The problem is that many people aren't smart enough/don't care about the consequences because they've always managed to slide through tough spots.

By the same token, corporate welfare is basically needed to prevent inversions. We ARE held hostage by our job creators (Regardless of your country) by the threat of inversion/bankruptcy.

The answer is really that it's not big of a deal. In this age of extremely effective workers, others can do the jobs that the lazy are too lazy to do, and the lazy barely get any quality of life.

Of course, that depends on the country, but generally speaking it's not a huge problem in most... The exception I guess would be Sweden where some immigrant groups have between 50-80% unemployment after 1 decade of integration. In those cases maybe welfare/social services really do need to be shut off.

But is the civil unrest worth it? As more jobs get automated do you really want the extra competition?

John decides at 16 he doesn't like studying, it is boring for him but hes a pretty handy guy and decides on a whim to apply to several entry level government position including the role of London underground tube driver which he gets.
The average salary for this is £50,000.
John works this job for 25 years and in this time doesn't learn any other commercial skills because, primarily, he couldn't be arsed.
Now the day comes along that the tubes are being automated and he is made redundant (q several years of strike action)
John has no other skills that can earn the same money and can no longer afford the repayments on his mortgage.

...

This is a pretty common example of the kinds of people who end up on large benefits / welfare.

When i was at university in northern ireland (about 10 years ago now) there was a general consensus that when you finished university you were more or less entitled to welfare for the following year because you have "earned it" or at the least could piss about at their parents house until they could bothered to utilise their degree. Even people with a degree in physics. Because of this lazy streak they found it hard to find a job because they couldn't account to their potential employers why they hadn't been working.

Anecdotes are not data. Two stories are not a trend. What percentage of people on welfare are "lazy" and deserve to be left by the wayside? I want numbers, not stories.

John was in a very fortunate position for many years but didnt plan/save/capitalise on his fortune, he took the path of least resistance, he is lazy.

Could John have actually foreseen that his job would be automated making him redundant? You can't plan for something if you don't even know that it's a possibility. What do you think John should have done?

Also, complacency and laziness are not the same thing. Laziness is an unwillingness to work; complacency is an unwillingness to change. It's possible to be complacent and industrious (John, or anyone who works hard because they don't want to work smarter). It's also possible to be innovative and lazy (anyone who automates their own work).

Could John have actually foreseen that his job would be automated making him redundant? You can't plan for something if you don't even know that it's a possibility. What do you think John should have done?

Did John have kids? Did John have a family emergency? Did John have medical bills? Did John's house become a fraction of its worth because of major global recession?

Life happens. Not everybody can be an expert on everything no matter how smart they are.

asking for numbers/data while giving improbable excuses to a common scenario.

Medical emergencies and family issues in extreme cases fall under the category of unavoidable and therefore worthy of state aid. Minor life inconveniences happen to all and people get over them pretty quickly.

John didn't need to anticipate anything, he could have used the sound logic of - i should learn and improve myself to better my chances of success for me and my family in all scenarios.

Also, there are countless professions where you have to study hard for a long time (and after you have acquired a good job) which encounter sudden redundancies but there is an expectation in these industries to be adaptive and relearn if things change. Why should some people be immune to these realities?

Maybe there should be better education in life planning but really your just telling people what they already know but don't want to accept.

One of my close friends (no longer so) nearly strangled me to death over this debate. He has had every opportunity to do well (went to uni but dropped out) but instead became an alcoholic taxi driver (can manage his job sober but drinks to excess on his off hours), he has no dependents and the only medical issues are self inflicted. The belief that the government was to blame was so ingrained he couldn't see his way to fix his own life and all his friends had the same thought process. it was like a religion to them. I find it hard to beleive that i encountered the sole group of people with this view, and its a view that is self destructive.

You know..in 20 or 30 or 40 years, most coding/programming jobs *could* be automated too...I'm curious if people then will say that those in tech should not only be content with being proficient in their field, but should have predicted its obsolesence and trained themselves in whatever new jobs will be available then.

I guess we'll see...

One of my close friends (no longer so) nearly strangled me to death over this debate. He has had every opportunity to do well (went to uni but dropped out) but instead became an alcoholic taxi driver (can manage his job sober but drinks to excess on his off hours), he has no dependents and the only medical issues are self inflicted. The belief that the government was to blame was so ingrained he couldn't see his way to fix his own life and all his friends had the same thought process. it was like a religion to them. I find it hard to beleive that i encountered the sole group of people with this view, and its a view that is self destructive.

Since we're sharing stories and anecdotes, my sister, an A-student with masters in chemical engineering, works as an engineer in a chemical refinery that is owned by a guy with no degree, who inherited the refinery from his father. My sister makes 1200E per month after working there for more than 6 years, he probably makes 50x that. Just because of who his father was. My sister is more educated and more skilled. She just came from a not well-off family. When she was sending out resumes to find a better job, he found out through his connections in the industry and basically threatened her to stop because "he will decide when she's going to go, not her". He also fired her husband(and his nephew) that was working in the same factory shortly after they were married and she got pregnant.

But keep only seeing what you want to see, I guess. Go ahead and get soooo mad about those lazy slackers and not about the story I just shared.

You know..in 20 or 30 or 40 years, most coding/programming jobs *could* be automated too...I'm curious if people then will say that those in tech should not only be content with being proficient in their field, but should have predicted its obsolesence and trained themselves in whatever new jobs will be available then.

This is already happening in tech as tools do a lot of the redundant skilled labor

mikeman: That's fine. His father worked to create/manage that factory and decided it pass it on to his asshole kid. If the kid's incompetant the factory will stagnate or fail, if not, it will suceed.

That sounds like a low wage for that kind of work, though, so she should just keep applying through consulting companies/headhunters to maintain her anonymnity.

mikeman: That's fine. His father worked to create/manage that factory and decided it pass it on to his asshole kid. If the kid's incompetant the factory will stagnate or fail, if not, it will suceed.

Okay man, that's fine, this is fine, everything is fine, what's the point of talking about this then? You don't consider an injustice that a less-skilled and less-deserving person can just inherit wealth, I do. We have different values. As far as I'm concerned, it's not fine at all.

The factory is doing just fine btw, *and* he's an asshole, or maybe it's doing fine *because* he's an asshole.

I also like how everyone has some ready advice like "she should just keep applying through consulting companies/headhunters to maintain her anonymnity", like that's not exactly what she did and he found out anyway, through his connections. You people really believe the system is fair, and fine, and people in power rarely abuse it! For crying out loud! :D

(As for the wage, she lives in Greece, as did I, so take that into account).

When she was sending out resumes to find a better job, he found out through his connections in the industry and basically threatened her to stop because "he will decide when she's going to go, not her". He also fired her husband(and his nephew) that was working in the same factory shortly after they were married and she got pregnant.

Sounds like two different causes for lawsuits. You mentioned pay in Euros, so assuming somewhere in the EU. The first cause would be wrongful termination, the second for discrimination because of the pregnancy or of family status which are both protected across the EU.

Did anyone keep email or any paper trail for either?

When she was sending out resumes to find a better job, he found out through his connections in the industry and basically threatened her to stop because "he will decide when she's going to go, not her". He also fired her husband(and his nephew) that was working in the same factory shortly after they were married and she got pregnant.

Sounds like two different causes for lawsuits. You mentioned pay in Euros, so assuming somewhere in the EU. The first cause would be wrongful termination, the second for discrimination because of the pregnancy or of family status which are both protected across the EU.

Did anyone keep email or any paper trail for either?

Please. Those cases against employers almost never succeed, and the employee will get in more trouble than the employer in the long run. She didn't want any more trouble. She held her head down, because now she has a family to feed, and barely any financial security from our parents, which just live off their modest pensions.

(And besides, the "warning" was verbal, so what was she going to do with it anyway, assuming she would be willing to go for a lawsuit.)