The Myth of Scarcity

[Independent George]

Umm... You lot realize there are places in the US outside of New York and San Francisco, right? Nice places, even? Heck, even in NYC (where I am originally from), you can find decent places to live if you're willing to leave Manhattan or Park Slope. There's nothing in SF that can't be fixed by a few dozen high-rises.

I'm not even talking about way the heck out in Montana, either. Philadelphia and Chicago (where I live) are affordable by comparison (to say nothing of their respective metro areas), while I'd say Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix are outright cheap. And you have even more options if you're willing to 'slum' it in little burgs like Indanapolis (pop 860k), Charlotte (860k), Las Vegas (640k), Nashville (670k), or Oklahoma City (640k).

Yes, housing looks unaffordable if you're restricting yourself to only a dozen or so of the most exclusive zip codes in the country. Meanwhile, life goes on elsewhere.

[excalibur]

I'm not even talking about way the heck out in Montana, either. Philadelphia and Chicago (where I live) are affordable by comparison (to say nothing of their respective metro areas), while I'd say Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix are outright cheap. And you have even more options if you're willing to 'slum' it in little burgs like Indanapolis (pop 860k), Charlotte (860k), Las Vegas (640k), Nashville (670k), or Oklahoma City (640k).

You know how many people actually live in Indiana but work in Chicago?

[Steve]

The problem is American have a twisted belief that you don't deserve to eat if you don't work.

America is a truly despicably wicked vile and evil nation.

I think it comes down to the belief that "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Namely, someone had to grow that plant or slaughter that animal to provide the lunch, someone had to transport it, had to package it, prepare it, what have you. The lunch costs something. If it's free to you, that means someone else paid for it. So if you go around giving food to everyone it's being paid for by the productive through their taxes or charity or the giving of time (someone transporting food for free for instance).

Seeing that lunch as an entitlement, something you deserve as opposed to something you are given if you are destitute or infirm or ill, is therefore scene as a bankrupt idea that screws over productive members of society. It's seen as stealing from hard working people to support those who aren't hard working.

The issue there is that some people who hold this view work under the assumption that unless proven otherwise someone looking for a free lunch is being a social parasite. And so they become hostile to the very idea of the free lunch.

[excalibur]

Now, should we help our fellows? Yes.

But there's a limit to charity. Those with money have a limited supply and would need to make more. If those who are poor don't contribute and no means to actually bring them out of poverty or they refuse to because "free stuff", it burdens on us who do work and make money and then out of the goodness of our hearts, give to charity.

[Madner Kami]

Now, should we help our fellows? Yes.

But there's a limit to charity. Those with money have a limited supply and would need to make more. If those who are poor don't contribute and no means to actually bring them out of poverty or they refuse to because "free stuff", it burdens on us who do work and make money and then out of the goodness of our hearts, give to charity.

And:

I think it comes down to the belief that "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Namely, someone had to grow that plant or slaughter that animal to provide the lunch, someone had to transport it, had to package it, prepare it, what have you. The lunch costs something. If it's free to you, that means someone else paid for it. So if you go around giving food to everyone it's being paid for by the productive through their taxes or charity or the giving of time (someone transporting food for free for instance).

Seeing that lunch as an entitlement, something you deserve as opposed to something you are given if you are destitute or infirm or ill, is therefore scene as a bankrupt idea that screws over productive members of society. It's seen as stealing from hard working people to support those who aren't hard working.

Exactly those two. I pay for my food and everything I own with my lifetime, literally, so where is my motivation in giving away what I earn to someone who doesn't earn it? I have no trouble giving a share of what I earn to people who just are not able to earn their living under the assumption, that they didn't bring themselves into their position, e.g. disabled people, people who are sick or injured or people who lost their work due to outside forces (mechaniziation, rationalization and so on), however.

As for charity, what exactly is the motivation behind helping people survive in areas where they can not survive on their own? A city-dweller who can't grow his own food is likely going to have a job, so s/he can trade for food. What can someone offer, who lives out in the desert? I have absolutely zero reason to care about his or her well-being. And telling me that I need to help feed someone who's only resource is creating yet another child that won't be able to feed itself, isn't morally right, it's just wrong on several levels. Now, if the charity aims to help these people to help themselves, e.g. infrastructure projects, education and the like, then sure, I'll help. But just feeding people with my lifetime in order for them to create more people who need to feed on my lifetime? No. Just, no.

[MithrandirOlorin]

The problem is American have a twisted belief that you don't deserve to eat if you don't work.

America is a truly despicably wicked vile and evil nation.

I think it comes down to the belief that "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Namely, someone had to grow that plant or slaughter that animal to provide the lunch, someone had to transport it, had to package it, prepare it, what have you. The lunch costs something. If it's free to you, that means someone else paid for it. So if you go around giving food to everyone it's being paid for by the productive through their taxes or charity or the giving of time (someone transporting food for free for instance).

Seeing that lunch as an entitlement, something you deserve as opposed to something you are given if you are destitute or infirm or ill, is therefore scene as a bankrupt idea that screws over productive members of society. It's seen as stealing from hard working people to support those who aren't hard working.

The issue there is that some people who hold this view work under the assumption that unless proven otherwise someone looking for a free lunch is being a social parasite. And so they become hostile to the very idea of the free lunch.

And it's laughable that people hold this view while Claiming to be Christians. The Torah clearly required the Productive to give up some of their produce to benefit society as a whole including the Poor.

[Beastro]

So why do we still allow people to go homeless and starve?

Interesting word to use.

[Steve]

And it's laughable that people hold this view while Claiming to be Christians. The Torah clearly required the Productive to give up some of their produce to benefit society as a whole including the Poor.

"Prosperity" Gospel emphasizes personal responsibility and the belief that health and wealth are signs of God's favor. And it is sadly popular since it acts as a justification for our mass consumer society.

[Riedquat]

Should some of the effort I expend ultimately help people not in a position to help themselves? Yes. Should some of it go to people who are happy to not bother because other people will do the hard work for them? No chance. If you're not prepared to be responsible for yourself don't expect anyone else to.

I'm not concerned whether or not that's Christian, or in line with any other religion.

To go back to the OP whilst we've (in the Western world at least) pretty much got the practicalities of living sorted (and have done so for quite some time now) we haven't come close to the solving the social ones. Even in the most perfect system some people will still slip through the cracks though.

[Mercury01]

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?

Capitalism.