CronoDAS comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor

[CronoDAS]

Now let’s add another complication. Let’s assume that some players’ voting mechanisms are broken, so they always vote to defect, and are unable to change that. It feels moral to punish those who defect voluntarily, but it feels immoral to punish those who merely randomly received a broken voting mechanism. -- I am speaking about people who are too stupid to do the kind of work that is important in a modern society. As opposed to people who could do the work, but are too lazy, if the system allows them. Both of them are mixed in the category of unemployed, with no easy way to distinguish between them.

/​me shrugs

Disability screening in the real world isn’t perfect, but it works at least tolerably well. (“Tolerably”, in this case, means that nobody appears to be making a political issue out of it not working.)

[Dias]

nobody appears to be making a political issue out of it not working.

It is an issue in the UK—the conservative government made a big issue about it, because it turned out that (off the top of my head) 75% of those on disability benefits were actually fit for either full or part-time work.

[CronoDAS]

I stand corrected, then.

[TheAncientGeek]

“Actually”? The UK government required disability benefit claimants to be re-assessed by ATOS, who rejected many claims. However that is a set of figures, not a reality: 38% of the rejected claimants were able to get their benefits re-instated on appeal, suggesting that ATOS had been given a mandate to drive figures down, rather than assess accurately.

[Eugine_Nier]

Disability screening in the real world isn’t perfect, but it works at least tolerably well.

Well the number of disabled people seems to increase whenever the economy goes down or disability benefits increase.

(“Tolerably”, in this case, means that nobody appears to be making a political issue out of it not working.)

Of course, think of the horrible optics of trying to make a political issue out of it.