Why Democrats Hate Work

30nap.600Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report discussing the ramifications of Obamacare. The report revealed that the work-hour equivalent of approximately 2.5 million jobs would disappear from the workforce, thanks to Obamacare, in a voluntary process in which employees would simply dump out of their jobs, knowing they could get health care through expanded Medicaid and federal subsidies they would lose by working.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., an ideological leftist thought leader, spun the report as a massive positive for Obamacare: “The single mom, who’s raising three kids (and) has to keep a job because of health care, can now spend some time raising those kids. That’s a family value.” And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., celebrated the report as a defeat for the dreaded condition known as “job lock” — the situation in which you have to stick at a job you don’t like for the benefits. “We have the CBO report,” Reid stated, “which rightfully says, that people shouldn’t have job lock. If they — we live in a country where there should be free agency. People can do what they want.”

But, of course, people can only do what they want by taxing other Americans, borrowing from foreign creditors, and burdening future generations with unsustainable debt. And unfortunately, Schumer’s proclamation that the greatest beneficiaries of Obamacare will be single mothers turns out to be false: One of the studies relied upon by the CBO stated that those who benefit from the end of job lock are disproportionately white, single and of work age.

In reality, the Democratic vision of the world centers on the notion that work itself is a great evil to be avoided, and that any program allowing people to free themselves of work — whether to finger-paint or start a garage band — is an unmitigated good.

“Job lock,” according to the definition Reid gives, goes by another name, according to those who live in the real world: “having a job.” There are times that everyone hates his or her job. Were they freed from the economic consequences of having these jobs, they’d drop out of the workforce.

There are only two problems with this strategy: First, someone has to pay for it; second, it is not the recipe for human fulfillment. Leisure time is only leisure time when it is earned; otherwise, leisure time devolves into soul-killing lassitude. There’s a reason so many new retirees, freed from the treadmill of work, promptly keel over on the golf course: Work fulfills us. It keeps us going.

This doesn’t mean every job fulfills us, naturally. But we have all worked rotten jobs in order to get to jobs we like. Capitalism doesn’t mean, as my grandmother used to say, that you don’t have to walk through some manure to get to the roses. It just means that if you walk through enough manure, you’ll likely get to the roses sooner or later. In the leisure-first world of the left, however, wallowing in mire is a preferred road to happiness over the hard work that brings true fulfillment.

The European style of living is seductive: fewer hours worked, more hours at the cafe, less concern over self-betterment. But that style of living does not produce a purposeful life. Perhaps we’d all be happier in the short run were we somehow freed of our job lock. But we certainly would not contribute to the betterment of ourselves or the community around us. We’d leave the world worse than we found it. The opt-out society opts us out of societal happiness.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Veracious_one

    the Democrats are more concerned about making you dependent upon them than they are about you getting a job…..

    • WhateverDunce

      Exactly. Their motives are to consolidate and expand Government power and control through dependency.

  • Gnonannon

    P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }

    Men of any sex, spiritual condition
    suffer many the same discomforts, for much the same reasons. Work
    can be difficult, dangerous or stressfully degrading.

    From this predominant effect,
    various ways to labour under the sun. I take for granted
    Democrats(see: Saints) or nomads, prophets or Saints (and other
    republicans) would realize the fullness of human potential.

    But cynical optimism, the bright
    side increasing unemployment has been spread on a little too far.
    And admiring the flourishing of marxist thought, we neglect the
    robust branches and roots, the robust re-emergence of travesties
    inspired by aspirations to contradictory improvements.

    Why must we be subjected to
    conditions that don’t realize the fruits of our entire personal
    potential? Marxism’s economy of dialectic, the
    dis-equilibria which tilt the landscape in favour of political
    mobilisation, hoped to permit the movement required to realize better
    opportunities for better production.

    But revolutions is precisely most
    successful when their actors are revolutionary. They reason thus:
    Harsh industrialized regularity offers illusory reassurance for those
    with Stolkholm syndrome. (or some other neurosis). If any
    misfortune should befall our flourishing evolution, any stumble’s a
    small opportunity lost. A small fall, like a fracture, an rest leave
    and pain smoothed by newly prescribed forms of opium.

    But what a fall it is. Oh, God what
    a fall. Millions lie dead, starved or hung and arrested and bound to
    inevitable slaughter. We are the supposed beneficiaries of
    supposedly noble things spoken. “Though the words lie, their lips
    still tell the truth.”

  • WhateverDunce

    How is good-ole’ uncle James, these days, anyway? I heard he went to jail for molesting his nephew.

  • DaCoachK

    Cradle to grave dependency all dependent on Democrats keeping the free stuff coming. An entire class of parasites.

    • Davros11

      Parasitic is the keyword here, people are actually being raised to think it is good to live off other people….

    • The Facts

      Womb to the Tomb

  • kasandra

    Of course, the European model results in high unemployment, extremely low growth, high taxes and national insolvency. Oh, and nearly zero national defense. Europe was only able to implement their destructive agenda behind the shield of the U.S. military. What does the Democrat’s plan say about their willingness to have a credible national defense? As usual, the logic of their position is that they are against that, too. China, Russia, Iran – have a good time.

    • A Z

      Norway is only able to adhere to the European model because of oil wealth. Once that is gone the socialist paradise falls apart.

  • Realist

    I think that all leftist dogma has its roots in the same formulation: Any activity that makes people successful by their own personal efforts – and therefore more self-reliant – Is an unmitigated evil that must be destroyed, and destroyed by any means necessary. Any person who can claim full credit for their own success is a mortal threat to those whose power resides in the granting of dispensations and indulgences to grateful “victims”.

    The libs/dems greatest fear is that their dependent wards of the state and well-inculcated victims will somehow break free and begin to regard themselves as independent and self-reliant beings who have less and less need for the dispensations of the welfare state, and that means they have less and less need for their pretend political “saviours” who they help keep in power. Pretend leftist saviours count on a heavily dependent coalition of self identified victims, and they must never be allowed to escape the leftist/democRAT plantation.

    • WW4

      It’s not quite so spiteful. The root is simply “Money appears like magic and there will always be infinitely more of it to use, those people over there have lots of it, they should give it up, and why not, our intentions are noble.”

      • Realist

        But that accepts the “savior” rationale of the libs on its face. and I simply cannot believe those in power are so hopelessly stupid as to actually believe their own formulated propaganda. Yes, I know a great many of our congress critters are extremely stupid, but I do not accept the premise that they are THAT “stoopid” collectively.

        Am I wrong?

        • jidun

          Yes. There are people that are so stupid they think their welfare check comes out of Obama’s pocket. And that working people earn too much and don’t pay enough taxes.

        • Joe Crowe

          Yes. They ARE that stupid. They may be very intelligent, but all their intellectual effort is bent on justifying the delusion that individuals will benefit if they sacrifice their individuality on the pyre of a collective entity. They actually do believe that. That’s what collectivity does to a person. With the loss of ‘self’ comes the loss of ‘thinking for oneself’. Like social loafing, social thinking is an abdication of one’s own mental capacities where the more people you have in the collective, the stupider they become. It’s a cult, in that sense. That’s why communists and socialists always look to that cult of personality: they need the ‘chosen one’ to think for them and, consequently, to tell them also what they are to think… for the common good of course. Invariably, the scum that rises to the top of that mindless cesspool is a fascist sociopath/psychopath who is more than willing to ‘make the tough decisions’ for ‘the good of the state’. No matter how much evil results (loss of liberty, loss of life), the collective justifies it – they are even blind to it. They have fully immersed themselves in the idea that the ends justifies the means, that the sacrifices of life and liberty will be worth it in the end, that history will not repeat itself if only we sacrifice more liberty and more lives, that these sacrifices are good for the nation and are the patriotic duty of a loyal subject who cares about his fellow man. For these final reasons, anyone who doesn’t conform to this nationalist sentiment becomes a traitor – which further justifies any atrocities committed upon them. If their enemies are wealthy, they are labelled ‘evil’ for merely wanting to retain their rightful property to justify theft of their property. If their enemies are poor, they are labelled ‘trash’ for not having property steal and for being a ‘burden to society’. If in peace they have many children they are ‘irresponsible’ and should be ‘educated’ in ways that justify euphemistically a policy of eugenics. If preparing for a war or a revolution those who have many children to sacrifice to the state are smiled upon.

          The real stupidity comes in not being able to see when they are repeating the mistakes of the past and demonize anyone who can see it and no matter how obvious the propaganda technique (big, big lies and use of euphemisms to hide violations of civil liberties) and no matter how pre-patterned the evolution of collectivism and the evils it imposes on society, they somehow miss the connection as if Mao appeared before his people with a pitchfork and ram’s horns or if Hitler had a goatee and a cloven hoof or if Stalin left fiery footprints where he walked or if Mengistu Haile Mariam had enlarged canines and was repulsed by garlic, running water and mirrors. All these horrible people speak from the same script – revolutionary changes, populism, collectivism, blame the wealthy, redistribution.

          How many times must history repeat itself? A person is smart, but people are incredibly, criminally and malevolently stupid.

      • Joe Crowe

        I’d be pretty charitable with other people’s money, too.

    • Nathan Jacobsen

      I don’t think that the “tall poppy” problem is leftist in nature; it’s in human nature to be jealous. I also think it’s a little absurd to think that approximately half of Americans think they must destroy progress and individual achievement.

      I think what some people on the left often do say is that:
      1) hard work doesn’t actually guarantee success
      and
      2) even the most ruggedly individualistic success stories don’t exist in a vacuum and that there are a number of unrecognized social components that have contributed to their success.

      I don’t think anyone could argue against the fact that there are many people who, through simply bad luck, or being born to the wrong socioeconomic class, work as hard or harder than successful people who may not have faced the same struggles, and yet they are not successful. This is the nature of the world; it is unfair. The question everyone should ask in an advanced civilization is “How can one try to make the playing field level?”, which unfortunately gets recast as an attempt to make everyone’s outcome the same. This dovetails nicely into item (2), which is the simple realization that not everyone starts at pole position.

      The second item is simply a reflection of the fact that we live in a society, and that all successes, no matter how personal or inventive or individual, are propped up on the shoulders of giants. Everything from a free public education (the quality of which varies greatly depending on where and to whom one is born), to having access to good public transportation, sanitary living conditions, food security and good nutrition as a child, and positive role models, make success easier. On top of that, luck plays a large part. Now, obviously, hard work and innate intelligence play a big (maybe the biggest) role, and they can overcome a lot of these differences.

      The question the left asks is, “how do we ensure that everyone has access to a baseline level of civil works and sustenance that enable them to compete fairly?” Granted, the left’s solution to this problem has been shown to be worse than disease in many cases. On the other hand though, a lot of people on the right seem to think that these inequalities don’t actually exist and are nothing more than the fever dreams of some evil communist regime plotting to take them down, which I don’t really understand.

  • Bamaguje

    “The single mom, who’s raising three kids (and) has to keep a job
    because of health care, can now spend some time raising those kids.
    That’s a family value” – Senator Charles Schumer.

    This nitwit is a blithering iddiot!!
    Here he is promoting idleness and single motherhood as “family value.”
    Government welfare replacing fathers is supposed to be a good thing.
    Whatever happened to children being properly brought up by married heterosexual parents.

    • WW4

      Sometimes fathers die, run away, cheat on their spouse, become alcoholics, etc. Being a single mom isn’t a sin.

      • kasandra

        And here I thought that for the last 40 years the left had been disparaging women who don’t “work outside the home.”

        • WW4

          For the last 40 years we’ve enjoyed and become accustomed to a lifestyle and economy that pretty much depended on two breadwinners as the norm. Show me anyone of note who looks down on a woman who is able to raise her kids at home.

          • kasandra

            Maybe you should ask “stay at home” moms how they feel they’ve been treated by the popular culture and, especially, the “feminist movement.”

          • WW4

            Yeah, guess we’d have to find the one who actually imagined someone was disparaging them for staying home to raise their kids, first.

      • Sheik Yerbouti

        It would be interesting to see the numbers on this. While only one side was presented, are the widows a major statistical element? And do we really think that anyone would include widows into the same discussion as “welfare queens” (of any race)?

        • WW4

          Welfare queens (of any race) exist–no denying it. But holding them up as THE example, THE emblem, will backfire. Most people know a single mom, single for whatever reason, including sexual irresponsibility. Even that does not make them unsympathetic.

          • chuck

            “In fact, the growth in single-parent families was a major reason fro the increase in the proportion of children living in poverty, from about 15 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1993″ (Proctor and Dalaker 2002).

            I don’t care about the race. My kids are not white anyway. Hustlers cannot put them on a white guilt trip. They could try, but it would end up messily.

            Having the mother and father responsible for raising kids has been a cornerstone of society for thousands of years.

            Why do we have “6 angry women” from history? Because they knew 400 or 500 years ago that single parenting was problematic for society.

      • Jack

        Sometimes fathers die. What is the % of cases. No one begrudges a mother support in this case.

        How can a father runaway? Because society and the government allow them to run away. Of they file a tax return, they are findable, if the government wants them found. If they make more than 10,000 or so they have to file a return. What is so hard about this.

        What % of women just get knocked up & expect others to pay? A very large percentage. This is the reason we have morals, community standards and thus laws.

        • Bamaguje

          Exactly!!
          Government encourages fathers to ‘run away’ by promoting dependence on welfare.
          It’s no coincidence that the same groups who are most dependent on welfare, also have the highest number of births outside wedlock.
          Widows are defintely not the norm among single mothers. Divorcees can usually count on alimony and child support.

        • WW4

          All well and good–but I wouldn’t run for election saying that.

        • curmudgeon

          We used to have morals, community standards and laws. Not so much now with Obama squatting in the White House and Eric Holder deciding which laws to ignore.

      • Culchacritik

        That’s a blinding glimpse of DUH! No one suggested being a single mother is a sin, and for you to make that assertion is the lamest sort straw man argumentation.

        Go troll elsewhere.

        • WW4

          The poster suggests that single moms raising kids is not a “family value.” It may not be the optimal arrangement, I point out that there are lots of reasons for moms being “single moms” and you call me a troll? Go ahead and go public with that viewpoint and see where it gets you.

      • Guest

        Being a single mom has become the “Norm”. Being mom several times while being single is still considered a sin by some.

    • Sheik Yerbouti

      One of the benefits of the age of Obama has been the sort of ignorant gloves-off attitude that leftists have adopted. It really ramped up in 2008 and has grown exponentially more blatant with each passing year. ANY fuel is processed and used. Trayvon Martin was like striking gold for them. I’ve never seen a dead kid used so effectively to drive a politically racist agenda.

    • Marlin B. Newburn

      This single mom can then go out and have as many more children that her loins can produce. After all, Chuckie Schumer and company guarantees a steady income – paid for by taxpayers, of course.

      Schumer, a preferred politician of the people of New York state, is dumber than a soup sandwich. What the hell is it about that ever increasingly bizarre state?

      Then again, his values do create government dependence among citizens. To him, there’s nothing better than a government benefit junkie.

    • Guest

      You must not use the term “heterosexual” or “married”…oops! you MAY use the term “married” ONLY when referring to men marrying men, women marrying women, men or women marrying animals, bi-sexuals marrying either men, women, animals, multiple men,multiple women,or multiple animals. You must be “all inclusive” except for the first two terms….heterosexual or marriage between a man and woman are inexcusable…you will be labeled “sexist” and you don’t want that!

    • jifun

      That’s not the Democrat way. Democrats prefer single motherhood and same-sex parents. The traditional family where 2 parents of opposite sex are married to each other are an anathema to Democrats.

  • A Z

    “But, of course, people can only do what they want by taxing other Americans,”

    Their leader will be able to enjoy such vacations to various exotic locales multiple times but the rank and file will not.

    What the Harry Reid abnd chUCK schumer have in mind for the masses are organisations like the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) (Strength Through Joy).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff

    You have a hobby like Demolition Derbies, motorcross, car rallies, hang gliding, camping in the deep Rockies, scuba diving, you can forget it.

  • WW4

    This is just such a dumb tack to take. Paul Ryan himself made job lock an issue; now we’re ridiculing it? For every “parasite” bugaboo held up by some media hack, the Democrats will show thousands of people working two jobs, overtime, etc. just for health care. Guaranteed. It’s not about work ethic. And instead of looking like optimists with solutions, Republicans will once again come off as unsympathetic and out of touch.

    The problem with the ACA is simple and twofold: subsidy creep, and no direct effect on costs. The problems of pre-existing conditions and ‘portability’ (to an extent) have been addressed; only now, taxpayers are being soaked directly instead of indirectly. Republicans need to quit replaying the “welfare queen” stereotypes that make them look like a-holes and focus on market solutions to bringing costs down. This might play to the choir; but elections are not won this way. In fact, the last big one was lost this way.

    • A Z

      Employers should pay a little more in pay and get rid of the benefit and employees should buy their own insurance like they did before WW2.

      That is probably want Paul Ryan meant. the Demoncats took that and stood it on its’ head. They perverted it.

      The problem of group insurance can be solved by mutual aid societies like it was done in the past.

    • ricpic

      Only completely de-moralized sophisticates like you, WW4, are not enraged by welfare queens.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Is all labor dignified? Really?

    • ricpic

      Yes. all labor is dignified. Really.

  • Ralph

    Freedom from ‘job lock’ + legalization of marijuana = Paradise. Bring on them Iranians and Chinese and whatnot! I play World of Warcraft every day! How hard could it be?

  • Rick

    Can Harry Reid or (up) Chuck Schumer explain to the guy who loses their job how Obamacare will make the house payment, car payment, buy food, gasoline, clothing, pay the electric bill, water bill, car and home insurance, college tuition for the kids, or any of the other things necessary to life?

    • Frank

      Comrade Reid and Schumer will provide Soviet style tenement housing, SNAP, and public transportation.

      College education will be guaranteed for their children so they remain preferably nomenklatura or alternately apparatchicks. If others from the epsilon class are deemed bright, they will allowed to attend universities and join the appratchick class

      Nancy Pelosi or someone like her will do the Deeming.

    • putthehammerdown

      Not unless they can have a rogue’s gallery of fellow mouth breathers, woeful countenances, ‘victims’ with ‘stories’ to wail and caterwaul about, and all the other crap-ola that passes for ‘Newsworthy Stuff’ nowadays.
      You’re never going to See Chuckles and Dingy Harry make that alternative connection, either.
      ‘That guy’ you’re describing does not exist in their minds or, if he does, it’s only when his house is taken out by a hurricane, tornado, forest fire, flood or similar.
      The mere fact that ‘where the dough comes from’ is not entering into their current version of Utopia clearly shows where they’re going to go in this election cycle. They’re truly going to go to the well feeding the Low Info Voter Pool once again, and roll the proverbial dice.
      Think that This in not THE Most Important Year in your lifetime ?
      You can bet ‘big money’ it is……..we’re all out of time if the Senate is not re-taken.
      Period.

  • carpe diem 36

    “The single mom, who’s raising three kids (and) has to keep a job because of health care”, she does not need to keep her job so that she has a way to pay for the rest of her needs, like food, shelter, clothing etc. where does she get the monty to pay for all the other needs? or are we supposed to assume that she has money? how does this work? maybe the genius Schumer can explain that in more detail.

  • nomoretraitors

    How about the good residents of Nevada freeing Harry Reid from “job lock” by voting him out?

    • Joe Crowe

      Job lock, as I understand it… is a good problem to have.

  • LoJoFo

    Bottom line: For years our society has been getting comfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as sin; but even that is not enough. Now we are trying to destroy the consequences of sin imposed by God in the Garden of Eden: “To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat from it,” ‘Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.’” Gen 3:17 Rather than seeing work that is often burdensome as a consequence that we must bear in remembrance of who we are, we look for ways to say it is good–not shameful and faithless–to avoid the consequence.

  • mj01323

    Perhaps Harry Reid and Charles Schumer will step out first and lead the way to eliminate their own job-lock. Just think how fulfilled they would be if they no longer had to serve in the US Senate where they continuously attempt to ruin the lives of an untold number of US citizens. Be real leaders, Reid and Schumer. Resign today! Your country will honor you for your decision.

  • Marlin B. Newburn

    As a psychologist who has been around the pike and witnessed the effects of prolonged idleness in people, I can easily validate Ben’s commentary about work.

    He’s laser-accurate in his assessment.

  • truebearing

    “Job lock?” Whoever coined that term has terminal intellectual sphincter lock. No one is locked to a job. They work so they can eat and sleep indoors.

    What should we call the inevitable results of those who decide to reject “job lock” and quit working? When they are hungry they will get “jaw lock.” When they want to travel somewhere they will get “walk lock.” Eventually they may realize they have “worthless lock.”
    If enough fools fall for this blatant lie, we’ll all get “speech lock,” and the Left will have achieved “power lock.”

  • HenDanK

    “The single mom, who’s raising three kids (and) has to keep a job because of health care, can now spend some time raising those kids. That’s a family value.” says Chuck Schumer. Here’s a better idea: have daddy get a job, pay for these kids so mom can spend time with them.

    • blert

      You missed it: she needs to marry Daddy.
      A staggering fraction of newborns are sdratsab!
      The consequences of being fatherless are drastic — even after the father acknowledges paternity.
      I give you the tragedy of King Lear… and in particular the sub-tragedy of Gloucester. His sdratsab son Edmund betrays is half-brother, Edgar, and their father, the Earl of Gloucester. The price is heavy. Within Shakespeare’s dialog all of the bitter travails of Edmund spew forth.

      Lear is epic because the issues are to the human condition — especially kinship, honor, loyalty and land rights. (The players are almost all peers.)

      Liberal Democrats drove daddy out of the house six decades ago with ‘Aid to Families with Dependent Children.’ Such is NewSpeak! It really was funding for un-wed mothers and their spawn — or — abandoned wives and their spawn.
      Their entire running scheme is to morally blame daddy and kick him out of the house. The result is the epic ydratsab that is destroying society.

      It doesn’t take a village… It takes a family to raise a child to adulthood.

  • Nathan Jacobsen

    To the author: isn’t it a little condescending to argue that without work, one cannot lead a purposeful life? Isn’t it up to the individual to define and find meaning in their lives? Is it possible that human beings could lead a fulfilling life in other ways?

    My personal opinion is that much of what we consider work is a necessary evil predicated upon the necessity of fulfilling our basic needs. Ultimately, once human beings are for the most part freed from the jobs that are used to fulfill those needs (via technology, automation, etc., which is quickly replacing unskilled and semi-skilled labor), they will be freer to find fulfillment in a way that they see fit. This may mean intellectual pursuits, raising a family, choosing to work in a job that gives them purpose (i.e., not being forced to work because they need to eat and have a roof over their heads), or any other activity that gives them purpose.

    The real question going forward is not “Why don’t some people want to work?” but rather, whether capitalism as it stands now can continue to provide for the economic needs of our society when unskilled and semi-skilled labor is no longer required.

    • Marlin B. Newburn

      Those of us who work can’t afford your “Walden II” experiment.

      • Nathan Jacobsen

        You’re applying the naturalistic fallacy to my argument — I’m not saying that we should mould society to make this happen; I’m saying that post-industrial capitalism leads towards a future where unskilled and semi-skilled labor is no longer necessary. We won’t need factory workers, truck drivers, farmhands, possibly even farmers, as we’ll replace a large portion of those jobs with robots, self-driving vehicles, etc. I’m a software developer, and my work mainly revolves around making semi-skilled labor obsolete (and consolidating skilled labor by automating its rote components).

        Now, a similar thing happened before with the industrial revolution; think of how disruptive the Jacquard loom was. The difference was that rather than making labor obsolete, we converted skilled laborers into unskilled laborers and we developed a system wherein there’s enough work to go around to run the factories that provided a comfortable standard of living for the masses, something that never existed before.

        This next revolution, the automation of most labor outside of knowledge work, will leave somewhere around 50% of the population without a job. So, the question is, what do we do? Do we create make-work positions for them? Do we as a society choose to support them with a basic living allowance and enable them to learn skills so that they can compete in the realm of knowledge work?

        I’m not saying I have the answers to these questions, but above I was recommending an interim solution. I think that the point the author is making about work is backwards-looking and attempts to apply the ideas of an industrial society to a society whose means of production will soon no longer be human labor. What are your thoughts?

        • blert

          I believe that you’re on to the BIG issue for the rest of this century.
          I suspect that service work will continue to expand — a lot of which would be deemed ‘make-work’ by todays standards.
          I also see that the income tax — as a mechanism for supporting big government — is going to have be eliminated entirely. This reality will only be accepted when the central government has a fiscal gun to its head.
          Taxation, still necessary, will have to move to consumption. This can make service workers more viable — as it becomes far more attractive to interact with our fellows — as against buying more Stuff.
          Vacation time is a better buy than a new car.
          The vacation industry can absorb limitless labor. It also greatly promotes socialization.

    • reader

      So, what are you going to do with sewer maintenance, Nathan. Are you going to volunteer to realize your intellectual pursuits and life purpose? Are you going to wait that some other schmuck will volunteer to do that/ Or, perhaps, your dear leader will pick a volunteer? But what if he or she will pick YOU?

      • Nathan Jacobsen

        I think you’ve misunderstood my comment. We won’t need volunteers or even human labor at all to do sewer maintenance in 30 years. I think this concept will be made concrete for a much larger portion of the population when fifteen years from now most, if not all, of our transportation infrastructure is automated, and the first thing to go will be truck drivers, train conductors, taxi drivers, and probably eventually pilots.

        I recommend you read my response to Mr. Newburn below; I suspect that a lot of jobs — like sewer maintenance — won’t need human labor at all in the future. The question is how to make capitalism work in a society where most unskilled and semi-skilled labor is no longer of any value because we have technology, from robots to other forms of automation, that can do it for us. If it costs little to no human labor to provide for the basic needs of humanity (e.g., food, energy, housing, transportation, maintenance of civil utilities), would it be best to provide a basic level of sustenance that allows people to learn new skills, improve themselves, etc.?

        I think that our conception of the purpose of work will change dramatically in the next 20 – 30 years as more and more “undesirable” jobs are replaced by technology, and that we can’t continue to think of work as a necessity to provide meaning in life.

        • reader

          I think this is a complete delusion – right from one utopian on to another. Whatever technological advances, there is ALWAYS going to be social, occupational and whatever else disparity and, therefore, envy and dissatisfaction between individuals, groups, countries, you name it. Mind you, the 20th century ended up much more barbaric in terms of violence and depravity than the previous one – despite all the technology. The question is only whether the bureaucrats are supposed to run the order, or the market is, or – naturally – some combination thereof. And – as Milton Friedman repeatedly and ingeniously put it, the market is vastly superior and vastly more equitable than the bureaucrat is.

          • Nathan Jacobsen

            No one said anything about a utopia, but I don’t understand why trying to make jointly held social goods more equitable is delusional.

            I agree that we’ll never be able to achieve something like equality; the Noble Lie of American society is that all are born equal. I do believe it’s beneficial to try to ensure that social institutions, take public education as an example, are distributed equitably though.

            Unfortunately, privatization only works in markets where the profit motive makes sense. The problem with allowing perfect laissez-faire capitalism in all types of institutions is that the profit motive doesn’t necessarily translate well to every kind of institution due to the effect of unintended consequences and conflicts of interest. Private prisons have an interest in keeping more people in their custody for longer periods of time, for example. For-profit education has an interest in giving students good grades, even if they are unearned. That’s where the other free market, democratic elections, comes in: it acts to provide institutions developed for the common good with an alternative valuation. That is, a motivation (typically, the improvement of society, increased standard of living, etc.) where the classical profit motive is ill-suited.

            Remember that bureaucrats are put in their positions by market forces, in particular, they are appointed by democratically elected politicians, and a democracy is (in theory, although not always in practice) the closest thing to a true market free from coercion.

            I think a lot of people on both sides have a one-size-fits-all view: the far left believes in a centrally planned economy while the far right believes that laissez-faire, possibly even anarchocapitalism, will solve everything. The polarization of intellectual debate today creates this false dilemma and discourages people from considering a position that meld together the institutions of government and business where each has a role to play.

          • reader

            You did not say anything about utopia, but trying to make “jointly held social goods more equitable” – without the market forces that would be by decree, I presume, – is a mission by a utopian. I agree that pure stateless market is an impossibility, but what you’re doing here is an ambitious attempt to reinvent the bicycle. You’d be better off if you teachers really taught you why and how the Constitution came about, but nowadays they try to do the opposite more often than not. I wonder if you even ever read Adam Smith.

  • guest

    HARRY REID SHOULD REALIZE THAT THOSE OF US “JOB-LOCKED” FOOLS PAY HIS UNEARNED ‘SALARY’.

  • blert

    I can see that trolls are conflating widows with single moms.

    In the English language, a widow is never referred to as being “single.”

    She’s always given the honorific of widow… of which war makes plenty.

    Single moms is always used as a euphemism for un-wed mothers. Period. It doesn’t mean anything else. Much ruder terms are known, of course.

    So the specious troll-notion that single mommy-hood can be gained by other routes is a falsehood.

    A widow raising children is almost always given the honorific: young widow. Elderly widows are almost always termed old widows. ‘Widow’ , as a status, is almost never used without such qualifiers.

    America does not have a widow problem, it has an exploding un-married mother problem — to include divorcees.

    With no fault divorce, a shocking number of gals reject and eject their husbands… on the worst possible grounds. The (feminine) courts assume that each and every is a saint. The kids are reduced to the spoils of war.

  • tagalog

    I found it interesting that our President discussed people not having to be “locked in” to their jobs just because they took those jobs in order to obtain health insurance for themselves and their loved ones. So what else is new in Barack’s world?

    Isn’t the reason why most people take most jobs is that they are willing to trade their labor for the ability to buy what they want, be it health care or a house/car or the necessities of life?

    I mean, really, how many of us actually are working at jobs doing the things we love? Come on, Barack, you were an instructor at an Ivy League university; you gotta be smarter than that. I bet being a community organizer wasn’t your first choice for a job, but you wanted to get married and have kids.

  • Phil

    How are we supposed to pay down the 15 national credit cards you Douche Bags maxed out on us Chuckie Cheese Boy? Or you Harry Dweeb the Tyrant?
    Federal Government being addicted to OUR prosperity is why people are suffering.
    Got to love the dems mastery of Orwellian Doublespeak.
    You know what you nudges. I’d rather be freed from Government Serf lock and worry about my job without your interference.
    You just spit in the face of every American with a brain. Phtuy to you too.
    I just spit in all of D.C.’s face. I’ll tell you what guys. Why don’t you all do us a favor and go to Hades!!

  • Phil

    How are we supposed to pay down the 15 national credit cards you Douche Bags maxed out on us Chuckie Cheese Boy? Or you Harry Dweeb the Tyrant?
    Federal Government being addicted to OUR prosperity is why people are suffering.
    Got to love the dems mastery of Orwellian Doublespeak.
    You know what you nudges. I’d rather be freed from Government Serf lock and worry about my job without your interference.
    You just spit in the face of every American with a brain. Phtuy to you too.
    I just spit in all of D.C.’s face. I’ll tell you what guys. Why don’t you all do us a favor and go to Hades!!

  • verneoz

    All of these concepts, little or no work, maximizing people on welfare, food stamps, free housing, Medicaid, free tuition for college, and other do gooder programs are part of the Communist grand scheme that replaced the “violent overthrow of US capitalism” doctrine in the 70′s. It’s called “hollowing out from within.” This strategy is to collapse the system so a pure socialist state can be stood up. They are well on their way doing it.

  • Alleged Comment

    Demoncraps are very easy to figure out. Whatever the Bible is for they are AGAINST!

    God says work to eat. The Demoncraps say no work get free medical care for life.

    God says worship me. The Demoncraps say no, worship big government instead.

    God says keep my commandmnts. The Demoncrap say no, do whatever feels good.

    Stuff like that!

    “Demoncraps are from the synagogue of Satan.” – Ali Blah Blah

    • Justin Graziano

      ACtually, whatever the bible is for CONservatives are against. Try reading Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 19:21-24.