4 ms·

Your idea that these laborers are victims of "homeless crack addicts manipulatively employing the victim narrative" is such an extreme miscalculation that I won

by cazum 8y ago

Your idea that these laborers are victims of "homeless crack addicts manipulatively employing the victim narrative" is such an extreme miscalculation that I wonder if you even looking at the data honestly. The amount of money that actually goes to homeless people is extremely low, and most of those meager funds are used to give them food and temporary shelter so they don't literally die outside. And even then, the amount of taxes that "low wage laborers" earn is slim. Why can't those with vast excessive wealth give some of it to services that can rehabilitate the homeless, or create unskilled or low skill jobs that pay enough to keep people indoors? If a homeless addict is smoking crack outside, what he needs is a shelter that can rehabilitate him, get him off drugs and get him employed somewhere where he can make meaningful contributions and connections to his society. Services like these barely exist, and are in desperate need of the money that we for some reason insist on giving to the wealthiest mega billionaires who keep it in offshore accounts and refuse to give to the people they are directly responsible for putting on the streets via critically unsustainable low wages. To assume that the homeless are homeless because of "responsibility and consequence" is to totally ignore any systemic circumstance outside of their control that may have led them to become homeless or jobless in the first place.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>Your idea that these laborers are victims of "homeless crack addicts manipulatively employing the victim narrative" is such an extreme miscalculation that I wonder if you even looking at the data honestly. I didn't say the homeless crack addicts are manipulatively employing the victim narrative. It's the taxpayer funded social support network around them that does that. >>The amount of money that actually goes to homeless people is extremely low, and most of those meager funds are used to give them food and temporary shelter so they don't literally die outside. Social housing and shelters are extremely expensive. All the federal assistance programs like Social Security Disability Insurance are a massive expense. And a lot of these non-profits who work with the homeless are funded by government. About half of the funding for non-profits comes from government, and the aggregate amount of funding is massive. >>And even then, the amount of taxes that "low wage laborers" earn is slim. The point is they're supporting themselves through back breaking work while crackhead and his buddies are loitering around and smoking crack every day with no one forcing them to start paying their own way. >>Why can't those with vast excessive wealth give some of it to services that can rehabilitate the homeless, or create unskilled or low skill jobs that pay enough to keep people indoors? What rehabilitation are you referring to? There is no discipline or order imposed on these drug addicts. They live a completely unstructured life, with no strings attached to the aid they receive. They don't want to work, or abide by the basic rules of society, and their poverty activist supporters will ensure that any effort to change that is met with exasperated calls of fascism, lack of compassion, "criminalizing the poor" or some other items from the set of manipulative victim narrative talking points. And any way, it's not the responsibility of those whose wealth ideologues deem to be "excessive" to pay for the living costs of those who do drugs every day. >>If a homeless addict is smoking crack outside, what he needs is a shelter that can rehabilitate him, get him off drugs and get him employed somewhere where he can make meaningful contributions and connections to his society. They don't want to get rehabilitated or work. This idea that they're all well-meaning people down on their luck is propaganda. The reality is that many of the most irresponsible people in society are among the homeless, and that they won't take any responsibility unless forced to. >>To assume that the homeless are homeless because of "responsibility and consequence" is to totally ignore any systemic circumstance outside of their control that may have led them to become homeless or jobless in the first place. Some are homeless and jobless because they'd rather do crack and party with their friends than take up responsibility. There are countless government programs they can avail themselves to. They don't want to. They don't want to listen to any authority, or control their impulse in any way. You don't seem to understand and/or care that you can't fix someone who doesn't want to get fixed, unless you take control of their lives over their objections.
- sinker 8y ago
  What would you suggest? Homelessness is not a punishment society forces onto people. It's an issue for all of society and affects everyone. Pointing fingers and shunning and saying that these people are worthless and deserve everything that get, even if true, isn't a solution to the issue. It seems that if it were possible you would prefer to just eradicate every homeless person out there. Of course that's not possible, so realistic solutions have to be tried. In a sense the vast majority of us are a drain on society at small and large. The people doing the work of growing food, maintaining and building infrastructure, providing medical care, pursuing scientific advancement are a small number. My sense is that most people living in developed countries are doing so on the backs of others. It's easy to point at homeless and say they need to "earn their way," but did we really "earn" that car or earn that house. Did you "earn" your vaccinations. In the sense that you purchased it, did you earn it. How much did sitting in an office or stacking bricks or breaking concrete go towards actually earning the invention of that piston engine or the discovery of the measles vaccine? How much does the effort of sitting in a cubicle translate to the effort of constructing a house or growing a garden. Very little anyone possesses is individually earned. We're all profitting from centuries of technology and advancement we had no part in. The humane thing to do is share what we did not reap with people less advantaged. So as long as there are societies there will always be people living on the fringes of those societies. There will always be elderly, babies, children, criminals, mentally ill, physically handicapped, low income earners, etc. Nonetheless those people are also apart of society. Supporting people on the fringe is an act society does to support itself.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    The solution is to end social welfare programs, institute anti-vagrancy laws that force the drug addicts to work for a living, and end illegal immigration to create jobs for unskilled legal residents. There will still be aid to the poor, but it will be in the form of charity, which is more sensitive to those abusing the aid. Ending all unconditional government safety nets will undoubtedly cause more suffering for the poor in the short run. But in the long run, it means fewer single women having childen that they need government aid to support (welfare is a major contributor to increasing rates of single parenthood), and who are far more likely to end up in poverty as adults. It also means fewer people who are able-bodied becoming a drain on society from a life of irresponsibility (partying with their friends while living on welfare). Forcing a structure and discipline on these people's lives is in the interest of society, because it means they become contributors to the economy instead of a drain. The long term effect of a more efficient economy is a substantially higher standard of living for all classes, including the poor. There are countries in the world that have much lower levels of homelessness and drug-abuse, and much higher rates of economic growth, than the US. You're pretending there is no alternative to the current path except genocide (which you accuse me of supporting), and that's very disingenuous.

by cazum 8y ago

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>Your idea that these laborers are victims of "homeless crack addicts manipulatively employing the victim narrative" is such an extreme miscalculation that I wonder if you even looking at the data honestly. I didn't say the homeless crack addicts are manipulatively employing the victim narrative. It's the taxpayer funded social support network around them that does that. >>The amount of money that actually goes to homeless people is extremely low, and most of those meager funds are used to give them food and temporary shelter so they don't literally die outside. Social housing and shelters are extremely expensive. All the federal assistance programs like Social Security Disability Insurance are a massive expense. And a lot of these non-profits who work with the homeless are funded by government. About half of the funding for non-profits comes from government, and the aggregate amount of funding is massive. >>And even then, the amount of taxes that "low wage laborers" earn is slim. The point is they're supporting themselves through back breaking work while crackhead and his buddies are loitering around and smoking crack every day with no one forcing them to start paying their own way. >>Why can't those with vast excessive wealth give some of it to services that can rehabilitate the homeless, or create unskilled or low skill jobs that pay enough to keep people indoors? What rehabilitation are you referring to? There is no discipline or order imposed on these drug addicts. They live a completely unstructured life, with no strings attached to the aid they receive. They don't want to work, or abide by the basic rules of society, and their poverty activist supporters will ensure that any effort to change that is met with exasperated calls of fascism, lack of compassion, "criminalizing the poor" or some other items from the set of manipulative victim narrative talking points. And any way, it's not the responsibility of those whose wealth ideologues deem to be "excessive" to pay for the living costs of those who do drugs every day. >>If a homeless addict is smoking crack outside, what he needs is a shelter that can rehabilitate him, get him off drugs and get him employed somewhere where he can make meaningful contributions and connections to his society. They don't want to get rehabilitated or work. This idea that they're all well-meaning people down on their luck is propaganda. The reality is that many of the most irresponsible people in society are among the homeless, and that they won't take any responsibility unless forced to. >>To assume that the homeless are homeless because of "responsibility and consequence" is to totally ignore any systemic circumstance outside of their control that may have led them to become homeless or jobless in the first place. Some are homeless and jobless because they'd rather do crack and party with their friends than take up responsibility. There are countless government programs they can avail themselves to. They don't want to. They don't want to listen to any authority, or control their impulse in any way. You don't seem to understand and/or care that you can't fix someone who doesn't want to get fixed, unless you take control of their lives over their objections.

sinker 8y ago
What would you suggest? Homelessness is not a punishment society forces onto people. It's an issue for all of society and affects everyone. Pointing fingers and shunning and saying that these people are worthless and deserve everything that get, even if true, isn't a solution to the issue. It seems that if it were possible you would prefer to just eradicate every homeless person out there. Of course that's not possible, so realistic solutions have to be tried. In a sense the vast majority of us are a drain on society at small and large. The people doing the work of growing food, maintaining and building infrastructure, providing medical care, pursuing scientific advancement are a small number. My sense is that most people living in developed countries are doing so on the backs of others. It's easy to point at homeless and say they need to "earn their way," but did we really "earn" that car or earn that house. Did you "earn" your vaccinations. In the sense that you purchased it, did you earn it. How much did sitting in an office or stacking bricks or breaking concrete go towards actually earning the invention of that piston engine or the discovery of the measles vaccine? How much does the effort of sitting in a cubicle translate to the effort of constructing a house or growing a garden. Very little anyone possesses is individually earned. We're all profitting from centuries of technology and advancement we had no part in. The humane thing to do is share what we did not reap with people less advantaged. So as long as there are societies there will always be people living on the fringes of those societies. There will always be elderly, babies, children, criminals, mentally ill, physically handicapped, low income earners, etc. Nonetheless those people are also apart of society. Supporting people on the fringe is an act society does to support itself.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  The solution is to end social welfare programs, institute anti-vagrancy laws that force the drug addicts to work for a living, and end illegal immigration to create jobs for unskilled legal residents. There will still be aid to the poor, but it will be in the form of charity, which is more sensitive to those abusing the aid. Ending all unconditional government safety nets will undoubtedly cause more suffering for the poor in the short run. But in the long run, it means fewer single women having childen that they need government aid to support (welfare is a major contributor to increasing rates of single parenthood), and who are far more likely to end up in poverty as adults. It also means fewer people who are able-bodied becoming a drain on society from a life of irresponsibility (partying with their friends while living on welfare). Forcing a structure and discipline on these people's lives is in the interest of society, because it means they become contributors to the economy instead of a drain. The long term effect of a more efficient economy is a substantially higher standard of living for all classes, including the poor. There are countries in the world that have much lower levels of homelessness and drug-abuse, and much higher rates of economic growth, than the US. You're pretending there is no alternative to the current path except genocide (which you accuse me of supporting), and that's very disingenuous.