3 ms·

The problem here is you just re-invented the term "deserving poor". And the "undeserving homeless", the violent drug addict with mental health problems - well

The problem here is you just re-invented the term "deserving poor". And the "undeserving homeless", the violent drug addict with mental health problems - well (s)he deserved our help about ten or fifteen years previously, when under funded health services let him slip through the net, or neighbours and uncles and aunts did not want to believe her dad was actually doing that to her and .... A lot of people have shitty lives and deserve our help - not just when the symptoms are impossible to ignore. I kind of see what you are reaching for - that there must be some solution. Yeah there is - but it's about a decade or two before people hit the streets, so we need to fix all the problems in our society that let children doing well in Kindergarten, fall that far. And we also need help for those that have fallen right now - and the article had some pretty good ideas about that I thought.

dcolkitt 7y ago
> The problem here is you just re-invented the term "deserving poor". You're citing this as if the concept of "deserving poor" isn't something that's already enshrined in public policy. For the vast majority of American voters segmenting the deserving from the undeserving poor is a feature not a bug. That's the reason we don't have unconditional UBI, and instead have a welfare system that's based on life circumstances. When we're more generous with children, the infirm, and the elderly than able-bodied adults who eschew work (or even worse commit crime), that is the concept of the deserving poor. And frankly I agree with that class distinction. > the violent drug addict with mental health problems - well (s)he deserved our help about ten or fifteen years previously And yet the very same criticism can be said about permanent criminal records or sex offender registries. Yet the vast majority of people in our society accept that committing a violent crime is "crossing the rubicon". Once you've done so, you'll always be a second-class citizen at best. This isn't something controversial, policies based on this belief are nearly universally supported by voters. Regardless of prior personal circumstances, American society always lays the blame primarily at the perpetrator himself.
- trevyn 7y ago
  And it’s starting to become clear that this approach is not working.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  >>> who eschew work (or even worse commit crime) Wait, what? Equating criminals should be punished with some people are more deserving than others is not the point - the deserving poor was a kid victorian justification for selectively providing assistance to a (conveniently limited) number of people while letting the majority of poor rot away in plain sight. It was a means of ignoring the systemic issues that created and sustained grinding poverty - and is IMO something we are doing still - the underclass has shrunk, yes, we have lifted many people out of overfly in the West, but prisons are populated mostly with men with poor backgrounds, educational low attainment, mental health issues and drug problems - waaaaay too out of proportion to be confidence, thus making those issues part of the modern day systemic faikures that mean some of our fellow citizens have the odds stacked against them.
Chris2048 7y ago
"deserve" is an entirely different concept. It implies no help should be given - labelling someone as having a mental illness (or addiction, the same) is the opposite of this. That said, if someone has no such mental issues, yet a low social score, what else should be done - Who deserves to be exposed to that? > A lot of people have shitty lives and deserve our help our help? who's that? The employer who ends up with a violent or maladjusted employee bears the burden themselves - not us.

dcolkitt 7y ago

> The problem here is you just re-invented the term "deserving poor". You're citing this as if the concept of "deserving poor" isn't something that's already enshrined in public policy. For the vast majority of American voters segmenting the deserving from the undeserving poor is a feature not a bug. That's the reason we don't have unconditional UBI, and instead have a welfare system that's based on life circumstances. When we're more generous with children, the infirm, and the elderly than able-bodied adults who eschew work (or even worse commit crime), that is the concept of the deserving poor. And frankly I agree with that class distinction. > the violent drug addict with mental health problems - well (s)he deserved our help about ten or fifteen years previously And yet the very same criticism can be said about permanent criminal records or sex offender registries. Yet the vast majority of people in our society accept that committing a violent crime is "crossing the rubicon". Once you've done so, you'll always be a second-class citizen at best. This isn't something controversial, policies based on this belief are nearly universally supported by voters. Regardless of prior personal circumstances, American society always lays the blame primarily at the perpetrator himself.

trevyn 7y ago
And it’s starting to become clear that this approach is not working.
lifeisstillgood 7y ago
>>> who eschew work (or even worse commit crime) Wait, what? Equating criminals should be punished with some people are more deserving than others is not the point - the deserving poor was a kid victorian justification for selectively providing assistance to a (conveniently limited) number of people while letting the majority of poor rot away in plain sight. It was a means of ignoring the systemic issues that created and sustained grinding poverty - and is IMO something we are doing still - the underclass has shrunk, yes, we have lifted many people out of overfly in the West, but prisons are populated mostly with men with poor backgrounds, educational low attainment, mental health issues and drug problems - waaaaay too out of proportion to be confidence, thus making those issues part of the modern day systemic faikures that mean some of our fellow citizens have the odds stacked against them.

Chris2048 7y ago

"deserve" is an entirely different concept. It implies no help should be given - labelling someone as having a mental illness (or addiction, the same) is the opposite of this. That said, if someone has no such mental issues, yet a low social score, what else should be done - Who deserves to be exposed to that? > A lot of people have shitty lives and deserve our help our help? who's that? The employer who ends up with a violent or maladjusted employee bears the burden themselves - not us.