I work two jobs essentially, with a schedule that puts me at work 58 hour weeks until the semester ends. I like being busy doing something that I love, but even when I didn’t like my job, I worked because I hated being bored. In fact, whereas most people opine that the weekends are short, I wonder why they are so long. There seems to be a resistance against the notion that work is good and desireable and the way to go. Our government thinks they can take care of us without someone to till our land and pay the tax. While they elevate actors and lawyers to positions of power, they do not realize that there when tailors rule the land nobody will make the clothes. So much for “French fashion and French politics” (The Scarlett Pimpernell).
Romney wants to put work back into welfare, and they vilify him for it. You see, it’s actually a principle of our belief system, and it’s a principle of the universe. I teach my students all the time about useful work and Gibbs Free Energy. Many of them understand that muscles get better because you use them, not when someone pays you not to.
NBC did this massive hit job on the LDS church, but they made one mistake. They showed the huge warehouse full of food, toiletries, and other sundries that we store so we can GIVE THEM AWAY to people who fall on hard times. In fact, we have been doing this so well for so long that George Albert Smith, President and Prophet in 1945, when asked how soon aide could be shipped to war-torn Europe told President Truman that it was already ready to go. The only thing they ask on Welfare Square in Salt Lake City or at similar centers in major metropolitan areas fortunate enough to have Deseret Industries facilities, the only thing they ask is that you work for it.
Several years ago in graduate school, I met a beneficiary of this program. Homeless once more, he recalled fondly however how, when he needed food and clothing, they gave it to him in exchange for putting new laces in some shoes for shipment overseas. The work is trivial, but it needs to be done, and so it’s a win win scenario (Stephen Covey was also a Mormon).
This weekend, my mother told me something I didn’t know. She told me how she remembered how, watching Cecil B Demille movies starring Charleton Heston, her dad told her that the reason these movies had so many extras and live action massive scenes was because of the depression. People were desperate for work, so they would go cheer on the chariot race or row in a galley or walk through the Red Sea or whatever for enough money to feed their families.
I find it interesting that the Democrat party platform for welfare has changed so much. Much as I disagree with FDR’s alphabet soup of government work programs, at least the people worked for their sustenance. We have a large concrete wedge about 30 miles from Vegas holding back the Colorado river that was built by one of these programs, and at least FDR asked people to work for what they received. Obama wants to just give it away.
People have a negative incentive to work. One of my students told me Wednesday night that he receives more money collecting welfare than he could earn if he got a job (plus he’s a veteran who just came home from deployment). The only way they come off is when the benefits expire, and Obama bent over backwards to extend unemployment compensation to 99 weeks, which means you can collect money for two years without doing a thing. How is that fair?
I know someone personally who has decided that it’s not fair that some people don’t have to work, and so he’s not going to. The trouble is that the cost must be bourne by someone. At a previous job, I once came in very sick with dysentery. I notified my boss I would give him my all but might not be able to do as well. My coworkers noticed I had scaled back, and so they did too. Eventually, despite making about a dozen trips to the bathroom in my 11 hour shift, I picked up the slack and worked near my normal production. When my boss asked me, I told him that someone had to do it, and since I was going to end up doing it anyway, I would do it on my terms, or at least in what capacity was up to me.
Someone ends up holding the bag, doing the work and paying the price. Much as the takers may loath us, it’s a principle of the universe. The story is told of the little red hen who, when the time comes to reap, elects not to share with those who have not sown. Many of these takers believe in karma for those who offend them but balk when karma views them as an offender. If you reap what you sow, what will those reap who never sow? How is it fair to take from the mouth of him who earned and give to him who has not labored? Of course, if you benefit from largess, of course you think it’s not fair.
Another story is told of a naturalist who observed the behavior of pigeons at the park. As people continue to feed them, gradually more birds congregate. Eventually, the humans withdraw the food source or scale it back while still visiting the locale. The birds’ behavior becomes aggressive. They are angry. They “deserve” food just for showing up. They have become dependent, but that’s neither fair nor natural. I find it odd that so many people who allegedly believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest and evolution insist that we prop up and support and subsidize the weakest among us. That’s not fair or wise.
No comments:
Post a Comment