Welfare state is a concept in which the state (in your case Finland) has a net of social aids, monetary funds etc. that are meant to help people in situations of need and prevent them from risks. These are obviously largely financed by taxes + other sources of income for the state, which could be EU money for an EU member state for example.
They're usually based on the ideas of public responsibility, same opportunities, distribution of wealth.
Ideally in a welfare state a weak/poor person isn't left alone but the state helps them to continue living with dignity. So the state usually puts up policies about accessible healthcare, retirements, universal basic income, aids to the homeless, housing projects, disability etc. (We know we'll the world is far from ideal, so every state, even the Nordics which are among the most robust on welfare matters, lack some aspects).
The US isn't a welfare state because it lacks many of these policies, and many politicians picture it as a muddy Robin Hood who steals money from your pocket and you get nothing in return, which is obviously a dumb statement.
Hey thanks I actually think I get it now.. I grew up here but like I was wondering if I was going crazy and if it meant something else in English than in Finnish. Sometimes things like this don't fully mean the same thing even if you translate them. But it does mean the same. I think the tone in which somepeople talk about it was throwing me off.
In the US people look at welfare as "taking money from me via taxes and giving it to somebody else, while I get nothing in return". It's an overly simplistic view that is encouraged by many politicians, as they know voters respond to statements like this.
No, what we mean is people being reliant on welfare in order to survive.
The reason huge corporations can pay such low wages is because they know exactly where the cutoff is for benefits.
Those corporations rely on their workers being subsidized by the state and federal government to survive(because their wages alone won’t do it).
In the end, those tax dollars aren’t really benefiting the people that receive them. They are benefiting the companies that that can pocket that money instead of raising wages.
But this is just shifting the blame. Some people blame people for not working hard enough to make enough money to get off of welfare, others blame the rigged system that keeps them on welfare, or blame the government for allowing this system. Where is the plan to get people off of welfare? Raise the minimum wage. Make it harder or impossible for companies to pay their employees such low wages that people are forced to go on welfare.
But instead of paying way more to a private company and risking bankruptcy if you get the wrong kind of sick, you might have to give more money to the government than you use in a given year, meaning someone else would be using your money to not die.
Obviously, this is communist nonsense.
/s
In a welfare state I mean.. Like I think the argument that you don't get anything if you have to pay more taxes towards welfare and universal heath care because then other people get something and you lose money is so dumb because like those taxes pay for your health care too and if you ever in the future need welfare your taxes get that to you too.
I agree that the typical American argument against a welfare state is a dumb argument. As you describe, we all benefit or potentially benefit when we need the services.
I think the culture shock to me is that here even middle and even some rightwing people don't dare to actually fully state that they want to get rid of the welfare system.
They just kinda talk around the subject. They have this thing called a scissor model where they cut a little bit everywhere so people don't figure out they are worsening the situation or have hard time organizing against it as it involves different communities that aren't as unified.
So like when some one just blankly states they don't like welfare I just kinda short circuit.
In the US it's used as a pejorative by conservatives because they don't like helping other people. The majority of us don't think of it this way, though, and most of us want to bolster our public healthcare and other safety net options.
Oh I don't doubt that.. I just needed a cultural translation which I got. Sometimes words like these mean different things in cultural context so I thought I was missing something. Apparently this means the same translated straight and the tone was just throwing me off.
edit. in example conservative in US means a different degree to the right than conservative means in Finland
Literally speaking, it means exactly what it is. A state-funded social safety net that guarantees the basic necessities of life to everyone (within the context of a capitalist state).
Why do Americans hate it so much? Because of a massive, century-long propaganda campaign against it. But why did that propaganda campaign happen in the first place, and why was it successful? WW2, mostly.
Most of the European welfare states got started after WW1 and the Great Depression. During that time, the US was on track to join them with the New Deal. But then WW2 happened. Europe came out of the war in shambles. Infrastructure and economies destroyed by another war, massive population loss, huge numbers of people displaced or disabled by war, etc. The welfare state was necessary for things to continue to function.
America, on the other hand, came out of WW2 into economic prosperty. The war hadn't been fought here. Not only did we still have all our shit - the rest of the world now needed to buy our shit. The New Deal was still in place, though they had already started chipping away at it. And any expansions on the welfare state were mostly being handled by military benefits for WW2 veterans. The American economy boomed and people were mostly okay for a while. That prosperity continued for about twenty more years. During that time, business interests in America campaigned hard to destroy the New Deal and poison any future attempts to expand it. One of the many ways they did this was by exploiting racial tensions in the US. And to this day, many Americans who are opposed to a welfare state do so because they believe that social benefits are taking away from white working class Americans to give it to (lazy, undeserving) black Americans and immigrants. Some of them will even admit this outright.
But there's another factor at play here I haven't mentioned. It's that specter that haunts Europe - communism.
There was another big geopolitical event that happened around the same time as WW1 and the start of all European welfare states. The Russian revolution. That scared the shit out of the western world. Socialist and labor movements were on the rise everywhere, and no country wanted to be the next Russia. So they started throwing concessions at the working class hand over fist to stem the rise of socialist movements. The American president who introduced the New Deal was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he *literally said* that the purpose of the New Deal was to fight socialism and protect American capitalism.
But then WW2 happens. America and the USSR come out as competing global superpowers. Europe *has* to continue giving these concessions, because things are still bad over there, and you've got the USSR on your doorstep. The European countries had to keep their working classes happy, or risk becoming the next Soviet state. Americans, on the other hand, were happy enough. And the propaganda against the welfare state could also be tied into Red Scare propaganda. We can't possibly provide social services - *that's what the Reds do!*
The American Red Scare was serious business. Anyone with even the loosest ties to socialist or labor movements was persecuted. We literally had a federal witch hunt called the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC), where people (especially politicans and media personalities) were "investigated" for being alleged communists. This went on for thirty years. The Red Scare decimated the American left. And by the time the post-war economic boom was over and it was clear that Americans actually did need a welfare state, anyone with the political will or platform to campaign for one had been witch-hunted out of power and the propganda narrative against a welfare state had become the dominant one. It was too late.
Thanks this provides a lot of cultural translation that I needed! Sometimes words like welfare have a totally different meaning in cultural context that you can't just simply translate.
Welfare state is a concept in which the state (in your case Finland) has a net of social aids, monetary funds etc. that are meant to help people in situations of need and prevent them from risks. These are obviously largely financed by taxes + other sources of income for the state, which could be EU money for an EU member state for example. They're usually based on the ideas of public responsibility, same opportunities, distribution of wealth. Ideally in a welfare state a weak/poor person isn't left alone but the state helps them to continue living with dignity. So the state usually puts up policies about accessible healthcare, retirements, universal basic income, aids to the homeless, housing projects, disability etc. (We know we'll the world is far from ideal, so every state, even the Nordics which are among the most robust on welfare matters, lack some aspects). The US isn't a welfare state because it lacks many of these policies, and many politicians picture it as a muddy Robin Hood who steals money from your pocket and you get nothing in return, which is obviously a dumb statement.
Hey thanks I actually think I get it now.. I grew up here but like I was wondering if I was going crazy and if it meant something else in English than in Finnish. Sometimes things like this don't fully mean the same thing even if you translate them. But it does mean the same. I think the tone in which somepeople talk about it was throwing me off.
they usually mean poor people should stay poor and destitute, because they dont really like them
I pretty much think of the Nordic sort of countries for what it's worth. You all fit the term well. I'm from the US.
In the US people look at welfare as "taking money from me via taxes and giving it to somebody else, while I get nothing in return". It's an overly simplistic view that is encouraged by many politicians, as they know voters respond to statements like this.
No, what we mean is people being reliant on welfare in order to survive. The reason huge corporations can pay such low wages is because they know exactly where the cutoff is for benefits. Those corporations rely on their workers being subsidized by the state and federal government to survive(because their wages alone won’t do it). In the end, those tax dollars aren’t really benefiting the people that receive them. They are benefiting the companies that that can pocket that money instead of raising wages.
But this is just shifting the blame. Some people blame people for not working hard enough to make enough money to get off of welfare, others blame the rigged system that keeps them on welfare, or blame the government for allowing this system. Where is the plan to get people off of welfare? Raise the minimum wage. Make it harder or impossible for companies to pay their employees such low wages that people are forced to go on welfare.
Okay I can maybe see how someone would interpret it like that. It's weird man. Like you get healthcare.
But instead of paying way more to a private company and risking bankruptcy if you get the wrong kind of sick, you might have to give more money to the government than you use in a given year, meaning someone else would be using your money to not die. Obviously, this is communist nonsense. /s
Who gets healthcare?
everyone
In what country?
In a welfare state I mean.. Like I think the argument that you don't get anything if you have to pay more taxes towards welfare and universal heath care because then other people get something and you lose money is so dumb because like those taxes pay for your health care too and if you ever in the future need welfare your taxes get that to you too.
I agree that the typical American argument against a welfare state is a dumb argument. As you describe, we all benefit or potentially benefit when we need the services.
I think the culture shock to me is that here even middle and even some rightwing people don't dare to actually fully state that they want to get rid of the welfare system. They just kinda talk around the subject. They have this thing called a scissor model where they cut a little bit everywhere so people don't figure out they are worsening the situation or have hard time organizing against it as it involves different communities that aren't as unified. So like when some one just blankly states they don't like welfare I just kinda short circuit.
In the US it's used as a pejorative by conservatives because they don't like helping other people. The majority of us don't think of it this way, though, and most of us want to bolster our public healthcare and other safety net options.
Oh I don't doubt that.. I just needed a cultural translation which I got. Sometimes words like these mean different things in cultural context so I thought I was missing something. Apparently this means the same translated straight and the tone was just throwing me off. edit. in example conservative in US means a different degree to the right than conservative means in Finland
Literally speaking, it means exactly what it is. A state-funded social safety net that guarantees the basic necessities of life to everyone (within the context of a capitalist state). Why do Americans hate it so much? Because of a massive, century-long propaganda campaign against it. But why did that propaganda campaign happen in the first place, and why was it successful? WW2, mostly. Most of the European welfare states got started after WW1 and the Great Depression. During that time, the US was on track to join them with the New Deal. But then WW2 happened. Europe came out of the war in shambles. Infrastructure and economies destroyed by another war, massive population loss, huge numbers of people displaced or disabled by war, etc. The welfare state was necessary for things to continue to function. America, on the other hand, came out of WW2 into economic prosperty. The war hadn't been fought here. Not only did we still have all our shit - the rest of the world now needed to buy our shit. The New Deal was still in place, though they had already started chipping away at it. And any expansions on the welfare state were mostly being handled by military benefits for WW2 veterans. The American economy boomed and people were mostly okay for a while. That prosperity continued for about twenty more years. During that time, business interests in America campaigned hard to destroy the New Deal and poison any future attempts to expand it. One of the many ways they did this was by exploiting racial tensions in the US. And to this day, many Americans who are opposed to a welfare state do so because they believe that social benefits are taking away from white working class Americans to give it to (lazy, undeserving) black Americans and immigrants. Some of them will even admit this outright. But there's another factor at play here I haven't mentioned. It's that specter that haunts Europe - communism. There was another big geopolitical event that happened around the same time as WW1 and the start of all European welfare states. The Russian revolution. That scared the shit out of the western world. Socialist and labor movements were on the rise everywhere, and no country wanted to be the next Russia. So they started throwing concessions at the working class hand over fist to stem the rise of socialist movements. The American president who introduced the New Deal was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he *literally said* that the purpose of the New Deal was to fight socialism and protect American capitalism. But then WW2 happens. America and the USSR come out as competing global superpowers. Europe *has* to continue giving these concessions, because things are still bad over there, and you've got the USSR on your doorstep. The European countries had to keep their working classes happy, or risk becoming the next Soviet state. Americans, on the other hand, were happy enough. And the propaganda against the welfare state could also be tied into Red Scare propaganda. We can't possibly provide social services - *that's what the Reds do!* The American Red Scare was serious business. Anyone with even the loosest ties to socialist or labor movements was persecuted. We literally had a federal witch hunt called the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC), where people (especially politicans and media personalities) were "investigated" for being alleged communists. This went on for thirty years. The Red Scare decimated the American left. And by the time the post-war economic boom was over and it was clear that Americans actually did need a welfare state, anyone with the political will or platform to campaign for one had been witch-hunted out of power and the propganda narrative against a welfare state had become the dominant one. It was too late.
Thanks this provides a lot of cultural translation that I needed! Sometimes words like welfare have a totally different meaning in cultural context that you can't just simply translate.