Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
... so you are saying that a First World Nation should adopt definitions of poverty more fitted to the Third World
|
No. I was actually refering to Britain pre-1945, before the creation of the welfare state, that we recognise today.
When people in this country did go hungry, cold, and even die, because of the lack of money.
If my nan, widowed at twenty, hadn't gone to work at the mill every morning, this being one of two jobs she had then, there wouldn't have been any food to give her child. The luxury of having anything new, clothes, toys, furniture etc, was unhead of.
Being able to work brings an independence of spirit.
My nan might have had nothing much materially back then, but she had bucket loads of that.
I'm not getting into a long drawn argument.
Mainly because nothing you can say will convince me that chosing to live off social benefits should be more profitable than working for a living.
The welfare state was created as a safety net for those who needed it.
Not as a hammock to laze away your days swinging in.