- This topic has 117 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY – while that’s funny, it misses the point.
No it doesn’t. My point is exactly what 25 wrote. Calling them shnorrers and putting it in quotes is meaningless. They’re getting paid to do a job.
The point was that if you consider anyone who has to take money from the government to be a shnorrer, then you should consider everyone to be a shnorrer including the government (Israeli) itself.
And therefore it’s not appropriate to look down on those who take money from the government. So either you shouldn’t call them shnorrers or you shouldn’t use the word shnorrer in a negative fashion.
I really couldn’t care less which one you do.
But Mod 25 seemed to be using the term in a negative way, so I clarified that that was not the intent here.I’m not using the word schnorrer in a negative way. I’m using it to mean “someone who takes money without providing goods or services in return”
There are also jobs
“First of all, in the US a majority of organizations are regular businesses which operate for profit. I can’t imagine it’s much different in Israel.”
Most organizations that most people I know work for receive at least some money from the government or funding (if not most or all). This is certainly true in Israel. It is also true of most people that I know in the US.
And they are not directly generating income into the country. A hospital and a school do not directly generate income into the country. They actually cost the government money.
Regarding shnorring, I already explained what I meant. My whole point was that people shouldn’t criticize those people who need to take money from the government because their jobs don’t pay enough. They are no different than people who work for organizations which receive money from the government.
Neither one should be criticized. Nor should those people who benefit from the services of said organizations.
How can a comparison be drawn between people receiving money for goods or services and people receiving 💰 without contributing goods or services? It’s not about the source of the money, it’s about what was done by the person receiving it on order to receive it, no?
Working at the welfare office 40 hours a week and getting a check from them is not equal to walking on with forms and collecting a check.
“I’m not using the word schnorrer in a negative way. I’m using it to mean “someone who takes money without providing goods or services in return”
I think that most people would consider that negative. But in any case, they are not schnorrers and neither are those whose jobs don’t pay enough and therefore they need to take money from the government.
“I think that most people would consider that negative.”
So how are you using the word?
29 – as I stated in my original post (which you may have missed – it was a while back), I was referring to people who are working at something. As I wrote previously, most people I know who receive government services (and btw, I wasn’t talking about welfare but rather about health insurance, WIC, and/or food stamps) are working at something and contributing greatly to society and should not be criticized and spoken motzi shem ra about.
Amongst other things, the government offices know what they are working at and how much time they spend at it and are willing to provide these services. They do not give you these services if they don’t think that you are doing something that is contributing to society. You have to prove that you are working or studying a certain amount of hours a week (at least for some of these services if not all)
I would just add that of course if someone has a choice between taking two paths, one of which involves accepting government services and one of which doesn’t, they should ask their own sheilah regarding what they should do and act accordingly.
But if you see someone else doing so, you should realize that:
1. They are not stealing from the government as stated above.
2. You should be dan l’kaf zchus that they have Rabbanim whom they follow who say that this is the correct path.
That was my point.
correction: in my second to last post, I meant to write:
But in that case….
I hope that answers your question, Mod 25
I wasn’t talking about welfare but rather about health insurance, WIC, and/or food stamps)
It is my understanding that those are welfare distributions
“I wasn’t talking about welfare but rather about health insurance, WIC, and/or food stamps)”
“It is my understanding that those are welfare distributions”
Oh. I didn’t know that. I never heard the word used that way. I thought welfare referred to people who don’t work and get welfare instead of a salary. People talk about living on welfare. That sounds like it means that it’s their parnassah. (as opposed to the things I mentioned that are just supplements).
You might be right. I just didn’t realize that it is used that way. I don’t think that most people I know use it that way, though.
How can welfare be a parnassah?
When welfare provides you with many of the things you would normally be spending income on, that is called living on welfare. Not sure how else it can be used or understood.People collecting welfare benefits do not do anything or contribute anything for them. If they have a low paying job, that is compensation for goods and services.
“They do not give you these services if they don’t think that you are doing something that is contributing to society. You have to prove that you are working or studying a certain amount of hours a week (at least for some of these services if not all)”
That is not true for welfare. Your requirement is to have little assets and low reported income. Your unwritten requirement is to be honest about your income.
The point was that if you consider anyone who has to take money from the government to be a shnorrer, then you should consider everyone to be a shnorrer including the government (Israeli) itself.
Do you really not see the difference between taking money for performing a service and taking money someone gave you simply because you couldn’t meet your expenses?
One is nahama d’kisufa, one isn’t.
If you want to minimize the kisufa because the person is contributing to society, fine, but don’t equate a subsidy with a salary.
It’s a bit weird that people who provide essentials for other people get paid less than people who cut small rocks.
It’s only weird if you don’t account for the law of supply and demand.
That doesn’t make it less weird.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.