6 ms·

There's tons of qualified people that are unable to find work simply because of their immigration status. Having work permission in the US is a massive economi

by tdfx 4y ago

There's tons of qualified people that are unable to find work simply because of their immigration status. Having work permission in the US is a massive economic advantage so it makes the situation of Americans who throw away that gift they were born into that much more jarring and hard to sympathize with. Anecdotally, a friend of mine has attempted to hire homeless people on multiple occasions to help him in residential demolition projects (no clean clothes, resume, or shower necessary). In one instance, he scheduled work for the following day and zero out of 8 people showed up. I'm sure there's homeless people that would like to work their way of the situation, but I don't think they are in the majority. Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist.

everforward 4y ago
The other side of the "not showing up" story has merit too. I had a (former) friend that did the same, and asked why people hadn't shown up. The pay is terrible. In his case, it was below minimum wage. He argued he could get better labor for minimum wage, so they could either take it or be replaced. He was also renting them the same place they were renovating. It was a slum, and he was using their labor to improve it so he could kick them out and replace them with someone that would pay. Not exactly a thrilling proposal. There was no safety equipment provided. It was an old building, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was full of asbestos (and maybe why he didn't hire a reputable company in the first place). The place was filthy. Human feces in a bucket kind of filthy. > Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist. There's a grain of truth here. My phrasing would be "Any solution provided needs to be better than panhandling." Doing difficult physical labor for below minimum wage doesn't meet that criteria. Even at minimum wage, I don't know if it's better.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical. So now it's "work hard, or live in the social safety net, such as it is". This is much more palatable for many more people, despite the downsides, so many more people take the offer. I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families. This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    > it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Many people and cultures have celebrated and promoted leisure. The US strain of the Protestant work ethic is not most of human history, most people, or imposed by nature. > This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph. It can be an individual triumph over circumstance, but the circumstances are still degrading.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      You can celebrate and promote leisure only to the degree that it allows you survive. In tropical areas where food is plentiful year-round, there tends to be more leisure. In harsh climates that require hard work and careful planning to avoid starvation, there is less. The protestant work ethic has led to the most successful economy on earth. Other economies competing for the title work just as hard. There is an ongoing competitive/evolutionary process of culture and ideas, and "work hard" is winning. > the circumstances are still degrading Why do you say that? What is degrading about destitution, exactly? I'm not sure those who live it, and especially those who choose it, would agree that they exist in a degraded state. I don't think degradation exists in nature, it is a condition imposed by one group of people on another. Destitution however is encountered frequently in the natural world, and in itself does not imply a moral condition.
  - everforward 4y ago
    I think you and I have a different set of core beliefs, but I can expand on my side as well. > To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical. For myself, that turning point is when food ceased to be a scarce good. When food is scarce, somebody has to starve and allocating by contribution is a reasonable way to do it. When food is so plentiful that we inefficiently convert it to crappy gasoline because we have so much (corn) and cram caves full of it (cheese), letting someone starve is more of a conscious decision than an incredibly unfortunate situation. In other words, being unable to share essential goods is very different from refusing to share essential goods. I'm willing to sacrifice a portion of my efforts so that people don't starve. The "work hard or starve" mantra has a nasty implication that people who can't work should just starve. If you're going to provide for the disabled, it's no longer "work hard or starve", and you need a new justification for why people who can work but don't deserve to starve. It becomes very morally murky and arbitrary. > I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families. Many people on earth would also enthusiastically kill each other to feed their families. That doesn't make it a noble pursuit. > This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph. I don't see any triumph here, so you might have to expand on that thought. I guess they're triumphing over starvation, but that's not really a show of strength in a country with 1.4 billion pounds of cheese stashed in a cave. It seems like calling breathing a triumph over asphyxiation. If they were paid enough to live a remotely decent life, that would be a triumph. Enough to afford somewhere to live, food, a little leftover to pursue a passion. Working hard and foul jobs so your boss can pay you so little that you're almost jealous of barn animals, so they can then use the money they saved to throw you out seems very degrading to me. Most people take better care of their household pets than we afford the homeless. Most dogs do nothing but emotional support, yet we feed them, take them to the vet, make sure they come inside when it's hot/cold. Cats don't even do emotional support, they're mostly a walking curiosity. Everybody's happy with that arrangement, but the homeless wanting a semblance of fair pay for shitty work is a step too far?

by tdfx 4y ago

everforward 4y ago

The other side of the "not showing up" story has merit too. I had a (former) friend that did the same, and asked why people hadn't shown up. The pay is terrible. In his case, it was below minimum wage. He argued he could get better labor for minimum wage, so they could either take it or be replaced. He was also renting them the same place they were renovating. It was a slum, and he was using their labor to improve it so he could kick them out and replace them with someone that would pay. Not exactly a thrilling proposal. There was no safety equipment provided. It was an old building, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was full of asbestos (and maybe why he didn't hire a reputable company in the first place). The place was filthy. Human feces in a bucket kind of filthy. > Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist. There's a grain of truth here. My phrasing would be "Any solution provided needs to be better than panhandling." Doing difficult physical labor for below minimum wage doesn't meet that criteria. Even at minimum wage, I don't know if it's better.

thegrimmest 4y ago
To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical. So now it's "work hard, or live in the social safety net, such as it is". This is much more palatable for many more people, despite the downsides, so many more people take the offer. I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families. This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
- fineIllregister 4y ago
  > it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Many people and cultures have celebrated and promoted leisure. The US strain of the Protestant work ethic is not most of human history, most people, or imposed by nature. > This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph. It can be an individual triumph over circumstance, but the circumstances are still degrading.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    You can celebrate and promote leisure only to the degree that it allows you survive. In tropical areas where food is plentiful year-round, there tends to be more leisure. In harsh climates that require hard work and careful planning to avoid starvation, there is less. The protestant work ethic has led to the most successful economy on earth. Other economies competing for the title work just as hard. There is an ongoing competitive/evolutionary process of culture and ideas, and "work hard" is winning. > the circumstances are still degrading Why do you say that? What is degrading about destitution, exactly? I'm not sure those who live it, and especially those who choose it, would agree that they exist in a degraded state. I don't think degradation exists in nature, it is a condition imposed by one group of people on another. Destitution however is encountered frequently in the natural world, and in itself does not imply a moral condition.
- everforward 4y ago
  I think you and I have a different set of core beliefs, but I can expand on my side as well. > To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical. For myself, that turning point is when food ceased to be a scarce good. When food is scarce, somebody has to starve and allocating by contribution is a reasonable way to do it. When food is so plentiful that we inefficiently convert it to crappy gasoline because we have so much (corn) and cram caves full of it (cheese), letting someone starve is more of a conscious decision than an incredibly unfortunate situation. In other words, being unable to share essential goods is very different from refusing to share essential goods. I'm willing to sacrifice a portion of my efforts so that people don't starve. The "work hard or starve" mantra has a nasty implication that people who can't work should just starve. If you're going to provide for the disabled, it's no longer "work hard or starve", and you need a new justification for why people who can work but don't deserve to starve. It becomes very morally murky and arbitrary. > I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families. Many people on earth would also enthusiastically kill each other to feed their families. That doesn't make it a noble pursuit. > This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph. I don't see any triumph here, so you might have to expand on that thought. I guess they're triumphing over starvation, but that's not really a show of strength in a country with 1.4 billion pounds of cheese stashed in a cave. It seems like calling breathing a triumph over asphyxiation. If they were paid enough to live a remotely decent life, that would be a triumph. Enough to afford somewhere to live, food, a little leftover to pursue a passion. Working hard and foul jobs so your boss can pay you so little that you're almost jealous of barn animals, so they can then use the money they saved to throw you out seems very degrading to me. Most people take better care of their household pets than we afford the homeless. Most dogs do nothing but emotional support, yet we feed them, take them to the vet, make sure they come inside when it's hot/cold. Cats don't even do emotional support, they're mostly a walking curiosity. Everybody's happy with that arrangement, but the homeless wanting a semblance of fair pay for shitty work is a step too far?