Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Should underemployment be considered as a lifestyle choice?

Page 4 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

09 Nov 2012, 4:35 pm

nessa238 wrote:
Underemployment is therefore a get-out clause for underachievers


Not true. Traditional paid work is not the only thing that involves achievement. A person could choose to work less than whatever is considered full-time, and end up achieving great things in an unpaid endeavor.

Quote:
there's nothing wrong with that - I'm one of them, but I can at least admit it - I'm lazy and don't want to have to put in all the effort required to do a high-powered job.


I will bet anything that you are not lazy. I bet you just prefer to spend your life doing things that are more important to you or more comfortable for you. Traditional paid work is not the one and only, or even the most important, measure of a person's inclination to work. Everyone wants to work at something (even if it's just mastering video games), and so this concept of "laziness" is something that does not actually exist.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

09 Nov 2012, 7:05 pm

on the contrary many of mans largest achievemnts come from simply wanting less to do,

considering the ammount fo work a single person in average produces these days i am amazed we work more than 16-25 hours a week, someone somewhere is getting all that surplus value and it aint the general working person.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ScottyN
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 457
Location: Calgary, Canada

09 Nov 2012, 8:32 pm

There is something to it being a personal choice. I have always wodered about that in my own situation. But, on the other hand, it is more complicated than that. A lot of people with AS want to work full time, but for one reason or another, they cannot do so.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 1:31 am

starkid wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Underemployment is therefore a get-out clause for underachievers


Not true. Traditional paid work is not the only thing that involves achievement. A person could choose to work less than whatever is considered full-time, and end up achieving great things in an unpaid endeavor.

Quote:
there's nothing wrong with that - I'm one of them, but I can at least admit it - I'm lazy and don't want to have to put in all the effort required to do a high-powered job.


I will bet anything that you are not lazy. I bet you just prefer to spend your life doing things that are more important to you or more comfortable for you. Traditional paid work is not the one and only, or even the most important, measure of a person's inclination to work. Everyone wants to work at something (even if it's just mastering video games), and so this concept of "laziness" is something that does not actually exist.


I set up and ran a support group for adults on the autistic spectrum in my own time and found the sheer ignorance and complete apathy of most of the attendees, (not to mention the sociopathic, outright sabotaging efforts of one member) so frustrating and demoralising that I stopped bothering and got myself a job. There were all sorts of grants we could have applied for but no one could be bothered to even help me set up a committee (which is what you need to have to be classed as an official body in order to apply for grants). They couldn't even reply to emails most of the time. So they completely exhausted my reserves of goodwill and I decided to return to the world of work, which is harsh but at least remunerates you for your effort!

So yes, I've done the 'good works in the community' stint and I'm telling you, 99% of people just aren't worth the effort.

And the chances of them bothering to read such a long post, understand it and put finger to keyboard in an attempt to articulate some kind of rebuttal are zero!

I'll tell you, I was more than ready to re-enter the fray in terms of working alongside NTs again after running that support group! (which is still running so at least my efforts have left some kind of legacy but I certainly sympathise with the lady who has taken over the task)



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

10 Nov 2012, 2:21 am

League_Girl wrote:

It's all about tax money. Our taxes go into welfare and that is where the money comes from when it is given to them. So to hear someone say they want to go on it so they wouldn't have to work full time is pretty sick. And I am not talking about people who are disabled or unable to get a job.


I love how people say this kind of thing but seem unable to criticize military spending our how many people have been killed with our tax money. Just check the death tolls in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan over the past several years and tell me why someone being on welfare is sick but that barely even registers for so many people.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 2:32 am

Verdandi wrote:
League_Girl wrote:

It's all about tax money. Our taxes go into welfare and that is where the money comes from when it is given to them. So to hear someone say they want to go on it so they wouldn't have to work full time is pretty sick. And I am not talking about people who are disabled or unable to get a job.


I love how people say this kind of thing but seem unable to criticize military spending our how many people have been killed with our tax money. Just check the death tolls in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan over the past several years and tell me why someone being on welfare is sick but that barely even registers for so many people.


It's not an equivalence in my opinion.

Welfare provision and war are two entirely different subject areas.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

10 Nov 2012, 3:00 am

nessa238 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
League_Girl wrote:

It's all about tax money. Our taxes go into welfare and that is where the money comes from when it is given to them. So to hear someone say they want to go on it so they wouldn't have to work full time is pretty sick. And I am not talking about people who are disabled or unable to get a job.


I love how people say this kind of thing but seem unable to criticize military spending our how many people have been killed with our tax money. Just check the death tolls in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan over the past several years and tell me why someone being on welfare is sick but that barely even registers for so many people.


It's not an equivalence in my opinion.

Welfare provision and war are two entirely different subject areas.


Not in this context they aren't.

Both are tax expenditures, and one involves spending a disproportionately large amount of money on killing people, or at least training people to kill people, and the other involves helping people who are unable to make ends meet survive. And yet when the complaints about where taxpayer money are going come up, it's always about welfare. Why?



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 3:17 am

Verdandi wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
League_Girl wrote:

It's all about tax money. Our taxes go into welfare and that is where the money comes from when it is given to them. So to hear someone say they want to go on it so they wouldn't have to work full time is pretty sick. And I am not talking about people who are disabled or unable to get a job.


I love how people say this kind of thing but seem unable to criticize military spending our how many people have been killed with our tax money. Just check the death tolls in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan over the past several years and tell me why someone being on welfare is sick but that barely even registers for so many people.


It's not an equivalence in my opinion.

Welfare provision and war are two entirely different subject areas.


Not in this context they aren't.

Both are tax expenditures, and one involves spending a disproportionately large amount of money on killing people, or at least training people to kill people, and the other involves helping people who are unable to make ends meet survive. And yet when the complaints about where taxpayer money are going come up, it's always about welfare. Why?


Because war is an essential element of human nature unfortunately - if you don't either attack or defend strategically enough you can end up dead or suffer great losses - see 9/11 as a prime example. I'm not agreeing with the specifics of the Iraq war, just saying that if you don't nip problems in the bud they will cause you even greater problems in future.

War and fighting for your country are generally seen as valid and valiant things to do; claiming welfare to sit at home pleasing yourself, if you are capable of working, is not looked on kindly by many as it's seen as lazy and not putting anything back into society ie all take and no give.
It's a matter of perception.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

10 Nov 2012, 3:28 am

nessa238 wrote:
Because war is an essential element of human nature unfortunately - if you don't either attack or defend strategically enough you can end up dead or suffer great losses - see 9/11 as a prime example. I'm not agreeing with the specifics of the Iraq war, just saying that if you don't nip problems in the bud they will cause you even greater problems in future.

War and fighting for your country are generally seen as valid and valiant things to do; claiming welfare to sit at home pleasing yourself, if you are capable of working, is not looked on kindly by many as it's seen as lazy and not putting anything back into society ie all take and no give.
It's a matter of perception.


So the US is plunged into trillions of dollars in debt over two completely unnecessary wars started for the sake of revenge and not for any true strategic advantage or defensive purpose, and this is okay because war is human nature. But someone who is receiving welfare is a drain on the economy, even though they're making significantly less than a living wage.

I also find that the whole "claiming welfare to sit at home pleasing yourself" is a straw man, an easy out for people to complain about those who legitimately need this help because they can find some reason to judge them as illegitimate recipients.

I am also not making a blanket condemnation of military spending, but US military spending is far out of proportion from what is needed, while welfare spending is significantly below what the people who are on it actually need.

I also find reasoning that is all for spending to defend the country from outside threats but against spending to help the most vulnerable citizens within the country to be rather suspect.



Last edited by Verdandi on 10 Nov 2012, 3:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

10 Nov 2012, 3:29 am

And also, if someone is actually "so lazy" that they find welfare to be a viable alternative to working, it's probably because there is more going on than pure laziness.

As someone who has spent my life working hard to achieve very little, and having spent my life being called lazy because I am not able to be very productive, I find anyone's claims to be able to identify laziness to be highly suspect and more likely to be overly judgmental than truly factual.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 3:34 am

Verdandi wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Because war is an essential element of human nature unfortunately - if you don't either attack or defend strategically enough you can end up dead or suffer great losses - see 9/11 as a prime example. I'm not agreeing with the specifics of the Iraq war, just saying that if you don't nip problems in the bud they will cause you even greater problems in future.

War and fighting for your country are generally seen as valid and valiant things to do; claiming welfare to sit at home pleasing yourself, if you are capable of working, is not looked on kindly by many as it's seen as lazy and not putting anything back into society ie all take and no give.
It's a matter of perception.


So the US is plunged into trillions of dollars in debt over two completely unnecessary wars started for the sake of revenge and not for any true strategic advantage or defensive purpose, and this is okay because war is human nature. But someone who is receiving welfare is a drain on the economy, even though they're making significantly less than a living wage.

I also find that the whole "claiming welfare to sit at home pleasing yourself" is a straw man, an easy out for people to complain about those who legitimately need this help because they can find some reason to judge them as illegitimate recipients.


I said it was all about peoples' general perception ie not about the specific facts or morality involved

I also said war is human nature, whether you agree with it or not

There are examples of people on this thread who have said they could work if they wanted to but choose not to



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 3:37 am

Verdandi wrote:
And also, if someone is actually "so lazy" that they find welfare to be a viable alternative to working, it's probably because there is more going on than pure laziness.

As someone who has spent my life working hard to achieve very little, and having spent my life being called lazy because I am not able to be very productive, I find anyone's claims to be able to identify laziness to be highly suspect and more likely to be overly judgmental than truly factual.


If you don't think you're being lazy surely that's all that matters

You asked me why people judge able-bodied people who claim welfare as lazy - that's what I answered

From my own point of view, as I was capable of working and had found working for free unsatisfactory, I returned to work as I was living a pretty aimless life as I'm not able to find sufficient interesting things to do off my own bat at home.



Noetic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,277
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 6:51 am

nessa238 wrote:
The average Job Centre worker doesn't even know what Aspergers is and has been guided by me as to what I'm capable of.

Some might say the average job centre worker doesn't know their a***e from their elbow, too ;)

Seriously though, I'm pleased to read an example of these benefits being used exactly as they are meant to be used.

I have a friend back home (continental Europe) who ensured she got a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder so she could go on benefits and sit on her backside all day complaining how everyone was out to get her, and trying to stir up conflict between her remaining friends. It makes me sad to think about how she has flushed her life down the toilet, because now she has nobody left apart from her family and various shrinks (she used to have a lively and balanced social life before this).



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 Nov 2012, 7:22 am

Noetic wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
The average Job Centre worker doesn't even know what Aspergers is and has been guided by me as to what I'm capable of.

Some might say the average job centre worker doesn't know their a***e from their elbow, too ;)

Seriously though, I'm pleased to read an example of these benefits being used exactly as they are meant to be used.

I have a friend back home (continental Europe) who ensured she got a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder so she could go on benefits and sit on her backside all day complaining how everyone was out to get her, and trying to stir up conflict between her remaining friends. It makes me sad to think about how she has flushed her life down the toilet, because now she has nobody left apart from her family and various shrinks (she used to have a lively and balanced social life before this).


I think the whole 'Job Centre' experience is inadvertently an excellent deterrent to people wanting to spend their life on benefits as these places are so unpleasant to visit and the people working there are so demotivating; often actively discriminatory in attitude, that it would motivate any person with half a brain to get a job just to avoid the experience!

ESA at least means you don't have to sign-on but should not be seen as a life-long solution unless a person is completely incapacitated as working gives you so much more control over your own life.



Wandering_Stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,261

10 Nov 2012, 10:30 am

I only had a few problems with the job centre. However, this was pre-Autism diagnosis. The work programme is worse. The work programme (and job centre) both know I'm disabled. Job centre say nothing. Work programme say "why aren't you on ESA?" There is no law which says that as a disabled person, you can't work. Many disabled people do want to work. It's the attitudes of others which stops this.



starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

10 Nov 2012, 2:14 pm

nessa238 wrote:
Because war is an essential element of human nature unfortunately


I am so sick of this conflation of what men do and "human nature." If you want to claim that war is in someone's nature, look at who causes, funds, enjoys, organizes, participates in, and benefits the most from war. Hint: not women and children.