81–90 of 155 posts
If you give poor people money and they still had problems, then what? More money? There lies the problem. Children should not be poor, but how can you ensure accountability on the part of the parents?
Even if it doesn't solve the problem for all, it solves the problem for many. Which makes the rest of us better of.
I see our social safety net abused on a daily basis on my role, and I also am keenly aware that both parties use it as a campaigning tool, because single moms in the city working two jobs either receive too much, or too little government support, depending on who is campaigning for what.
We really need to start making goal-focused policy decisions in the US, especially when it comes to social support and education. When I read about the justification for the strong social safety net in many parts of Europe, it doesn't sound like a socialist hellscape to me, it sounds like common sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did I say it was different? There should be accountability there too.
> but how can you ensure accountability Right there is where you suggest that accountability MUST be 'ensured'. This is a very high accounting standard to set, much higher than normal for any federal programs that I'm aware of. I don't understand why you feel that a program that relieves a core ill of society (poverty) should waste no money. Anything that reduces poverty makes the rest of government services cheaper,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I knew that I'd never be out on the streets no matter how bad things got, because I at least have the money to pay rent and buy food, there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money. p=1, but still, I doubt I'm that unique. You can already do that. Are you claiming that the only reason you have your current job is to avoid the remote possibility of being out on the streets?
>Are you claiming that the only reason you have your current job is to avoid the remote possibility of being out on the streets? Being "out on the streets" because you don't have a job is hardly a "remote possibility". It's a virtual certainly unless you have a massive cash hoard built up.
It's not a virtual certainty. Not even close. The rate of homelessness in the US in 2022 was 0.18%. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...
Few people have a "massive cash hoard" built up, yet lots of people lose their jobs. And if you're willing to work "BS jobs for random spending money", as the OP said, then you probably won't remain unemployed for long.
Do economists share any culpability here? I thought their job was to apply their sharp minds and apply "systems" to achieve certain goals (not limited to addressing poverty). What if we compare it to other sciences? Say we didn't understand flight as well as we do, and we have this problem where planes keep crashing, maybe 2-3 a year (like it was in the 1980s-1990s) and instead of getting to the bottom of it and fixi…
As the article suggests, the issue is with political policy. Economists don't implement political policy. Politicians do.
If you give poor people money and they still had problems, then what? More money? There lies the problem. Children should not be poor, but how can you ensure accountability on the part of the parents?
No, therein does not lie the problem. You should give them enough money every month to fully cover basic food, basic shelter, and basic expenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think lots of conservatives desperately want to help the poor, just not in ways that might seem kind & empathetic to you. Don’t confuse tough love with no love - many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help.
"Tough Love" would be some kind of "Three Strikes" type of deal where your UBI is cut off if you consistently fail to demonstrate some sort of basic function. What you are alluding to is a "no love" stance (the standard conservative viewpoint). The idea that everyone should be able to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty.
If you give poor people money and they still had problems, then what? More money? There lies the problem. Children should not be poor, but how can you ensure accountability on the part of the parents?
> Children should not be poor Nobody should be poor. It always baffles me why care and sympathy for other humans tends to disappear when they happen to reach an arbitrary age. But perhaps you'll start caring again when they get even older? Should 80 year olds be poor? What is the appropriate age range to be poor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Are you claiming that the only reason you have your current job is to avoid the remote possibility of being out on the streets? Being "out on the streets" because you don't have a job is hardly a "remote possibility". It's a virtual certainly unless you have a massive cash hoard built up.
> Being "out on the streets" because you don't have a job is hardly a "remote possibility". It's a virtual certainly unless you have a massive cash hoard built up. It's not a virtual certainty. Not even close. The rate of homelessness in the US in 2022 was 0.18%. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless... Few people have a "massive cash hoard" built up, yet lots of people lose their jobs. And if…
I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability of you ending up on the streets is minuscule? How do you think you'll acquire housing if you don't have any money?
>And if you're willing to work "BS jobs for random spending money", as the OP said
Are we reading the same comment? Here's his previous comment:
>there's no chance I'm working anything but BS jobs for random spending money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's not about need or comfort. All that matters is hitting a higher score. so basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#... ?
You linked to specifically to the Self-actualization section which, critically, includes this line: "To understand this level of need, a person must not only succeed in the previous needs but master them" I would say it is more like a twisted perversion of the hierarchy of needs where all levels are broken down to a single abstraction: Net worth = Score