4 ms·

There will always be reasons, often outside of peoples' control, why they cannot make enough money to afford housing. Your solution to this is - what? I believ

There will always be reasons, often outside of peoples' control, why they cannot make enough money to afford housing. Your solution to this is - what? I believe that the fundamental necessities of life - shelter, healthcare, education (food, sure, but it is still relatively inexpensive) - should all be socialized to some degree. This can easily coexist with capitalism. Denmark has these things and is still a fervently capitalist country.

whiddershins 6y ago
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the is some ‘socialization’ of housing, whatever that means ... but somehow everyone always has a place to live no matter what. In that situation should we still be angry about minimum wage? See, we are conflating things here. Some people really can’t work and need help. At that point, as I said above, specific rent amounts and wage amounts become irrelevant. You need to focus on: what will genuinely help them? Drug treatment? Mental Health treatment. A lifetime of free food and housing etc and the removal of any obligation to contribute to society forever? I say none of this ironically. When someone simply can’t work, and no one else voluntarily want to take care of them, we have to figure out what to do. And how to distinguish between fakers and real. And between temporary and permanent. Partial and complete. At that point there are so many issues, putting high rents and low wages in is literally a distraction.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Why care so much about fakers vs. real? Just provide a solid base for living for everybody, regardless of economic standing. Stop making people jump through all these hoops to prove they really need help. This is the same animating principle underlying UBI, but I think UBI fundamentally won't be effective as long as it can be eaten up by rent, healthcare, and education costs which will rise to meet what is available.
- s5300 6y ago
  Nations that claim to be civilized are mostly judged by how they care for their most vulnerable citizens/inhabitants. If you feel otherwise, feel free to campaign for that throughout your life... don't be surprised if most people think you're a dick for it though.
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  Every test you have between “fake” and “real” candidates for a program introduces waste and reduced participation by “real” people. See: every single means tested program in America like disability benefits or SNAP. Hell, my state is throwing out vaccines right now because of this.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I think you and the others in this thread disagree on the actual problem, and as long as that is the case this will just be a debate of people talking past each other. The problem you see is: something prevents some people from contributing enough to society to afford housing. The problem others see is: some people do not have housing. I am with the second group. In an era of unparalleled abundance, is it so crazy to provide for everyone’s basic needs without expecting anything in return? What is even the point of “society”, and our contributions to it, if not to make life better for everyone?
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    This mischaracterizes my point. We agree on the problem: some people don’t have housing. Second point: if some subset, which I say is the majority, of people who can’t afford housing are in this situation because they literally can’t work ... Decreasing rent or raising wages does nothing to address this. Since these are the most vulnerable people, I feel that bringing concepts like the imbalance between rents and wages actually muddies the waters.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Aren’t you arguing against a straw man? No one is making the case that the ultimate solution is lowering rent or raising wages. If we agree that’s the problem, can we then agree on the simplest solution? Give everyone housing, with no conditions or strings attached.
      - whiddershins 6y ago
        No. I’m replying to a comment purporting to be about helping the homeless that is in fact a critique of capitalism. It isn’t smart or effective to mix the two. Pick one, and maybe something can get accomplished.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        That doesn’t make any sense. You can’t discuss a socioeconomic problem without also critiquing the society and economic system within which it exists. Any discussion about homelessness within a capitalist society is necessarily also a discussion about capitalism.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  > A lifetime of free food and housing etc and the removal of any obligation to contribute to society forever? I don't understand this point you made? Are you saying that if someone was receiving food and housing they would no longer be obligated to contribute to society? I think that would make them more obligated to contribute, seeing as they are getting food and housing out of the deal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

whiddershins 6y ago

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the is some ‘socialization’ of housing, whatever that means ... but somehow everyone always has a place to live no matter what. In that situation should we still be angry about minimum wage? See, we are conflating things here. Some people really can’t work and need help. At that point, as I said above, specific rent amounts and wage amounts become irrelevant. You need to focus on: what will genuinely help them? Drug treatment? Mental Health treatment. A lifetime of free food and housing etc and the removal of any obligation to contribute to society forever? I say none of this ironically. When someone simply can’t work, and no one else voluntarily want to take care of them, we have to figure out what to do. And how to distinguish between fakers and real. And between temporary and permanent. Partial and complete. At that point there are so many issues, putting high rents and low wages in is literally a distraction.

ahelwer 6y ago
Why care so much about fakers vs. real? Just provide a solid base for living for everybody, regardless of economic standing. Stop making people jump through all these hoops to prove they really need help. This is the same animating principle underlying UBI, but I think UBI fundamentally won't be effective as long as it can be eaten up by rent, healthcare, and education costs which will rise to meet what is available.
s5300 6y ago
Nations that claim to be civilized are mostly judged by how they care for their most vulnerable citizens/inhabitants. If you feel otherwise, feel free to campaign for that throughout your life... don't be surprised if most people think you're a dick for it though.
SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
Every test you have between “fake” and “real” candidates for a program introduces waste and reduced participation by “real” people. See: every single means tested program in America like disability benefits or SNAP. Hell, my state is throwing out vaccines right now because of this.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
I think you and the others in this thread disagree on the actual problem, and as long as that is the case this will just be a debate of people talking past each other. The problem you see is: something prevents some people from contributing enough to society to afford housing. The problem others see is: some people do not have housing. I am with the second group. In an era of unparalleled abundance, is it so crazy to provide for everyone’s basic needs without expecting anything in return? What is even the point of “society”, and our contributions to it, if not to make life better for everyone?
- whiddershins 6y ago
  This mischaracterizes my point. We agree on the problem: some people don’t have housing. Second point: if some subset, which I say is the majority, of people who can’t afford housing are in this situation because they literally can’t work ... Decreasing rent or raising wages does nothing to address this. Since these are the most vulnerable people, I feel that bringing concepts like the imbalance between rents and wages actually muddies the waters.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Aren’t you arguing against a straw man? No one is making the case that the ultimate solution is lowering rent or raising wages. If we agree that’s the problem, can we then agree on the simplest solution? Give everyone housing, with no conditions or strings attached.
    - whiddershins 6y ago
      No. I’m replying to a comment purporting to be about helping the homeless that is in fact a critique of capitalism. It isn’t smart or effective to mix the two. Pick one, and maybe something can get accomplished.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        That doesn’t make any sense. You can’t discuss a socioeconomic problem without also critiquing the society and economic system within which it exists. Any discussion about homelessness within a capitalist society is necessarily also a discussion about capitalism.
ModernMech 6y ago
> A lifetime of free food and housing etc and the removal of any obligation to contribute to society forever? I don't understand this point you made? Are you saying that if someone was receiving food and housing they would no longer be obligated to contribute to society? I think that would make them more obligated to contribute, seeing as they are getting food and housing out of the deal.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]