3 ms·
I don't disagree. One thing that came to mind the other day, as I remembered how a family member of mine lost their job at a national airplane company. Their jo
by ppeetteerr 6y ago
I don't disagree. One thing that came to mind the other day, as I remembered how a family member of mine lost their job at a national airplane company. Their job prospects were very slim and required moving across the country. The industry is very specialized. I dislike tariffs as much as the next globalist but I do feel for family. Conflicted, you might say.
- NullPrefix 6y agoThis sounds like welfare with extra steps
- ppeetteerr 6y agoAgreed. Unlike other countries, the USA are allergic to the word "welfare", so they have to go through all these convoluted steps to do the same thing
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThe more extra steps the more ethically murky it gets. Is creating a regulatory environment where public infrastructure construction and maintenance prices soar to astronomical levels because you have three people getting paid hourly to supervise one guy who's running a pavement miller "welfare" or is it crony capitalism for the construction industry? I'm fine with welfare, but thinly veiled handouts to politically connected groups seems a hell of a lot less efficient way to better society than just directly funding or tax-incentivizing homeless shelters and food pantries. Also some of the shadier cases of "well if you put a positive spin on it then this is just welfare" behavior are too graft-like for my tastes.
- ChuckNorris89 6y agoWell yes, but this way you're only giving welfare to some highly skilled people (plus useless execs) who also happen to be useful in wartime. Not the kind of people you want to loose long term. The EU also subsidizes Airbus, agriculture and other critical industries.
- mkr-hn 6y agoMore people can become the kind of people who are useful in wartime if they aren't struggling to survive.