6 ms·

> Well you‘re free to quote me on that. You're right I mistook you and nkmnz from whom you defended the original argument. > and that people on Bürgergeld liv

> Well you‘re free to quote me on that. You're right I mistook you and nkmnz from whom you defended the original argument. > and that people on Bürgergeld live in abhorrent poverty, which is demonstrably untrue. It's only untrue if you define “abhorrent” as worse as everywhere. But that's not a good criteria because then the entirety of the world population today is affluent by even 1800 standards, and most European people in 1800 were themselves in a very good situation compared to Paleolithic humans. So of course people can survive with much less but that doesn't mean these people are suffering. It's as saying to someone with a missing foot that he's OK since others have lost both legs. People living on social welfare are definitely struggling and only ascetic people would put themselves voluntarily under such a standard of living. And evidently pretty much anyone claiming it's not a harsh life isn't willing to live with so little. > think people on Bürgergeld starve, are in dire need of heating and live in depressed states for lack of funding. Skipping meal is routine, and mental health issues are indeed a problem for those people. You are the one lying to yourself.

selfmodruntime 2y ago
> It's only untrue if you define “abhorrent” as worse as everywhere > So of course people can survive with much less but that doesn't mean these people are suffering. I‘d argue that as long as you‘re surviving entirely on someone else‘s money without being forced to work, you can argue for my point. Think about this: Never before in history did you have the chance to rely entirely upon the effort of others for your basic human needs. In almost no other country on earth can you survive with most of your needs met just because you happen to live there, even if you‘re not born there. This is insane privilege. > And evidently pretty much anyone claiming it's not a harsh life isn't willing to live with so little Nope, sorry. You‘re saying this from a privileged western perspective. I‘m not comparing humans of the past, I‘m comparing it with the huge majority of people living on earth, right now. A person living on German welfare is so far removed from the average poor Afghan farmer, people in Favelas living in poverty , Ethiopians living under warlord rule or even the average poor person in the US they might as well be royalty. And again, welfare isn‘t supposed to provide an entirely struggle free life. It‘s supposed to have you meet your basic human needs. We give our people so much more than that. Public schooling, free access to public pools, additional housing money in cities, free internet for people on welfare, and a car. It’s delusional if one thinks that‘s still not enough. Skipping meals is not routine, that‘s untrue as well. We have soup kitchens here. I’ve been there myself as a poor student.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > Think about this: Never before in history did you have the chance to rely entirely upon the effort of others for your basic human needs. In almost no other country on earth can you survive with most of your needs met just because you happen to live there, even if you‘re not born there. This is insane privilege. Let's flip it upside down: never before[1] in history could you be bared from earning your food from your own work, and same for housing. That's the entire reason why people need welfare: there's no berries or roots to harvest, no game to hunt, no fields to farm, no vacant lot to build your house on with the help of your family and friends. All of this is behind the control of the gatekeepers who own the means of subsistence. The modern world is a prison in that regard. > Nope, sorry. You‘re saying this from a privileged western perspective. No, you misread me: barely nobody with your or my standard of living would voluntarily adopt this lifestyle. You act as if the ability not to work was a luxury that made all this worthwhile, but the truth is almost nobody ever voluntarily leave the wage-slavery state to take advantage of this luxury. Why that in your opinion? > I‘m not comparing humans of the past, I‘m comparing it with the huge majority of people living on earth, right now. A person living on German welfare is so far removed from the average poor Afghan farmer, people in Favelas living in poverty , Ethiopians living under warlord rule or even the average poor person in the US they might as well be royalty As I said in another thread, you cannot compare struggle between regions of the world or time periods, because all the poor people in the world today have access to things even royalty couldn't dream about. Infant death in Afghanistan (45/1000) is comparable to the level in Germany in the 50s and is roughly a tens of European infant mortality until the beginning of 19th century. Even in royal families, child death were consistently a terrible problem for millennia. And that's a problem that's almost non-existent in today Afghanistan. Same for food, as famine as disappeared almost everywhere in the world and people in Favelas have access to food in a diversity and quality (both in taste and in food safety) that would make aristocrats from the past in awe. Does that mean that Afghan farmers and people in Favelas are not struggling by your definition? > Skipping meals is not routine, that‘s untrue as well. We have soup kitchens here. I’ve been there myself as a poor student. Please read the massive literature about how many people refuse to go there even when it's close to their home (it's not always, especially in suburban or rural places) because they're “worth more than this”. > It‘s supposed to have you meet your basic human needs. We give our people so much more than that. Public schooling, free access to public pools, additional housing money in cities, free internet for people on welfare, and a car. You fail to realize how almost all of these (that is, everything except access to public pools) can be basic human needs in modern societies: schools are a no-brainer of course and I really don't understand how you can put it in your list, but so is housing. Cars and internet connection are only necessities because we shaped the world around it, but here's the world we live in: internet is basically mandatory for many government-related stuff and so are cars when you don't live in cities. Locking people out of the normal world isn't a rational move no matter how “morally good” it sounds. (Also, since I can't find it easily on the web, does welfare in Germany genuinely provide access to a car? That sounds really clever actually, because the lack of mobility is a huge blocker for people to get back to the job market once they've lost access to a car here in France, and we are subsidizing people who are practically stuck without opportunity to get a job which is a terrible policy). [1] at least not before the “enclosure movement” in Britain in the early modern period, where this madness came from.

selfmodruntime 2y ago

> It's only untrue if you define “abhorrent” as worse as everywhere > So of course people can survive with much less but that doesn't mean these people are suffering. I‘d argue that as long as you‘re surviving entirely on someone else‘s money without being forced to work, you can argue for my point. Think about this: Never before in history did you have the chance to rely entirely upon the effort of others for your basic human needs. In almost no other country on earth can you survive with most of your needs met just because you happen to live there, even if you‘re not born there. This is insane privilege. > And evidently pretty much anyone claiming it's not a harsh life isn't willing to live with so little Nope, sorry. You‘re saying this from a privileged western perspective. I‘m not comparing humans of the past, I‘m comparing it with the huge majority of people living on earth, right now. A person living on German welfare is so far removed from the average poor Afghan farmer, people in Favelas living in poverty , Ethiopians living under warlord rule or even the average poor person in the US they might as well be royalty. And again, welfare isn‘t supposed to provide an entirely struggle free life. It‘s supposed to have you meet your basic human needs. We give our people so much more than that. Public schooling, free access to public pools, additional housing money in cities, free internet for people on welfare, and a car. It’s delusional if one thinks that‘s still not enough. Skipping meals is not routine, that‘s untrue as well. We have soup kitchens here. I’ve been there myself as a poor student.

littlestymaar 2y ago
> Think about this: Never before in history did you have the chance to rely entirely upon the effort of others for your basic human needs. In almost no other country on earth can you survive with most of your needs met just because you happen to live there, even if you‘re not born there. This is insane privilege. Let's flip it upside down: never before[1] in history could you be bared from earning your food from your own work, and same for housing. That's the entire reason why people need welfare: there's no berries or roots to harvest, no game to hunt, no fields to farm, no vacant lot to build your house on with the help of your family and friends. All of this is behind the control of the gatekeepers who own the means of subsistence. The modern world is a prison in that regard. > Nope, sorry. You‘re saying this from a privileged western perspective. No, you misread me: barely nobody with your or my standard of living would voluntarily adopt this lifestyle. You act as if the ability not to work was a luxury that made all this worthwhile, but the truth is almost nobody ever voluntarily leave the wage-slavery state to take advantage of this luxury. Why that in your opinion? > I‘m not comparing humans of the past, I‘m comparing it with the huge majority of people living on earth, right now. A person living on German welfare is so far removed from the average poor Afghan farmer, people in Favelas living in poverty , Ethiopians living under warlord rule or even the average poor person in the US they might as well be royalty As I said in another thread, you cannot compare struggle between regions of the world or time periods, because all the poor people in the world today have access to things even royalty couldn't dream about. Infant death in Afghanistan (45/1000) is comparable to the level in Germany in the 50s and is roughly a tens of European infant mortality until the beginning of 19th century. Even in royal families, child death were consistently a terrible problem for millennia. And that's a problem that's almost non-existent in today Afghanistan. Same for food, as famine as disappeared almost everywhere in the world and people in Favelas have access to food in a diversity and quality (both in taste and in food safety) that would make aristocrats from the past in awe. Does that mean that Afghan farmers and people in Favelas are not struggling by your definition? > Skipping meals is not routine, that‘s untrue as well. We have soup kitchens here. I’ve been there myself as a poor student. Please read the massive literature about how many people refuse to go there even when it's close to their home (it's not always, especially in suburban or rural places) because they're “worth more than this”. > It‘s supposed to have you meet your basic human needs. We give our people so much more than that. Public schooling, free access to public pools, additional housing money in cities, free internet for people on welfare, and a car. You fail to realize how almost all of these (that is, everything except access to public pools) can be basic human needs in modern societies: schools are a no-brainer of course and I really don't understand how you can put it in your list, but so is housing. Cars and internet connection are only necessities because we shaped the world around it, but here's the world we live in: internet is basically mandatory for many government-related stuff and so are cars when you don't live in cities. Locking people out of the normal world isn't a rational move no matter how “morally good” it sounds. (Also, since I can't find it easily on the web, does welfare in Germany genuinely provide access to a car? That sounds really clever actually, because the lack of mobility is a huge blocker for people to get back to the job market once they've lost access to a car here in France, and we are subsidizing people who are practically stuck without opportunity to get a job which is a terrible policy). [1] at least not before the “enclosure movement” in Britain in the early modern period, where this madness came from.