5 ms·

I have grave doubts about "can't" in most cases. I've picked up & moved 1000 miles on a whim with no job lined up on arrival, and wasn't keen on severing ties i

I have grave doubts about "can't" in most cases. I've picked up & moved 1000 miles on a whim with no job lined up on arrival, and wasn't keen on severing ties in the process - so yes I've a clue about it. You'd be hard-pressed to find such "can't" cases. Turning on a TV (colloquially speaking) at all is a disqualifying factor. There's a free lending library, there's free Internet access, there's free job-placement services. Suck it up & make it happen, or quit complaining. Never before in history has so much job opportunity been so available to so many so easily; it's not trivial mind you, but the alternative for most who ever lived was to start digging & planting. I've been following David Hines on Twitter as he documents people & regions you're referring to. A recurring takeaway (which he doesn't intend) is your assertion, which is people choosing to stay in such circumstances because they choose family & familiarity over prosperity. The USA was founded & settled by people who took the "move" imperative seriously; when doing so now takes just a few days' pay and a few hours comfortable transport instead of months of hard covered-wagon travel which was long the norm, I find it hard to sympathize. Cultures which value status quo over productivity improvement can't thrive.

st3v3r 10y ago
"I have grave doubts about "can't" in most cases. I've picked up & moved 1000 miles on a whim with no job lined up on arrival, and wasn't keen on severing ties in the process - so yes I've a clue about it." Did you leave behind a spouse and children? Then no, you don't have a clue about it. "You'd be hard-pressed to find such "can't" cases." No, I wouldn't be. A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example. "Turning on a TV (colloquially speaking) at all is a disqualifying factor." Wrong. " There's a free lending library" Which you have to be able to get to in between your two jobs and making sure your children get to school. "there's free Internet access" Only in some places, that may or may not be open during your minuscule amount of free time. "there's free job-placement services" Which are worth about as much as they cost. "Suck it up & make it happen" Said the guy who's never had to experience any of that.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  ". A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example." But nobody forced her or him to make a child and then split up, right? So you can argue, they had a choice of taking care for safe income first and a stable relationship, before making babys and then complaining it is hard to feed them, without proper qualification and then demanding society has to help them ... So, I indeed think that society should help those in need, but I don't think it MUST. Because it means in the end, forcing other people to work for other peoples mistakes. (in general, there are exceptions obviously)
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Maybe flip the thinking and treat it like insurance. If you don't give to someone who needs help and thereby prevent them having a chance to contribute, they perhaps won't ever contribute. But if you give that child a bit of a leg up and help sort their situation, perhaps they won't take or break your stuff.
    - hutzlibu 10y ago
      Thats why I said society SHOULD help those. But I dont like the mentality of "look how I struggle, you MUST help me" if they got themself into it.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        Sorry, I did notice that. I'm referring to the child by the way, not the adults.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No. You cannot make that argument. Not in the slightest. It is an appalling and abhorrent argument. Suppose after having the children, one partner turned abusive. You would have them stay in that relationship. You would say it was a choice. And for that, you are deplorable.
clock_tower 10y ago
If a family member needs care and won't move, what do you do? Let them die?

st3v3r 10y ago

"I have grave doubts about "can't" in most cases. I've picked up & moved 1000 miles on a whim with no job lined up on arrival, and wasn't keen on severing ties in the process - so yes I've a clue about it." Did you leave behind a spouse and children? Then no, you don't have a clue about it. "You'd be hard-pressed to find such "can't" cases." No, I wouldn't be. A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example. "Turning on a TV (colloquially speaking) at all is a disqualifying factor." Wrong. " There's a free lending library" Which you have to be able to get to in between your two jobs and making sure your children get to school. "there's free Internet access" Only in some places, that may or may not be open during your minuscule amount of free time. "there's free job-placement services" Which are worth about as much as they cost. "Suck it up & make it happen" Said the guy who's never had to experience any of that.

hutzlibu 10y ago
". A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example." But nobody forced her or him to make a child and then split up, right? So you can argue, they had a choice of taking care for safe income first and a stable relationship, before making babys and then complaining it is hard to feed them, without proper qualification and then demanding society has to help them ... So, I indeed think that society should help those in need, but I don't think it MUST. Because it means in the end, forcing other people to work for other peoples mistakes. (in general, there are exceptions obviously)
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Maybe flip the thinking and treat it like insurance. If you don't give to someone who needs help and thereby prevent them having a chance to contribute, they perhaps won't ever contribute. But if you give that child a bit of a leg up and help sort their situation, perhaps they won't take or break your stuff.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    Thats why I said society SHOULD help those. But I dont like the mentality of "look how I struggle, you MUST help me" if they got themself into it.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Sorry, I did notice that. I'm referring to the child by the way, not the adults.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No. You cannot make that argument. Not in the slightest. It is an appalling and abhorrent argument. Suppose after having the children, one partner turned abusive. You would have them stay in that relationship. You would say it was a choice. And for that, you are deplorable.

clock_tower 10y ago

If a family member needs care and won't move, what do you do? Let them die?