16 ms·
> Does this mean that you think we need a safety social net for people who aren't poor as well? But if they aren't poor why would they need one? From what I've
by slazaro 11y ago
> Does this mean that you think we need a safety social net for people who aren't poor as well? But if they aren't poor why would they need one?
From what I've understood from threads like this, I think the idea is that social services designed for people in need should not try to prove that the person requesting actually needs it. It creates friction, and it's a waste of resources (money, people, time), and some people that need the service might not get it because the system fucks up every now and then.
If you'd open it up to whoever asked for it, people in need would naturally request it and get it, and people that don't wouldn't. If someone abused the system (and this is the big assumption IMO), the amount lost would probably be lower than what would have been spent trying to enforce requirements. So you'd solve the false negatives and would also spend less, and the system would be simpler.
Of course, I don't know much about this, this is what I've gathered from reading around.
- Mz 11y agoFrom years of study and first-hand experience, defining "need" based on something other than income is far more effective in helping people attain and keep a middle class lifestyle. Requiring people to first be able to meet a definition of poverty helps encourage people to fail and actively creates barriers to escaping poverty. So, for example: Affordable, good quality health care for all. Price breaks on public transit passes for people who are handicapped (this actually exists and I think is a good example of something helpful). Functioning public transit systems that give people options other than owning a car for how to get around. An abundance of affordable, decent housing -- where "affordable" is not a code word for slum housing but honestly just means the price is not out of reach of average folks with ordinary jobs. Lack of affordable housing is such a problem in some places that police, teachers and so on often cannot afford to live in the communities they serve. These are not people who are incompetent and looking for a handout, yet some communities have to set up special programs to help them buy a house or live reasonably close to work because our housing policies are so horribly broken. Maternity leave and other policies that help women get and keep jobs and pursue real careers. I read a lot about this in my twenties. In America, women pursued the American historical position of "Don't tread on me!" and took the position that "I can too do the job if you just get the fuck out of my way." The result is that women who are without a man and without children make about 98% of what men make who have similar education and experience. But the minute you introduce a man or a child into the picture, American women make more like 2/3s what men make -- the same figure cited in the bible as what women were worth compared to men 2000-ish years ago. In contrast, European women have pushed for help in carrying the burden of bearing and raising kids and the result has been substantially more gains in terms of closing the wage gap and overall lower divorce rates. The things you are suggesting are problematic because it actively disincentivizes working. I am not for just free handouts for poor people. I am for fixing the system so it stops actively creating problems and pushing folks off a cliff and then blaming them when their life falls apart and they can't figure out how to get it back together.