of course they will be in a better position 200 years later than others, who came to America in chains.
Kanye west recently said, to much hatred: 'When you hear about Slavery for 400 years? That sounds like a Choice'. People didn't really want to listen to what he was actually saying and instead hate on him, but it simply meant 'black people need to let go of the chains of their past now, and move on'.
My point is, though both the video and Kanye may indeed have had that kind of intention - the way and context it has been used is more to justify one's failings and blame others - We both seem to agree on the nanny state situation though, I was just rambling.
Moving on...
And that's exactly what social welfare doesn't do
Your welfare argument seems to make sense but I don't think it plays back like that in the numbers. The economy is still growing, and people by and large don't actually want to be under welfare. Welfare is a tough, miserable life and given the choice, the vast majority want to get back to work if they can.
The problem is actually much deeper than that, at least in the UK. Once somebody is on welfare, it's incredibly hard to get out no matter how much you want it because the very act of going back to work forces you to take a major pay cut - who would sensibly ever do that?
So there is a bit of a trap, but it doesn't create an ever growing population of uneducated people; on the contrary, the generation after me have demonstrated they are far more eloquent and sophisticated in thought than I could hope to be; even the conversations I past of homeless guys was politically more informed than myself.
There is surely a shabby community of lowlives that feed off their right to live a miserable, poverty-borne lifestyle, but that number is minimal, I'm fairly sure
I agree that most people actually want to work. The problem is that to many of them it wouldn't make sense. If you don't have any skills, you'd have to work for minimum wage, right? That means, the money you make will buy you the same as the money you get from the government if you stay at home, because then the rent and the bills are paid for. You only have to worry about food. Now let's say you create one kid. Then you get money for that kid, plus you can apply for extra stuff. Like, if you want a baby buggy and you work, you will have to buy one. If you are on welfare, you can apply for one - then use the one you got from your cousin and sell the brand new one on eBay. If you have three kids, you get the equivalent of someone working for almost 20€ an hour, which for an unskilled worker is a salary impossible to achieve.
In the end it is a system that punishes those who make an effort and rewards those who don't - provided they know how the system works. It's not that people are lazy or that they are lowlifes. In the majority of the cases they are just not stupid enough to start working, as that would be stupid from the financial point of view.
And I guess that is kind of what you meant when you wrote:
Correct? If yes, then here we have the actual problem with social welfare. And - yes - it does create an ever growing population of uneducated people. I wasn't talking about uneducated in the sense of stupid. They are often better informed than working people because many actually do have the time to do their own research. They are mostly anything but stupid. I meant uneducated in the sense of "not fit for the work force", meaning, those kids will grow up learning where to get them money from the government and they will know that the government isn't your friend, but an enemy, but they won't grow up to be engineers, architects or university professors, because the very environment they grow up in is unable to teach them the value of acquiring a good education.[1] www.erstlingsausstattung24.de (n.d.) Hartz IV Empfänger – Antrag stellen auf Babyausstattung, was ist zu beachten? [Online].
Available at http://www.erstlingsausstattung24.de/hartz-iv-empfanger-antrag-stellen-auf-babyausstattung-was-ist-zu-beachten/ (Accessed 25 Jun 2018).