More specifically, survival of the fittest. The strong live and the weak die. That's how the world boils down to. What makes us different from the animals when it comes to that natural instinct is that we have higher capacities. We are capable of doing better but that's a choice. Even when doing things out of the goodness of our hearts, there's still motivation behind it. Moral superiority, influence, loyalty, etc. We're not saints.Mercury01 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:39 pmCapitalism.Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:36 pm There are enough houses for everyone to live in.
https://betterdwelling.com/vacant-homes ... ng-60-tax/#_
There is enough food for everyone to eat.
https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunge ... /#produce1
So why do we still allow people to go homeless and starve?
The Myth of Scarcity
Re: The Myth of Scarcity
"Adapt, Overcome & Improvise"
"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."
"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."
Re: The Myth of Scarcity
We're not saints but we're not devils either, and natural instinct is more than just dog eats dog. Cooperation is also an instinctive behaviour, as is compassion. People really are capable of selfnessness, it isn't true to imply that there's really a selfish behaviour behind every seemingly selfless act if you dig deep enough, even if you don't count helping others as being rewarding in its own right hence a selfish motivation.excalibur wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:32 am
More specifically, survival of the fittest. The strong live and the weak die. That's how the world boils down to. What makes us different from the animals when it comes to that natural instinct is that we have higher capacities. We are capable of doing better but that's a choice. Even when doing things out of the goodness of our hearts, there's still motivation behind it. Moral superiority, influence, loyalty, etc. We're not saints.
Re: The Myth of Scarcity
I'd like to think that after everything we dealt with in the first half of the 20th Century we'd recognize the dangers of making virtues out of necessity.
I don't despite what you say, Excalibur, but the issue is people's tendency to attach moral values to facts of life that are often simple justifications for current prejudices, which is what too much of the West got sucked into with 19th Century Social Darwinism.
I don't despite what you say, Excalibur, but the issue is people's tendency to attach moral values to facts of life that are often simple justifications for current prejudices, which is what too much of the West got sucked into with 19th Century Social Darwinism.
Re: The Myth of Scarcity
Okay, lots of shouting in this thread. I'll try and contribute without getting caught in the crossfire.
Let's talk about homelessness.
Those who can work:
There are a few ideas about homeless that need to be addressed. The idea of the 'no such thing as a free meal', and Social Darwinism and the free market economy. Yes, it's true. Someone, somewhere, is paying for that meal, somehow, in some way. This is brought in with the idea of tax cuts, national spending, and how it's unfair for those who work to pay for those who don't. However, it also runs into a few fallacies about human nature, and about the current stance of economics with technology. We need to deal with an issue. Why are people homeless? There's a huge wave of homeless people called 'couch surfers'. They bunk with friends, associates, or family, and due to falling on hard times, live in someone else's home until they can get back on their feet. This mostly goes unreported, because it's not 'real homelessness'.
This already shows you that other people are already being taxed in support of their fellow person, those being taxed are just blood related or kind enough to help a friend. While this goes on, we also have a lot of homeless people who are filling shelters, living in cars, under bridges, alleyways, etc. Not all of these are accounted for, but they are numerous. What causes them to be homeless? Cost of Living, and sudden changes in quality of life due to an emergency or crisis. A person has a car wreck, and their car is totaled. They can't get to work, so they lose their job. So, they lose both their mode of transport, and also their ability to support themselves. This, in addition to cost of living being equal to, if not greater than, their wages, puts them into a downward spiral that they can't get out of. This is where being on the fringes of poverty just continues to hurt you.
Here is something that might shock some people, or be denied by others. But the big thing that needs to be addressed is the idea that homeless means jobless. THIS IS A MYTH! HOMELESS PEOPLE WORK There are many homeless people who actually work 9 to 5 jobs. And gigs, part time work, and everything in-between. There are people who work above 40 hours a week, and don't have enough to rent an apartment on their own. Instead, they either crash at someone's apartment, or live in a vehicle.
Why do they do this? Because they have no choice. Usually, they fell behind on their bills, had no recourse, and lost it all, because their bills were greater than their salaries. And we are talking about things like rent, groceries, car payments, utilities. This is why there's an increasing likelihood of homelessness for the working class. Injuries and medical conditions increase, and that requires additional money. Choosing between rent, and treating an illness or injury, and they must make a hard choice. And there is no support mechanism to help them. And even while they work to feed themselves and pay off creditors IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO GET THEM OUT OF THEIR SITUATION.
Or if there is, it's in the form of charity, which is in such small supply that demand vastly outweighs it to the point of being a token effort. Organizations dedicated to helping the homeless often have narrow focuses, have limited means due to only having money from grants and private donations, and choose survival of their organization over helping those that need it, as demand is far higher than supply.
If this is preventable, and due to the amount of wealth in the developed world, it is at least in the Developed world, is it better to have people who have had rotten luck fail to the point of starvation and homelessness, or is it better for them to have a cushion to succeed in if they fail? Yes, very much so.
Countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland take of their unfortunate, preventing this kind of financial free fall that happens to their citizens. It is done through taxes and federal programs.
For those who don't care about their fellow man, I'm sorry that you feel that way. But, if you want to look at the cost benefit analysis.
It is cheaper to have a working populace that is clothed, fed, and housed, thereby being more productive than it is ones who are either A, not working, and therefore not contributing to society, or B, committing crimes and being punished for their crimes, while at the same time not working, or C, working, but spending their incomes on basic needs as opposed to pursuing their incomes to bettering their situations and helping out the local economy.
And it creates a culture of those who are on the dole wanting to get off of it to stop being viewed as someone who isn't doing their part.
For the homeless who are mentally ill.
In the United States, we used to have medical clinics and facilities for the mentally ill. The 1980s killed that stone dead with cutting of social programs in the name of tax cuts. Waves of mentally ill people had nowhere to go if they were having trouble surviving but the streets. This has become the new norm. So much so, that visitors from other Developed nations experience culture shock in how little we (don't) medically treat our failing population. Healthcare, both medical and physical, is always cheaper in prevention than in emergency care. Failure to do so prevents productive members of society who have treatable conditions from contributing to their economy and nation.
For the homeless who are just simply old.
This is the big one. People get old, and their pension doesn't go as far as it used to. Neither does Social Security. And neither does Welfare. Or they were simply unable to plan for retirement due to working paycheck to paycheck their entire lives. As stated above, one bad bill causes a downward spiral, and they start to lose things. If they have family that can take care of them, then great. However, that is a burden on the family, and will negatively affect them in having an extra mouth to feed, without having the equivalent in earning power, and can further domino the affect if they run into financial problems. There's a huge problem in our society of not caring what happens to the elderly that failed.
Just remember, thou are mortal. And your fortune could go the same way theirs did.
But they deserve it, because they didn't succeed
This is where we run into the concept of the genetic lottery. Not everyone was born with a golden ticket. Some can crawl out of poverty and become a millionaire. However, that kind of success is rare. Most work for most of their lives, and couldn't raise their livelihood due to their wages not spreading around as much as possible. As noted, wages have not been keeping up with costs. And even if people do fail, is failure's punishment really starvation and homelessness?
If compassion does nothing for you, remember that people take greater chances when they have less chance of failure, and are willing to try greater financial risks if they know that failure will not equal homelessness. This allows greater chances of entrepreneurship, and greater chances of smaller businesses taking off. This allows the economy to boost itself.
Conclusion
Will all be useful members of society? No. No one is saying that they will be. But we would see the gains, morally, economically, and locally, far outweigh the costs, if those who try and fail, or fail through no fault of their own, are taken care of by society. And ensure that those of use who do fail in the upcoming years have an option in case it happens to one of us.
Let's talk about homelessness.
Those who can work:
There are a few ideas about homeless that need to be addressed. The idea of the 'no such thing as a free meal', and Social Darwinism and the free market economy. Yes, it's true. Someone, somewhere, is paying for that meal, somehow, in some way. This is brought in with the idea of tax cuts, national spending, and how it's unfair for those who work to pay for those who don't. However, it also runs into a few fallacies about human nature, and about the current stance of economics with technology. We need to deal with an issue. Why are people homeless? There's a huge wave of homeless people called 'couch surfers'. They bunk with friends, associates, or family, and due to falling on hard times, live in someone else's home until they can get back on their feet. This mostly goes unreported, because it's not 'real homelessness'.
This already shows you that other people are already being taxed in support of their fellow person, those being taxed are just blood related or kind enough to help a friend. While this goes on, we also have a lot of homeless people who are filling shelters, living in cars, under bridges, alleyways, etc. Not all of these are accounted for, but they are numerous. What causes them to be homeless? Cost of Living, and sudden changes in quality of life due to an emergency or crisis. A person has a car wreck, and their car is totaled. They can't get to work, so they lose their job. So, they lose both their mode of transport, and also their ability to support themselves. This, in addition to cost of living being equal to, if not greater than, their wages, puts them into a downward spiral that they can't get out of. This is where being on the fringes of poverty just continues to hurt you.
Here is something that might shock some people, or be denied by others. But the big thing that needs to be addressed is the idea that homeless means jobless. THIS IS A MYTH! HOMELESS PEOPLE WORK There are many homeless people who actually work 9 to 5 jobs. And gigs, part time work, and everything in-between. There are people who work above 40 hours a week, and don't have enough to rent an apartment on their own. Instead, they either crash at someone's apartment, or live in a vehicle.
Why do they do this? Because they have no choice. Usually, they fell behind on their bills, had no recourse, and lost it all, because their bills were greater than their salaries. And we are talking about things like rent, groceries, car payments, utilities. This is why there's an increasing likelihood of homelessness for the working class. Injuries and medical conditions increase, and that requires additional money. Choosing between rent, and treating an illness or injury, and they must make a hard choice. And there is no support mechanism to help them. And even while they work to feed themselves and pay off creditors IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO GET THEM OUT OF THEIR SITUATION.
Or if there is, it's in the form of charity, which is in such small supply that demand vastly outweighs it to the point of being a token effort. Organizations dedicated to helping the homeless often have narrow focuses, have limited means due to only having money from grants and private donations, and choose survival of their organization over helping those that need it, as demand is far higher than supply.
If this is preventable, and due to the amount of wealth in the developed world, it is at least in the Developed world, is it better to have people who have had rotten luck fail to the point of starvation and homelessness, or is it better for them to have a cushion to succeed in if they fail? Yes, very much so.
Countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland take of their unfortunate, preventing this kind of financial free fall that happens to their citizens. It is done through taxes and federal programs.
For those who don't care about their fellow man, I'm sorry that you feel that way. But, if you want to look at the cost benefit analysis.
It is cheaper to have a working populace that is clothed, fed, and housed, thereby being more productive than it is ones who are either A, not working, and therefore not contributing to society, or B, committing crimes and being punished for their crimes, while at the same time not working, or C, working, but spending their incomes on basic needs as opposed to pursuing their incomes to bettering their situations and helping out the local economy.
And it creates a culture of those who are on the dole wanting to get off of it to stop being viewed as someone who isn't doing their part.
For the homeless who are mentally ill.
In the United States, we used to have medical clinics and facilities for the mentally ill. The 1980s killed that stone dead with cutting of social programs in the name of tax cuts. Waves of mentally ill people had nowhere to go if they were having trouble surviving but the streets. This has become the new norm. So much so, that visitors from other Developed nations experience culture shock in how little we (don't) medically treat our failing population. Healthcare, both medical and physical, is always cheaper in prevention than in emergency care. Failure to do so prevents productive members of society who have treatable conditions from contributing to their economy and nation.
For the homeless who are just simply old.
This is the big one. People get old, and their pension doesn't go as far as it used to. Neither does Social Security. And neither does Welfare. Or they were simply unable to plan for retirement due to working paycheck to paycheck their entire lives. As stated above, one bad bill causes a downward spiral, and they start to lose things. If they have family that can take care of them, then great. However, that is a burden on the family, and will negatively affect them in having an extra mouth to feed, without having the equivalent in earning power, and can further domino the affect if they run into financial problems. There's a huge problem in our society of not caring what happens to the elderly that failed.
Just remember, thou are mortal. And your fortune could go the same way theirs did.
But they deserve it, because they didn't succeed
This is where we run into the concept of the genetic lottery. Not everyone was born with a golden ticket. Some can crawl out of poverty and become a millionaire. However, that kind of success is rare. Most work for most of their lives, and couldn't raise their livelihood due to their wages not spreading around as much as possible. As noted, wages have not been keeping up with costs. And even if people do fail, is failure's punishment really starvation and homelessness?
If compassion does nothing for you, remember that people take greater chances when they have less chance of failure, and are willing to try greater financial risks if they know that failure will not equal homelessness. This allows greater chances of entrepreneurship, and greater chances of smaller businesses taking off. This allows the economy to boost itself.
Conclusion
Will all be useful members of society? No. No one is saying that they will be. But we would see the gains, morally, economically, and locally, far outweigh the costs, if those who try and fail, or fail through no fault of their own, are taken care of by society. And ensure that those of use who do fail in the upcoming years have an option in case it happens to one of us.
Re: The Myth of Scarcity
*applauds*
Brilliantly put.
I would add that universal healthcare would have the added advantage of reducing sickness by giving working poor the choice of actually getting treatment for their illness instead of just "toughing through it" because they can't afford to see a doctor and get meds... and can't afford to miss work so they start spreading their illness to both co-workers and customers.
Brilliantly put.
I would add that universal healthcare would have the added advantage of reducing sickness by giving working poor the choice of actually getting treatment for their illness instead of just "toughing through it" because they can't afford to see a doctor and get meds... and can't afford to miss work so they start spreading their illness to both co-workers and customers.
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
Administrator of SFD, Former Spacebattles Super-Mod, Veteran Chatnik. And multiverse crossover-loving writer, of course!
Administrator of SFD, Former Spacebattles Super-Mod, Veteran Chatnik. And multiverse crossover-loving writer, of course!
Re: The Myth of Scarcity
Thank you.
That's true, but I don't know enough about that subject to comment aside from personal anecdotes, and wanted to keep my post as more of a concise general briefer on the homeless problem.(in the United States at least)I would add that universal healthcare would have the added advantage of reducing sickness by giving working poor the choice of actually getting treatment for their illness instead of just "toughing through it" because they can't afford to see a doctor and get meds... and can't afford to miss work so they start spreading their illness to both co-workers and customers.
