7 ms·

It's more complicated than this. There is some truth to both sides of the equation and it is true that we currently overwhelmingly blame poor individuals for th

It's more complicated than this. There is some truth to both sides of the equation and it is true that we currently overwhelmingly blame poor individuals for their problems and largely fail to recognize that there just isn't enough to go around of some things. We need to do a better job of putting in a floor for all people such that there are limits to how low you can fall even if everything goes wrong and we need to do a better job of lowering barriers to moving between classes. It's currently too easy to fall in the US and too hard to get back up. The right mental models, attitudes, etc can be helpful in problem solving. Some problems are intractable (hard to make progress against and require many years to solve) even if you do everything right. Some kinds of resources are in limited supply such that, yes, some lucky few can readily get out but some will not even if they "do everything right." The best thing we can do as a society is focus on solving that last one: Try to make more resources available of certain kinds such that there is enough to go around to establish a floor from which people have some reasonable hope of being able to be self determining.

k__ 5y ago
That floor is always an issue, even in countries with a better than average social system. Here in Germany, they will cut your financial aid if you aren't willing to take every shitty job you get offered. This leads to companies who prey on the poorest, because they know they have to take their crappy jobs.
- Tiny-rolleyes 5y ago
- pc86 5y ago
  There's a somewhat prevalent mindset here in the US that it's better to have a lot of honestly down-on-their-luck, "not-their-fault" poor and impoverished people struggle in order to avoid buying one meal or one nice jacket for the freeloader who simply doesn't feel like getting a job. I imagine even in countries with good social safety nets that you have a certain contingent of people who feel the same way.
- efdee 5y ago
  If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Wouldn't the correct answer to your problem be laws that put lower limits on what acceptable jobs are, rather than not expecting people to take whatever job there is for them if they can't find anything better?
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    > If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Yours is an entirely ideological point of view. There is no reason to believe people would just sit at home and wait for the system to pay them. Even if someone did just sit at home, you have to prove that that would be worse overall than having many others' needs ignored. We already have a class of people who "sit" expecting the system to pay them: it's the rich. We already practice socialism for the rich, giving incredible amounts of public money to companies in tax cuts and subsidies, it's time we do socialism for the poor as well.
    - efdee 5y ago
      I'm not sure your "we" is the same as my "we". I live in an European "socialist" country with a well functioning healthcare and welfare system. I have lots of sympathy for people who are experiencing some downtime in their life. I understand that might not have been obvious from my comment. I'm not sure I understand you when you say there is no reason to believe people are sitting at home waiting for the system to pay them. Considering we are talking about people who are unable to find a job and not willing to do the jobs that are available, who are healthy and not at home because of some condition - who exactly are we talking about? Your last paragraph sounds very worrisome but not something I feel my "we" are experiencing. We do a lot of socialism for the poor and we tax our rich quite heavily. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I feel you're approaching this from a very US-centric point of view.
      - pastacacioepepe 5y ago

k__ 5y ago

That floor is always an issue, even in countries with a better than average social system. Here in Germany, they will cut your financial aid if you aren't willing to take every shitty job you get offered. This leads to companies who prey on the poorest, because they know they have to take their crappy jobs.

Tiny-rolleyes 5y ago
pc86 5y ago
There's a somewhat prevalent mindset here in the US that it's better to have a lot of honestly down-on-their-luck, "not-their-fault" poor and impoverished people struggle in order to avoid buying one meal or one nice jacket for the freeloader who simply doesn't feel like getting a job. I imagine even in countries with good social safety nets that you have a certain contingent of people who feel the same way.
efdee 5y ago
If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Wouldn't the correct answer to your problem be laws that put lower limits on what acceptable jobs are, rather than not expecting people to take whatever job there is for them if they can't find anything better?
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  > If there is a job you are physically and mentally capable of doing, why should you not be forced into doing it instead of just sitting at home and expecting 'the system' to pay for you? Yours is an entirely ideological point of view. There is no reason to believe people would just sit at home and wait for the system to pay them. Even if someone did just sit at home, you have to prove that that would be worse overall than having many others' needs ignored. We already have a class of people who "sit" expecting the system to pay them: it's the rich. We already practice socialism for the rich, giving incredible amounts of public money to companies in tax cuts and subsidies, it's time we do socialism for the poor as well.
  - efdee 5y ago
    I'm not sure your "we" is the same as my "we". I live in an European "socialist" country with a well functioning healthcare and welfare system. I have lots of sympathy for people who are experiencing some downtime in their life. I understand that might not have been obvious from my comment. I'm not sure I understand you when you say there is no reason to believe people are sitting at home waiting for the system to pay them. Considering we are talking about people who are unable to find a job and not willing to do the jobs that are available, who are healthy and not at home because of some condition - who exactly are we talking about? Your last paragraph sounds very worrisome but not something I feel my "we" are experiencing. We do a lot of socialism for the poor and we tax our rich quite heavily. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I feel you're approaching this from a very US-centric point of view.
    - pastacacioepepe 5y ago