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 question details are specifically about the homeless. Able bodied and able minded ones.
Honestly, those people are not taking much from society except a little space and messing up the aesthetics of our public spaces. The homeless get a little food and water, but not much, stuff that we would throw away anyway. By definition they are not taking up [proper] living space from anyone. They're not getting money except what people voluntarily give. Their clothes tend to look pretty ratty to me, so if they get given clothes, again, it's stuff we would have thrown away anyway. They might occasionally get health care if they are badly hurt or sick.
Getting them off the street & rehabbing them would be far more resource-intensive.
Many of the Homeless receive SSD or SS benefits. I do agree that those benefits are small. I think the issue of drug addiction, and the thefts because of the need for drugs, are a societal problem. But I do take your point. Not all of the homeless are addicts or thieves. Some have been displaced by the lack of subsidized housing, as rising rents have encouraged landlords to move away from accepting subsidies.
But, in our area, where the homeless problem is frankly shocking, car, mail and property theft is also very widespread.
Define “healthy”.
A lot of mental conditions are not considered a disease.
Yet, it could make very difficult for some people to properly “function” in the society as expected: getting an education, having a permanent job, having a family of their own, owning a car, a property, paying taxes, etc.
I bet it is actually very very few, who decides out of spirit of adventure or frugality to try out the homeless lifestyle.
The majority of truly healthy ones are thrown into it by the lack of skills, education, support, an indifference and low IQ to figure out how to get help..
Truly healthy would not willingly make it their lifetime choice. They would try to get out of it if they still could
Help is available for those who want out.
also according to stats the federal government has come up with 56% of the American population are 2 paychecks from being homeless, that's one month for most people and the funny part of that stat is the majority of that is not poor people but middle class people who statistically don't own anything, leased car, mortgage on house etc etc, while poor people are more likely to already be living grouped with family living under one roof(cousins or siblings living together in their late grandmas old run down house) so can take the hit of one lost income longer.
If everbody chose not to have a family, the human race would be gone in ~100 years. Sorry, but those who reproduce are more valuable to society than those who do not. It doesnt make them bad people, just less valuable to the collective of the human race.
If everyone chose to have five plus children, that would be disastrous to society and the planet. Fortunately, families are usually smaller nowadays, especially in affluent societies, and because there are many couples who choose not to have (or cannot have, due to infertility) any children at all, the two types of families (zero children or multi-child families) can sort of offset each other, somewhat.
We don't want the world population to grow any more out of control than it already is.
The homeless problem needs to be attacked in several different ways.
1) Rehab, for those who can be rehabbed back into society.
2) Institutionalization, for those who cannot handle society for whatever reason.
3) Removal. Some people simply WANT to be homeless, and they should be given the opportunity to do so but not in our public spaces.
All of the above are VERY expensive.
4) The most important one - PREVENTION. It is MUCH more affordable to help someone who is in distress & get them back on their feet rather than not help them and try to rehab them after they are on the street for a while. Because I don't care who you are or how strong you think you are. After a few months on the street you won't be as mentally or physically fit as you were.
Or do nothing, just let them camp wherever and step over them, let them rot and ruin the environment of our public spaces. That is the most affordable option and what we do now.
I agree with most of your post except for the last paragraph. The part of doing nothing that is allowing lawless behavior by not prosecuting theft and other bad behavior is allowing a few to ruin the public spaces and confidence in ability to walk down a street without getting hassled. That is not what most want - that is the position of a few in charge that seem to believe that is showing compassion but it is not compassionate and is far from the most affordable option.
When I read the thread title, I immediately thought of the “lean FIRE” early retiree people who create just enough wealth to retire in their 30s and look low income on paper to qualify for safety net services like Medicaid and food stamps.
The United States has this “welfare queen” mythology. As has been pointed out in this thread, if you have zero wealth and are able-bodied, the safety net doesn’t exactly provide a luxurious existence. Unless you have dependent children, you’re not going to get much assistance.
The flip side of it…. I was in the Social Security office in a low income city 6 years ago taking over my mother’s affairs. There were no elderly people there. Near as I could tell, it was all much younger people trying to game SSDI. With a monthly SSDI check, Section 8 housing voucher, Medicaid, food stamps, and working a bit for cash under the table, you can boost your standard of living compared to doing a near-minimum wage job. My lesson from that was to go to Social Security offices far from poor cities where it’s all elderly people.
Let's assume they are able-bodied, & able-minded, people who simply choose not to participate.
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?
These questions arose in my mind as I read a thread in the political forum asking "who do Californians blame for all the homeless people" there.
I realize that many (or even most) homeless people are mentally ill, and/or have drug/alcohol addictions.
I'd like to set those homeless people aside in this thread. They are, or may be, unable to contribute to society.
I'm asking about the rest..the able-bodied, and able-minded homeless people. When trying to solve the homeless problem, this group are the most saveable. Many do not care to be saved, I get that. Should they be allowed to co-exist amongst productive citizens, & take from us? Use/abuse our public spaces?
It makes sense to see how the majority of us feels (I know it won't be unanimous) on this topic first, before moving on to the tougher issue of dealing w/ those with mental illness and addiction issues.
I'm also not interested in discussing where to move them to, if the majority say "no". Thats another topic.
I also don't want to get into any areas of legality. I'm asking philosophically.
The problem is, who gets to decide what counts as "contributing to society"? In the real world, whoever gets to make this decision has quasi-coercive power over the entire population. In a capitalistic system, the command over a person's labor is effectively "one dollar, one vote". This creates a serious hazard of overconcentrated power and wealth. Simply by being aware of human history, we see the same pattern repeated over and over - overconcentrated wealth and power never turns out well. With dangerous weapons of today, this situation is best avoided.
I'll believe otherwise when someone convinces me that there is a non-privileged, non-oppressive, and non-arbitrary definition of what counts as a "contribution", if such definition can be made compelling both to philosophers and to the average person. Otherwise I have to disagree with your thesis.
In subsistence societies, historically this question wasn't even a question. It was if you don't work, you don't eat. Every member had to contribute. We are now wealthy enough as a society that we can ignore this basic concept. The problem today is we are no longer helping the poor, but enabling it.
We are enabling it, to their own demise.
If we wish to create more poor people, the quickest means is by giving them money.
There are many people who were raised without the benefit of a good education or opportunities, and somehow managed to become independent; even wealthy.
As mentioned in this thread, most people wish to be productive in some sort of fashion; it's in our genetics to work. Work brings satisfaction, handouts bring low self-esteem.
I've known more than 1 over the years who collected SSI/SSDI, and then worked for cash wages; gaming the system.
We also have a portion that become dependent due to health issues, and are unable to be independent due to the outrageously high cost of health care. These are ones we should be giving financial aid assistance to, because these are the ones who find other means to contribute to society; even when they cannot support themselves.
In addressing the OP's thread title question, almost everyone has something they can contribute back for the general benefit of the majority.
So if they refuse, due to the self-entitled attitude that now pervades this country; of course they should receive the same in return...nothing.
If everyone chose to have five plus children, that would be disastrous to society and the planet. Fortunately, families are usually smaller nowadays, especially in affluent societies, and because there are many couples who choose not to have (or cannot have, due to infertility) any children at all, the two types of families (zero children or multi-child families) can sort of offset each other, somewhat.
We don't want the world population to grow any more out of control than it already is.
The problem with that is if not enough children are being born you end up with an aging population with not enough young people to take care of them(through tax dollars, or to physically provide the care and services they need) it's what is happening in japan, something like 28% of their population is over 68 because their economy has been doing well for so long and so many of their young people are making decent money and have so many ways to entertain themselves they are putting off getting married and even the young married couples are putting off having children because it would slow down or halt their "party lifestyle" as a result you have cities in japan where the only school is being shut down because there are not enough kids to justify keeping the building running. and with a smaller working age population wages go up which makes even fewer young people want to have children.
IMO, only tax payers should have the benefits of the democracy.
1. it is their money being spent.
2. tax records are verifiable.
3. age is irrelevant.
Wait a minute. The working poor that make too little to pay taxes (other than sales tax) shouldn't get to vote? (Is that a benefit of democracy, a privilege of democracy, or a right?) Or shouldn't get any benefits? No health care, really?
What would you do with WalMart as an employer, then? And others of their ilk? They're known for paying so little and providing such patchy benefits, that their employees have to go on public assistance.
I think cutting them off will prove to strengthen them if they are able. When you keep giving and giving, you weaken them.
I think as a society we are indeed getting much weaker and with that comes an amazing amount of privileged attitudes as we see in poverty areas. They just act so privileged and entitled and are using tax dollars for their survival/living VERY well these days!!! Why would they work with the current administration giving so much?
We are making more and more people dependents and entitled.
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.
