Is the "Teach a man to fish" proverb an argument for or against the existence of the welfare state?

Question

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Is that an argument against the idea of the benefits-lead welfare state, or for it? If you translate it to be "Give a man money and he'll subsist for a day, give the man the skills to work and he'll subsist for a lifetime."

Answer 1

Obviously it is against. Don't you love the answers that look for something deeper to bolster their views, those same people who think that the easiest way to come to the conclusion that 1 + 3 - 1 - 1 to get to 2, instead of 1 + 1. I just love these rationalizations.

Answer 2

I'd say that it's neither an agrument for or against a welfare state per se, but it's an argument against the welfare state being led by benefits. There will always be those who genuinely need help and benefits should always be a part of that, but the main driver should be to enable people to be employable.



I think though, that you need to take the analogy a little further:



* If you teach 100 men to fish, then give them access to a river with enough fish to feed 80 of them, then 20 of them will still be reliant on handouts of fish (There are more people unemployed than there are jobs available).



* If you teach a man to fish, but then he breaks his arm - he will need assistance until his arm heals (help is required for the sick & disabled).



* If you teach a man to fish, then poison the water - even more will be reliant upon benefits (the number of jobs available - particularly at entry level - is reducing).



A welfare state should be driven towards enabling people to get a job, but it should also bear in mind that it might not be possible. That's where benefit payments come in. I've spent all but a couple of months of my adult life in education, employment or both - but I'd rather have a benefits system that was benefits led than none at all. I'd also say that if we're going to err on one side or another - I'd rather err on the side of being too generous than too stingy. Better to pay 10 people a little more than they deserve than leave one vulnerable person without enough to live on.



=======

ETA: Time for heroes said, "I find that if you put (UK only) at the end of your questions you avoid a lot of the crap, partisan, one line answers that you've got here, ".



99% of the time I would agree with that statement (it's why I added "UK" to my Y!A ID) - but Krista has given an answer that's based in America, yet it applies to the UK electorate as much as it applies the the GOP across the pond.



ETA2: I agree with Confused Hal in what he says, except that I'm not sure it's all the fault of THIS government - it's been happening for decades, as long as I can remember. The number of jobs decreasing - particularly at entry level - is just one of the downsides of operating in an efficiency-led capitalist economy. It's the fault of this government, and the one before it, and the one before that....etc (plus the global economy).



What I will say though, is it gives a strong argument to say that labour's increase of the number of public sector jobs and love of quangos, was actually the *right* thing to do - since it gives people employment and transferable skills. Better that they do those jobs (ie, teaching them to fish) than have them utterly reliant on benefits.



I was not a fan of the last government - on the whole they were ruthless & draconian and I dread the day that labour are re-elected if that's what a labour government is like - but on the use of quangos and expansion of the public sector, they were right.

Answer 3

I find that if you put (UK only) at the end of your questions you avoid a lot of the crap, partisan, one line answers that you've got here, just a tip. Especially true if you're question involves anything to do with Socialism or Capitalism.



To the question though, I don't think it's really either. What it's saying is that we're best off if we make people self sufficient rather than making them reliant on state help.



Saying that, state education is part of what is known as the 'welfare state', it is a public service. So it's saying we should be giving kids skills that will serve them well in life by giving them a good state education.



So more investment in education means less liabilty in future benefits payouts. I'd endorse that.

Answer 4

That depends entirely on how long it takes a man to be taught how to fish, and how many fishing spots are free.



What will the unskilled people use to buy supplies while being trained? What happens when someone with skills is unable to find a job? Also, what if someone is physically or mentally incapable of working?



"Teach a man to fish" is a simple proverb for simple situations. You can't apply it to something as complex as welfare.

Answer 5

I think it's kind of pliable and can swing either way. It doesn't say "charge a man a tuition fee for a profit to teach him to fish...", it just says "teach a man to fish", so it arguably advocates the nurturing social welfare state model.



My parents wouldn't allow me to live in either of their homes after I turned 18 and had no involvement with me financially from that point either. When I asked them for assistance such as letting me live in their homes without charging me rent while attending school their answer was always, "give a man a fish", but I told them "I'm not asking you to feed me a fish, I'm asking you to teach me to fish", and neither of them ever really had much of a response to that other than claiming free board is the same as giving a man a fish to which I argued free board for the purposes of an education is the same as teaching a man to fish, so as you can see, it is not really that cut and dry an argument when you try to apply it to any practical reality. As is the case with probably something along the lines of 100% of all witticisms, this one is also ultimately utter nonsense that grossly simplifies any given circumstances as a convenient excuse for a selfish action or motive.

Answer 6

In the US millions are without jobs and have no money to go to school to learn new skills for which there no jobs anyway.You want us to go back to a time such as existed in late 1800's England. When women had to prostitute themselves on the streets of London because they were widowed and aging. No home, no job.Maybe you Mr. Brit CONtard, thik of Jack the Ripper as practicing the kind of social justice you like.You're twisted! I hope your students can teach some to fish alright.

Answer 7

a lot of people think of its contained in the Bible, and its no longer. there is fairly a chop up in usa, between people who know that the least between us prefer secure solid help and people who think of it is going to be lined by making use of charities, maximum of whom are already stretched skinny. I do believe you may help the fairly some human beings to gainful employment, yet maximum on welfare for greater suitable than a year are the two very youthful or old, or no longer fairly all there in some way. they are no longer going to fish. coaching somebody to fish in a desolate tract is a notably empty gesture, and precise now we gained't hire those with ability.

Answer 8

It works whilst there is fish in the sea.



In this present climate the current government is killing the fish quicker than they can breed i.e. you can teach a man the skills for a job but if there aint a job whats he supposed to do.

Answer 9

It assumes you are going to do something other than watch him die - as would happen without help, be it from a welfare state or otherwise.



It is debating what kind of help is most useful. Teaching someone implies more involvement, so if anything it's saying the welfare state should be more advanced. At least that's how I read it.

Answer 10

The problem with welfare is that no one wants to pay for it. The problem with "teaching a man to fish" is that it costs money.....and no one wants to pay for that either.



The fact is, we could teach our poor vitally needed skills, train them in interviewing techniques, help them with resumes and job training, etc, but all of that costs money.....and the GOP won't approve of it. So, our only alternative is to give them fish....for a 2 year time limit....and hope it's enough to get them back on their feet.

The bigger problem is that we neglect low income communities from the start, perpetuating poverty onto the next generation. Our goal should be to demand high quality educations for ALL of our children, not just those who live in high income communities.

Answer 11

In a country that does not recognize God and loses Good Teachers and Parents as each year passes, I think that proverb is basically non-existent no matter what category you want to place it in our failing economic state at this time. God Bless.

Answer 12

Obviously it's against the welfare STATE. In other words the idea that the government should just constantly provide for people's needs. Helping people help themselves is completely different from just handing them a food stamp card every month and never giving them any incentive to fix their problems.

Answer 13

It is an argument against perpetual welfare and the form that it takes. Obviously some social assistance is going to have to be directed at the teaching of fishing.



"Each one teach one" is another good idea to accompany this.

Answer 14

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day." Yep, that's the argument for a welfare state.

Answer 15

Marx said: "Sell a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll have missed a good business..."

Answer 16

Against.

Answer 17

Neither. It is a parable about the importance of education. The operative term in the phrase is "teach".

Answer 18

I dont see any republicans sharing their fishing rods.



If the best you can do for the poor as a government is throw them a few fish then it's better than nothing.

Answer 19

It is against the idea of the benefits-lead welfare state.

Answer 20

of course, we should demand from welfare recipients a plan of action for getting off of welfare, with a specified length of time, and education assistance.

Answer 21

why go out and hunt or fish

when the bread and butter and cake

are all baked and served to you

on a silver platter

Answer 22

Seems to me it's sayin' knowledge is power...

Answer 23

So.... you actually *do* support our educational system?



Cool.

Answer 24

Considering it's a Chinese proverb, it sounds like the argument for a collective society.

Answer 25

It's against welfare. Welfare just creats useless lazy people who are taught to be incapable of caring for themselves, let alone their babies.