4 ms·

Au contraire, when your life is on the edge all the time, people have every incentive to cling to whatever they have, and never change, because you have one mis

Au contraire, when your life is on the edge all the time, people have every incentive to cling to whatever they have, and never change, because you have one mistake or accident and your life is screwed. Case in point: USA has a very well-developed bankruptcy system. Losing a business frequently means your business debts are absolved and you can start anew. One may think that such a system will encourage people to throw money at bad decisions: however, a bigger effect is that people are encouraged to cut the loss at a reasonable point and start a new business, because you can take calculated risks. There are (or used to be) arcane economic systems based upon the reverse principle: if your business fails your life is ruined, so you have every incentive to stick to it until the bitter end, using up every resource, including your personal money, your family money, and your relatives' money. (South Korea used to be like that.) And guess what? It didn't bring more successful businesses, just more suffering.

luckylion 6y ago
You appear to misunderstand me. I'm not saying "remove all safety nets", I like safety nets for the exact reason you stated, they allow some amount of risk, they cover you when extraordinary events happen, and allow you to get back up instead of falling endlessly. They're not all positive though, they are incentivizing a part of the population to not contribute. I live around such people, and I have no doubt that they'd contribute if the alternative was going hungry and sleeping outside. But since the alternative is a 70sqm flat, a tv, xbox and smartphone, utilities paid for and food in the kitchen, they don't see a reason to contribute - it would just mean spending time doing things they don't like for more money. But as they already have their needs and most of their desires covered, that's not a good offer to them. They're perpetually relying on the safety net, and it tends to become intergenerational. If you want to install a safety net, it's wise to address that issue.

luckylion 6y ago

You appear to misunderstand me. I'm not saying "remove all safety nets", I like safety nets for the exact reason you stated, they allow some amount of risk, they cover you when extraordinary events happen, and allow you to get back up instead of falling endlessly. They're not all positive though, they are incentivizing a part of the population to not contribute. I live around such people, and I have no doubt that they'd contribute if the alternative was going hungry and sleeping outside. But since the alternative is a 70sqm flat, a tv, xbox and smartphone, utilities paid for and food in the kitchen, they don't see a reason to contribute - it would just mean spending time doing things they don't like for more money. But as they already have their needs and most of their desires covered, that's not a good offer to them. They're perpetually relying on the safety net, and it tends to become intergenerational. If you want to install a safety net, it's wise to address that issue.