We all make mistakes and bad choices, Gruss. Some of us get penalized more savagely than others. By the way, from what I remember, Enron employees were not given any option for their retirement account besides Enron stock.
Outside of empathy though, it is generally better to take care of social problems while they are small. For example. Bob Doe has worked in the mailroom at Enron for 10 years. He is pretty good at his job. Since he wants to send his kids to college (isn't that the American dream?) he moonlights somewhere else. Enron goes kablooie through no fault of his own. I know your scenario says that Bob should have gotten an MBA and a job with another corporation but who is to say that this other corporation would no thave been playing the same games with its balance sheet? And he would be even more vulnerable there as a new hire. Anyway, so Bob can't make his mortgage payment. Bob runs through unemployment, which is still not enough to make the mortgage payment though it does put food on the table (Bob being a proud sort does not want to apply for food stamps). Eventually Bob loses the house and we have Bob and his wife and his kids now NEED food stamps. Except that this does not get them into housing and they do the shelter system for a couple of years waiting for subsidized housing to come available. Meanwhile, the kids wind up at the crappiest of public schools and learn that the grownup world is both arbitrary and stupid. Frustrated, they turn to drugs and delinquency. Total costs under this scenario are far higher than they would have been if Bob had gotten some job coaching and maybe a low-cost loan to help with his mortgage payment in time for it to do him some good. Sure, if he had gotten himself an MBA and a cool new job with Arthur Anderson he might not be there (wait a minute).... but then again there would always be a mailroom clerk at Enron, see my point? Dana On 1/10/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > I'll agree with everything you say except granny dying in the street. > > Here's my problem with that: granny used to be 20 and clearly made > some bad decisions to get to the point you're talking about. You have > to take a step back and ask, "Is it government's role to subsidize > people's mistakes?" > > So, for example, should the guy who lost all of his retirement because > he put it all into ENRON get a "do over" on the tax payer coin? I > say no. > > I'd much rather see the majority of that money put into empowerment > programs like education than I would want to see it subsidizing > people's mistakes. (yes, yes, the education system is broken. So we > fix it via privatization :) > > In reality, however, no matter how good your empowerment programs are > you're always going to have a few problems: > > 1.) People that can't compete due to birth (special needs). > 2.) People that can't compete due to consequences (drug addicts, alcoholics) > 3.) People that, no matter how much you empower them, will still fail. > > So you need to shore up those holes. But not before you empower > people by telling them they're on their own. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:191539 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
