I'm pretty sure the poors deserve their fate, sweaty
I'm pretty sure the poors deserve their fate, sweaty
As a conservative I support this idea, because it has no means testing.
Means testing is fucked up in two ways:
- It makes government larger and gets the government asking questions, poking its nose into everything
- It creates a perverse incentive structure, one which doesn’t match nature and hence doesn’t match the way our brains evolved to respond to challenge.
The perverse incentive structure is the worse of the two, in my opinion. Just like crack cocaine hacks the brain, presents something the brain can’t handle because it didn’t evolve for, rewarding a person with resources only when they don’t succeed basically programs a person to fail.
I’m all for the government generously giving with an open hand to people, and letting the people decide when to start receiving benefits and when to stop. People are either worth it or they aren’t, and a person doesn’t stop being worth it just because they got their shit together, or start being worth it just because they failed.
Government should treat everyone the same. If a government wants to present a service like “free housing if you want it”, I’m totally fine with that.
8I'm for restricting human behavior as little as possible while still allowing anyone to escape any bad situation they don't want to be apart of.
3A conservative with compassion and sense is always a welcome sight. This is a pretty obvious solution imo, but the powers that be seem to disagree.
2
I've seen nothing more demonic than prosperity gospel.
3Would be funny if it wasn't so sad and aggravating.
3
Nooooo that money is supposed to go to hard working shareholders like nature intended!!
/s
3Ok, but how can Finland afford the nesting-doll yachts if they are giving out money that should have gone into billionaires' hoards?
7Why does it even need to be a transaction? We help each other because it's the right thing to do. It doesn't need to result in anything other than gratitude and happiness.
9Who knew getting them healthy and back in the workforce paying taxes could pay off?
21This here exactly should be the goal of all those "fiscally responsible" Republicans: homeless sick dude is healed and housed and counseled until he's back paying his damned taxes and a productive member of society again.
People who can't cope will need a different programme, but still a live-in deal with counseling and a focus on the fundamental needs.
14
It still blows my mind that some people cannot comprehend that not everything needs an exchange of currency in some way shape or form.
"They don't do anything in return?" "They don't get worse!" "But who compensates the people who help them?" "We do." "But then who compensates us?"
23Like do these people realize that if we give people the means to not just survive, but thrive, in our society which rapidly approaches post-scarcity (I'd argue we'd basically be there if we had better distribution of wealth) then they would have no reason to steal or kill? I mean except for the worst cases, but ya know.. if everyone except for the truly evil has no reason or desire to do crime then....
Just saying imagine a world where police actually fought bad guys and just let social workers handled the wayward sheep, the downtrodden, and the desperate?
1
The "4 out of 5" figure roughly matches what I recall being told by a head of Catholic Charities maybe a decade ago. You certainly have some percentage of people who’ve been given everything they need to be comfortable, and when you leave them alone and come back to check on them, they simply have not been able to look after themselves. But for the vast majority, it does work. People are in a safe space where they can look for work, have an address to put down on applications, and all that.
Quite affordable too; ambulance rides and jail visits aren't cheap.
20Also I don't quite get it. Who makes the money?
Oh is this so they can work?
Do they have to sign a contract where they will work for you or else they lose the house and counseling?
I just don't see how a society can continue if they aren't paying their fair share!
/SarcasticCapitalism
103The worst thing is, this is a far more effective way to make them productive members of society. It just isn’t cruel.
10Had me in the first half. My thumbs were really revving up.
23
Yes, but if we don't have so many shitheads in the street how can we justify such bloated police budgets? I would rather spend the money on our fine boys and girls in blue then some people who actually need it.
55Okay, but we have to be careful what part of the budget the money goes to. If we pay the cops too much, they might send their kids to college or some other liberal bullshit; and if we pay too much for training, we might accidentally get them competent instructors instead of grifters who promise them that killing people will make their pp hard. We have to make sure that we only buy military surplus that no police force could conceivably need, and paint it scawwy black, because military camo isn't oppressive enough.
33We don't need more cops. We - America especially - seem to need better cops.
But the job can't lure so many people in that it has a rich candidate list, and what we see here is that cops make shit salary for the terms of the work and necessary oversight. So they can't be arsed for a pittance when people who can do my job sit in comfy Aerons all day and bang on a kayboard for great victory (and no bullets) for even more cash.
But, better job descs needs more money, and here we are beefing cop budgets to get fewer, better cops. You can't win by cheaping out.
0Being a cop pays pretty well, especially when you consider the low experience and educational requirements.
1For a job with little in the way of qualifications, it does not pay poorly, majority of states are above the national average of $28.50 an hour. Not surprisingly wages in south are some of the worst, but in line for that region in general. There is little meaningful oversight, they have immunity and often very strong unions.
2
I really don't think anyone can get physically healthier (I think that's a big point) when they are sleeping in the cold and don't have good nutrition. (Multivitamins ftw.)
23multivitamins have been proven to be useless.
8
mmm, yes, their sweaty, sweaty fate
17"It's called a reference, sweaty -- look it up."
(Maybe, anyway.)
1I came here to heckle the person who can't find the edit button. Thanks for making sure it was already handled.
2
Dishwashers are an accessibility item, too. Housing should be required to have them, just like places require wheelchair ramps.
9And if we have to pick in-unit laundry should be top priority. You can do a lot with a sink and a hot plate but ain’t nobody should be washing clothes by hand and having to keep an eye on your clothes, especially for unhoused people who are probably a little justified in being worried about leaving their stuff unattended, takes some energy people may not have.
12Absolutely. I'm currently living in a shelter, and we have 3 washers and dryers, 1 of each has been busted for at least a week. The door locks, and only staff has the code. Sharing a laundry situation has barely any pros, and mostly cons.
5Yeah here in Finland that is basically achieved by having a laundry-room in apartment buildings that you can reserve. In some of the places I lived, it did cost though, so more of a laundromat in the cellar of your building. But usually free in the buildings that have a lot of government supported people.
4A free laundry room is fine
2
Borsch he is silen
4Twitter is bad.
2I'd like to point out that "mental health counseling without any preconditions" is definitely bullshit. For free? Sure. Without preconditions? Nah.
Housing though? Available for everyone, sure, and compared to most other countries, the system is good. But it doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws in it and that we couldn't improve.
I'm just here to point out people put Finland on a pedestal.
You shouldn't. It's not terrible in most ways, and pretty good in a lot of ways. But don't idolise. Realism. It's just different, so different problems as well.
Kela (National Pension Institution) urges thousands to seek cheaper housing.
And these people are already living on the housing which is the cheapest available. It's basically just a convoluted excuse from the government for austerity to social security. Since none of the social security or the like are being reduced, they've just "indexed the calculation for reasonable living costs" or some shit, send out these letters, which people will reply to with "wtf do you think I can do, because moving would cost and there's literally no cheaper housing available" and then Kela will go "oh well guess then you're voluntarily taking a cut in your social security (so definitely don't blame the government, blame the markets or whatever)?". And that's the point of it.
-3I'm sorry that your dose of reality - countering a 'paris effect' but for Finland - earned you downvotes for ... Truth?
3They say that there should be preconditions for mental health treatment and then don't remotely explain why.
1Eh that's classic lemmy. Will downvote anything that points at nuance.
3