not realize that.

Where I live, the unemployment benefit is part of our government social welfare program; it is thus a welfare benefit.

 

[keith99]

Unemployment (repayment of wages you actually earned, in so many words) is different from and pays more than welfare. Also, to collect UC Benefits (At least in PA) one must have lost their job through no fault of their own.

So. I lost a job in April, because they closed. I found out my weekly benefit would be $260. Minimum wage in PA is like 7 bucks times 35 is about the same. Ethically speaking, I see no problem if I had decided to take the money and stay home, but instead I went and found a new job that makes more. Why stay home for 260 a week when I can go to work for 450?

But, to answer the OP's question, if you are asking whether I see an ethical problem with taking UC benefits, no.

Now, welfare, however, pays, for a family of 3, 410 a month. Why, oh why, would I want to live off THAT?

In California a requirement for collecting Unemployment is to be activeluy looking for work. That does NOT mean taking any job one can do, but trying to find suitable employeement.

Sitting back and not looking would unethical. Submitting fradulent documents would be worse. But no problem with not jumping at the first job that comes along.

I'd say similar criteria would apply to the original question. If one accepts the welfare but in so doing lies or misleads regarding their situation. If they are truthful then I see no problem from their side. In a way it is even possible such a situation is not unlike accepting early retirement.

 

[morningstar2651]

In the USA? No.

This thread is not USA specific, however.

If there is a big difference in your country, I apologize, I did not realize that.

Where I live, the unemployment benefit is part of our government social welfare program; it is thus a welfare benefit.

Unemployment benefits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dbcsf]

In California a requirement for collecting Unemployment is to be activeluy looking for work. That does NOT mean taking any job one can do, but trying to find suitable employeement.

Sitting back and not looking would unethical. Submitting fradulent documents would be worse. But no problem with not jumping at the first job that comes along.

I'd say similar criteria would apply to the original question. If one accepts the welfare but in so doing lies or misleads regarding their situation. If they are truthful then I see no problem from their side. In a way it is even possible such a situation is not unlike accepting early retirement.

I agree.

I would qualify early retirement to mean, "already did my fair share".