Socialism 2: Modern Welfare

Now the issue of welfare has been topical ever since the institution of government. Taxation of the rich and redistributed to the poor, is welfare not just a modern rendition of 'Robin Hood' and his jolly men? The notion whether or not welfare is generous, or insufficient, has been discussed notably by current affair shows on television many times a year. Australia does have a relatively generous welfare system spending 18% of our near one trillion dollar economy on welfare, comparing this to the 14.8% spent in the United States. The question being raised is not whether welfare should exist, or whether it should be more generous, but "the social and economic reality of our country is that there are people who can work, who do not"[1] and these people should not receive benefits that others do.

Now if words like socialism and communism were thrown up in a capitalist obsessed country such as America, chances are that you would be excommunicated as if you were atheist. In Australia, in which the mixed market dominates, and government intervention is frequent, and relatively high, welfare is generally considered to collectively be productive or at least morally acceptable. The problem is that the generous welfare system has enticed many to simply 'dole bludge', that is those hard-core unemployed have less incentive to progress to an active occupation and as such, remain unemployed. Welfare reform would be best if money were spent rather than paying people to not contribute to Australia's Gross National Product, but spent on programs such as apprenticeships and training, so that those who are unemployed can obtain a job that both suits them personally, but has an enticing income. Even though we have a system "Work for the Dole" already in focus, the incentive on actually obtaining a job is not emphasised enough.

Of course, the welfare problem is not isolated to just mis-allocation of state resources but is a deeper socioeconomic issue. For example, a teenager decides to have sexual intercourse and ends up getting pregnant. She then decides to keep the baby, and as such, no longer has the opportunity to a normal life, and the education and training associated with it. She is then forced to claim welfare but is the baby the state's responsibility? It is easy to feel sorry for the teenager and offer as much help as possible yet she did have a choice in the matter. She chose to dismiss her own opportunity so is it right that the state pay for her inefficiency? Of course, many underprivileged may not have such a choice in their opportunities, for example some may get caught up in the same problems as their ancestors, namely drug or alcohol abuse, lack of motivation to progress monetarily and bad family or housing conditions. In an example of an teenage boy who may have the opportunity to self-betterment, but is constrained by his way of life - let's use the example of a alcoholic abusive father, does he not deserve compensation?

The issue of welfare is deeply ingrained in other socioeconomic problems and reevaluation of the current system will be difficult if not near impossible. The answer is not that simple, thus the reason there are many questions, and not a lot of statements concerning welfare in this post. The dynamics of society and those receiving welfare currently is hard to simply quantify or generalise however something must be done. The correct intervention is to slowly redistribute income into programs to help people, rather than simply playing them every week for inefficiency. Understandably, some people are incapable either mentally or physically to be employed, but for the others who choose to 'abuse' welfare, welfare should be reduced or taken away entirely. In particular, the 'baby bonus' should be abolished, because if you are unable to look after a baby, then the logical decision is to not let it be born in the first place, or let the state care for it, considering it is already paying for it already. Harsh it may be but until there are welfare reforms, money will be given to people simply do not deserve it. Thereby unable to be redistributed to those who truly deserve it such as those genuinely incapable or to those who are actually productive.

N.B. Lapses in expression may be contributed to by illness. Welfare is a deeper issue, and in order to not bore people, i have shortened my opinion based on few examples and generalisations, as opposed to a lengthy post issuing a lot of examples. Simply, this post is to raise awareness and opinion rather than actual factual discussion.

[1]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/13/3190877.htm

Rebecca Black and the Zeitgeist

For those who are ill-informed about the current state of literary contribution, it is advised that one should view the latest top-40 music video, popular movie franchise, or any YouTube video. Indeed popularity is dynamic, and in today's society, fifteen seconds of fame is obtained as easily as creating a nonsensical song that's lyrics are sheer escapism from conventional pop-lyric writing. The reference is to a song named 'Friday'[1] by young artist, Rebecca Black. With nearly a hundred million views on YouTube, and spawns of parodies across the internet, the question "Who has the last laugh?" must be asked. Millions who have expressed aggravated threats of hatred, or a thirteen year old girl whose infamy has generated enough revenue to help the Japanese disasters more than me or you could ever do.

One should not be hasty to dismiss her song and a recent Billboard article[2] claims that self-proclaimed music elitists would dismiss the song but many are embracing it. Its melody and standard beat do allow for its simple message to be caught up in one's mind. Most would say Rebecca Black is simply another "fifteen seconds of fame" or "one hit wonder" artist and eventually her song and presence will dissolve in the sands of time. Yet history has always been kind to most artists whose work has been under-appreciated, many painters such as Van Gough were never understood nor relished until postmortem, as with poets including Emily Dickinson whose nonsensical words are now studied in high school institutions. These people were considered the 'Rebecca Black' of their time, and yet now go down in history as great artistic geniuses. Who is to say Rebecca Black will not go down the same?

Unfortunately it is the intelligentsia, the select group of literary intellectuals who stipulate the canon: the film, book, song, and art critics who decide the impact a piece of art may have upon the world. They rarely get it wrong and as such, their revised manuscript does usually dictate mandates of artistic significance. Music critics cringe at the idiocy of Rebecca Black's song. Her character and contribution to the zeitgeist should rather be judged on her reaction to society's critique on 'Friday' and not the song itself. Conducting numerous interviews and acoustic covers, she has never resigned herself to the 'haters'. Whether or not she has been influenced by her record company to continue raising interest thus revenue is irrelevant, she is one artist who has "stood by her dump"[3] on the zeitgeist and that is what should truly be commended. Now what seat should i take?

N.B. The random rapper in the music video should reconsider his job as a rapper and producer of music.

References:
[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0
[2]http://www.billboard.com/news/rebecca-black-looks-to-move-beyond-friday-1005093722.story#/news/rebecca-black-looks-to-move-beyond-friday-1005093722.story
[3]Family Guy: "Brian Writes a Bestseller" Season 9 Episode 6

Further Reading:
Links between Rebecca's Work and other literary contributions: http://thedailywrazz.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/rebecca-black-puckers-up-to-kiss-the-zeitgeist/
Satire on Friday's 'true' meaning: http://procrastinatorsrant.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/yesterday-was-thursday-today-it-is-friday/