4 ms·

I wrote this in reaction to "RSA is extremely limited": almost 10% of a population is not "extremely limited". And I didn't say these statistics say anything a

• RobertoG 10y ago
  The point of social programs it's, normally, that all the citizens of a country, where there are huge material richness, enjoy a minimum of quality of life. If we accept that this is the goal, then, we have to accept the program is pretty successful. It seems to me that if you want to talk about happiness or prosperity, you have to compare it to other ways of organizing society (other countries), in other case, it's meaningless.
  • weddpros 10y ago
    Saying "France isn't so bad, so it's working" doesn't cut it for me. Actually France is the "other way of organizing society" (having something that looks a lot like Basic Income, see higher in the thread), and most other countries are "the baseline"... In this context, we observe no clear benefits (high unemployment, almost no growth). Last time I checked (2 years ago), they were spending 12000€ annually for each and every homeless in France, which is great... Except they are still homeless, when this amount is similar to minimum wage (enough to NOT be homeless, and that's without social benefits). This money was basically wasted and didn't fix any problem. So the point of heavy social programs is: people aren't happier, and in the end feel entitled to benefits... even when it downs the economy and employment.