What's wrong with this solution to poverty? (unemployed, stats, dollars)
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.
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.
Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.
This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
No, but the attitude of poverty gets passed from generation to generation. Impoverished people also have a much higher fertility rate than everybody else.
Because that's the life they are taught. They have plenty of time on their hands so naturally having unprotected sex several times a day leads to more of the same.
I was referring to the poster who wrote "No one who is unable to support themselves should be allowed to have any more children. It's not fair to taxpayers or the children."
Not to your (cough) brilliant plan.
Well...
(1) I don't think it's a brilliant plan.
(2) It's not my plan. I got it from a right winger on here. I normally don't agree with right wingers. I'm quite liberal. But with this idea, I have not been able to find anything logically wrong with it.
(3) I think from the perspective of an engineer. In engineering, often times the simplest solution to an engineering problem turns out to be the best solution. Might not be pretty, but if it works...
Last year, there were some bridges built in a project. After the bridges were built, an engineer finally noticed a design flaw. Won't affect anything now, but 5 years down the road... So, we had a meeting where people could propose their solution. Out of all the solutions proposed, I proposed a very simple solution. It was so simple, obvious, and cheap that a lot of people thought I was joking. I said no I'm serious what's wrong with it? Management eventually went with my solution. Cost exactly $3000 to fix. The result wasn't pretty, though, but it worked haha.
Right, as I said and these sites confirm, neither are 100% failsafe methods.
Are they extremely effective forms of contraception? Of course. But in terms of this brilliant plan to "end poverty" that the OP has presented, I thought it only make sense to bring up some details.
Because that's the life they are taught. They have plenty of time on their hands so naturally having unprotected sex several times a day leads to more of the same.
It's not just having unprotected sex several times a day. I know some of these girls. Every one of them got pregnant ASAP. There was one that I'm still sad about to this day. I really tried to help her see a different path in life. She started talking about getting pregnant and get on welfare when she was about 15 or 16. I tried to mentor her. Showed her other ways at life. She got pregnant right before she graduated high school. What really made me sad was as soon as she got pregnant she applied to every benefit she could and proudly told everyone she did. Get it? She was proud that she was on the "right" track in life.
Right, as I said and these sites confirm, neither are 100% failsafe methods.
Are they extremely effective forms of contraception? Of course. But in terms of this brilliant plan to "end poverty" that the OP has presented, I thought it only make sense to bring up some details.
You claimed they were less effective than other forms of birth control. They are not.
I don't think its an immoral idea since it is completely voluntary. It just wouldn't eliminate poverty. American "poverty" isn't at all the same thing as international poverty. American poverty is relative to how other Americans are doing financially. The concept of American poverty is a useful, highly flexible tool for politicians to utilize to push for their preferred policy programs.
There is no such thing as international poverty.
Quote:
One could already make the argument that there is no true poverty in the US. No one is starving to death. All Americans can get basic clothing if they need it. Relatively few Americans are truly homeless through no fault of their own.
I guess my underlying point is that while the OP's idea would probably improve society, it wouldn't eliminate "poverty" because poverty would simply be defined in some new way.
Where is there epidemic famine in the world and exactly how many poor Mexicans do you see crossing the boarder naked?
Another thread is about the CIA hacking smart phones. Why? Jesus did not have a smart phone and a lot of people back then either walked barefoot or in sandals. Yet the poor in the Middle East today have computerized smartphones and sneakers on their feet. So, I guess no Palestinians are poor.
Right, as I said and these sites confirm, neither are 100% failsafe methods.
Are they extremely effective forms of contraception? Of course. But in terms of this brilliant plan to "end poverty" that the OP has presented, I thought it only make sense to bring up some details.
Are you saying that medical science never improves, ever? So, we are still drilling holes into people's heads to cure them of mental illness?
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.
Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.
This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
What's wrong with eugenics? And what part of "voluntary" don't you understand?
Added by edit.
The nazis also encouraged healthy living and athleticism. I went to the gym last night. Does that mean I'm a nazi sympathizer now?
Just because an idea used to the extreme by the nazis, or any group of bad people like trumpies, does not mean we should dismiss it outright.
Do you dispute the fact that poverty is an undesirable state of life? Do you dispute that often times the psychology of poverty gets passed from generation to generation?
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.
