Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government because greedy landlords won't step up. This is where the free market fails. it is concerned with profit not improving peoples lives. Life improvment is secondary to profit.
Free market offers anybody an opportunity to improve their own life by selling whatever they have to sell (for the majority of us, what we sell is our willingness to work). Nobody has a duty to support those who do not want to support themselves. I agree that there are people who genuinely cannot support themselves because of a health issue, and am in favor of the society taking care of them. But I have worked closely with welfare people, and practically everyone I have seen in that population is perfectly able to take care of themselves, they just live in their own culture where they believe that everybody else somehow has a duty to support them (maybe because they really think that working people are "rich" and can pay for everybody else's housing in addition to their own... I guess "poverty advocates" really live in a fantasy world where they think doctors make between 500k and 1.5m per year, and therefore should righteously support millions of those who don't feel like supporting themselves. There is this idea that middle/upper middle class is a Jesus who can feed millions with five loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Where do you think all the money can possibly come from to house and feed the already huge number of people who claim welfare benefits, and who are multiplying at a rapid rate? In the real world more than 90% of doctors make between 170k and 370k, half of which already goes on taxes, and welfare mothers would do far better for themselves and the society if they took care of their own life before they become mothers). Don't make me laugh about the statement regarding selfishness of free market - in my experience, welfare people are THE most selfish bunch of all, they have almost no other character features except selfishness. Bill Gates is the most visible product of free market, and runs a huge charity foundation, which, however does things the right way, supporting education and financial independence of young women in Africa. Those things come first, then people will be able to get their own housing. In the US, education is already available - if someone doesn't want it, he/she should expect the natural consequences of that decision.
THIS. I'll take a step further and say that MOST people on "disability" can also help support themselves. If you can sit on Facebook or your iPhone all day, you can do data entry, customer service, scheduling -- any number of jobs that require only sitting on a device, and even from the comfort of your home. I would guess that we now have more people "taking from" than "putting into" the system, and that is -- aside from being all kinds of wrong -- simply unsustainable.
THIS. I'll take a step further and say that MOST people on "disability" can also help support themselves. If you can sit on Facebook or your iPhone all day, you can do data entry, customer service, scheduling -- any number of jobs that require only sitting on a device, and even from the comfort of your home. I would guess that we now have more people "taking from" than "putting into" the system, and that is -- aside from being all kinds of wrong -- simply unsustainable.
Disability considers the ability to learn a new occupation appropriate for the disability into their decision. For most people if you can do any job, not just the one you are trained for you are denied disability. They use a grid which weighs age, skill and education GRID Rules and Disability
The government because greedy landlords won't step up. This is where the free market fails. it is concerned with profit not improving peoples lives. Life improvment is secondary to profit.
Exactly and when the Government ends up building the housing it becomes strictly low income subsidized housing and creates a new enclave of nothing but the poorest people in the City and is stigmatized from day one as being "welfare housing". We've been doing that in the US for at least 70 years and it's never worked out well. The one thing I've never seen the government do well is build and manage housing for the poor. I would rather see permits for large apartments awarded with the stipulation that some of the units will be reduced rent then offer those on a lottery basis.
THIS. I'll take a step further and say that MOST people on "disability" can also help support themselves. If you can sit on Facebook or your iPhone all day, you can do data entry, customer service, scheduling -- any number of jobs that require only sitting on a device, and even from the comfort of your home. I would guess that we now have more people "taking from" than "putting into" the system, and that is -- aside from being all kinds of wrong -- simply unsustainable.
Most government programs are all or nothing...if you make a few dollars you're out of the program even if you're only marginally supporting yourself. There is no incentive to try because you end up getting cut off. Make these programs more flexible and you might see improvements. No one does ANYTHING without getting something out of it, rich and poor alike.
Exactly and when the Government ends up building the housing it becomes strictly low income subsidized housing and creates a new enclave of nothing but the poorest people in the City and is stigmatized from day one as being "welfare housing". We've been doing that in the US for at least 70 years and it's never worked out well. The one thing I've never seen the government do well is build and manage housing for the poor. I would rather see permits for large apartments awarded with the stipulation that some of the units will be reduced rent then offer those on a lottery basis.
This is an excellent idea I am all for mixed solutions. As it stands now however the free market is utterly failing poor citizens with regards to housing.
I would guess that we now have more people "taking from" than "putting into" the system, and that is -- aside from being all kinds of wrong -- simply unsustainable.
That's not necessarily true.
What matters is the amount being put into the system and the amount being taken out, not how many people do so.
Continuing this train of thought through several iterations leads to me saying that, yes, I support guaranteed income
Some more iterations leads me to saying that my utopian society would have machines doing all of the work, leaving people free to enjoy their lives. Which makes me wonder what other people's utopian societies would be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
