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.
I see a lot of nuanced possible factors here, so this is a hard question to answer.
Most people I've ever known who don't really participate productively DO have at least some mental health challenges, if not also physical health ones, and these challenges really are at the heart of why they don't make the most of opportunities to crank the lever of capitalism, and contribute and benefit from doing so.
But I have also known people who seem to have a personality problem, where even if they are given resources for free, they will waste them, and they throw away chance after chance, and seem determined to live on the brink of disaster. They are not mentally or physically healthy, but they always could have done a lot more than they ever did, and I've always looked at the choices they made and shaken my head, knowing they were making serious mistakes and unable to convince them to do any differently. Two of the most egregious cases I know of, they have "gotten help"...lots and LOTS of help...they've been seen by numerous doctors, therapists and professionals over the years, they've been diagnosed and labeled and medicated, yet none of it makes them actually choose to do better for themselves.
Bad luck for me, I'm generationally sandwiched between two such people who often try to call on me to help them. Sometimes I do, but it always feels like throwing my money into a hungry void that will never be satisfied, as their life situations never improve. They always say that when they get things just a little more stable, they'll pay me back, but I know that will never happen. I don't expect to be repaid, but I get tired of hearing it, honestly.
So on the one hand, I look at all of THAT, and it really does get me into some cognitive dissonance, some mental conflict, about how I feel for being compassionate and supportive to various members of society who are in different situations.
Because stepping back to the impersonal "people as hypothetical subjects in a conversation" level, rather than contemplating cases I've encountered throughout my life... It is clear to me that human beings thrive when individuals specialize and then we all share. When we all support each other. When risk and rewards are pooled in various ways. Like the concept of insurance, where everyone pays in, even though some will need a lot more than others regardless of whether they contribute more or not. This is how rising tides can lift all ships. This is how humanity can have an overall better quality of life.
Of course, abuse is possible. Certainly it is. We get some who point fingers at the poorest and accuse them of failing to "contribute" and leeching off the rest, and some who point fingers at the richest and accuse them of the same. A lot of hard working people still don't have enough, and various members of society disagree on who is to blame for that.
But this whole notion that only the "productive" (by some very specific definition) deserve to survive? I dunno, I find it pretty jarring in a country that likes to toss around words like, "freedom," too. Some argue that people who create art are not "contributing." That such things are frivolous and that society should not pay artists to waste time they could use more "productively"...on something that seems more practical, like farming food or building roads or whatever. But I would not want to live in a world without art.
Who gets to define what activities are adequately "productive" to say that someone is "contributing?"
I guess I feel better about a rich person being rich if they are a plucky entrepreneur who made it, versus a trust fund baby who never had to work a day in his life...and I feel better about handing a dollar to a person who is busking, playing music or doing some kind of street performance, rather than the one holding a piece of cardboard at an intersection.
Sometimes when I drive back home from shopping I cross the bridge over our local dry river bed (I live in Arizona), and can look down and see a presumed homeless man living under a plastic tarp he has rigged. In the summer he's down there in temperatures that exceed 110 and sometimes even 120, and he has no fresh water supply, or bathroom. When I lived in the north it was the reverse -- I saw homeless people living outside in the snow and temperatures often below freezing in the winter.
And it always struck me: just look how they are taking so much from society. Uh-huh.
It always strikes me as funny how many people focus their frustrations on the homeless under a bridge, or poor people who don't work because they are either physically or mentally disabled... rather than mustering anger at wealthy billionaires who find ways to cheat the tax codes, or banks which cause a housing crisis and get bailed out of what THEY created. Yep it's the "little guy" or the homeless who are the problem, not the ones at the top who hoard all of the resources from everybody else who actually make society run.
It always strikes me as funny how many people focus their frustrations on the homeless under a bridge, or poor people who don't work because they are either physically or mentally disabled... rather than mustering anger at wealthy billionaires who find ways to cheat the tax codes, or banks which cause a housing crisis and get bailed out of what THEY created. Yep it's the "little guy" or the homeless who are the problem, not the ones at the top who hoard all of the resources from everybody else who actually make society run.
Excellent point. And it is something that we all know about. Legal loopholes that are built into the system by politicians who accept 'favors' for influence, and frankly, some loopholes that are pretty questionable from a legal standpoint.
Of course, in all fairness to the 'other side', you could make a case for the rich providing income through jobs for many. But that still doesn't 'even-up' the situation.
In a current politics thread, where there's a topic about homelessness in California, a poster described his father who is perfectly healthy, yet chooses to be homeless. So, I started an internet search to find out what percent are healthy....
Every study/article infers different percentages, but NONE say 100% are sick, have mental illness, or addictions.
Thus, some % are healthy, & just choose to be homeless.
Should they be allowed to exist amongst us, & take from society? To use, and abuse, our public places? To commit petty crimes over and over again?
If we can't answer this question, we can't make any progress, because these are the easiest homeless to help.
You can be healthy but still financially destitute, in fact you can work and still be homeless. We had friends who ended up living in a motel when they got evicted for financial reasons. Their credit was too poor and no one would rent to them. The waiting list for section 8 housing is years in many states. I saw a show about a young couple with a baby who drove to Colorado hoping to start a new life. They failed miserably, housing was much too expensive and he was there for months without being able to find work. So they ended up living in their car with a baby. People make poor decisions sometimes. Some people have lower IQs than others. Some people are naive and gullible. Others made a mistake in youth and had a record, making it hard to find a job. Heck, just having a DUI will disqualify you from many jobs.
There are all kinds of reasons for homelessness. It doesn't mean if you're not mentally ill or addicted you must be choosing it.
They are working age, but choose not to work, perhaps for many years, or decades.
They are family-aged, but choose to not be part of a family.
They have very little, or no means whatsoever, to provide for themselves.
Should people like this be allowed to take from our society?
Should people like this be allowed to co-exist alongside contributors to our society?
Should people like this be allowed to use the public spaces created by our society?
Who gets to decide the definition of "contribute"?
"Working", in and of itself, may not "contribute" anything. I personally feel like I "contribute" more in my volunteering projects than in the job that pays me. How do you know someone who's unemployed isn't also doing something to contribute, as a volunteer?
"They are family-aged, but choose to not be part of a family. "
WTF? Is it your business to decide who "must" get married or have children (presuming this is what you mean)?? What a "busybody" attitude. Having a family does not equate to "contributing", anyway.
"They have very little, or no means whatsoever, to provide for themselves."
So, what do you propose doing with these folks? Sending them to the slaughterhouse?
I don't know if you consider yourself Christian, but every major religion advocates helping the poor. Jesus himself said so many times (if you follow the Bible). All major religions strictly speak against the whole "me-first, look out for #1" philosophy.
"Should people like this be allowed to co-exist alongside contributors to our society?"
"Allowed to co-exist"? Again, what do you propose doing with them?
The problem is that we closed the mental health institutions decades ago and tossed everyone out on the street. We also made it pretty much impossible to institutionalize someone against their will.
I’m just glad I live somewhere with a real winter. Nobody is going to pitch a tent on the sidewalk in front of my house. There’s a leash law so I don’t even have dog carp on my lawn let alone human waste.
I'm glad I live in an ideal climate on the beach with no homeless to be seen anywhere.
It's amazing. Not even a first-world country, but they've got a handle on this issue.
My sister has paranoid schizophrenia, agoraphobia, and borderline personality disorder. Just getting out of bed, eating, and doing daily self care is a major challenge for her. She lives in an apartment alone, a small apartment in a rough area of the city. She takes a bus or walks everywhere, does not have a car or a drivers license. She takes a ton of medicine just to function (trust me you don't want my sister to be off meds, she is hard enough to handle on them). She is unable to work. She used to volunteer a few hours each week at the public library shelving books, until the pandemic closed the library system down. She goes to church, runs errands and has many medical appointments, no job or voluntering at the moment except occasionally she makes cards for people at church as she is very talented at caligraphy and drawing.
Most would say she is not a productive member of society. She lives on what she gets from government disability and Medicare/Medicaid. She gets food stamps but also help from family. Does this mean she should not be allowed to exist? to be treated with fairness and dignity? She did not ask for her mental illness. She's lived with it for 51 years. She can manage it but will never get better. My sister is not lazy, does not live high on the backs of others. She lives on a budget most people consider extra spending money and she has almost no entertainment or social life except her drawing and caligraphy. She's still my sister. She's someone's friend, someone's daughter. She is a human being with feelings, needs, desires. She would like to volunteer again when the pandemic settles down, but she is limited in what she can do given her disorders. I would say she has a right to live and to receive help.
It seems there's a trend that if someone's job falls through when they are in their 40's or 50's, they never seem to recoup. The company closes, they get laid off, or the company cuts back and they get let go and they don't find new work. It's almost like people in this situation are too reluctant to learn something new or start at the bottom again in a new field. They get used to sitting on the couch collecting unemployment.
I met one of those guys in the late 90's, he worked himself up from nothing at some union plant, got married, bought a house had kids, then at 52 his job moved to south America, he could not find work that paid even close to what his previous pay was, lost his house, his wife of 26 years left, and he just gave up, now in his case he used the last of his savings to buy dirt cheap land(rocky dirt not good for anything, not near any major roads so it was around 10K for around an acre ) and a camper trailer, and applied for disability, I'm sure working his way up to a nice life was hard when he did it the first time(in his 20's with 20 year old energy), at 52 I imagine he felt it would be impossible. and mind you if he had stayed in the city trying to find work and rent an apartment he may have burned through his savings and ended up homeless.
he should be in his 70's now, I wonder how he is doing
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.
