Yes, I understand that, and I’m not trying to argue it would be better to try nothing at all. What I’m saying is that merely having a roof over your head and food on the table does not automatically translate into a willingness to give back to society by finding ways to contribute in some sort of meaningful way – it merely removes some obstacles and lowers the barrier to entry, but unless people are willing to make an effort to work on overcoming the challenges that still remain after that, they are still not going to ever get better.
Basically, I think it’s a mistake to assume that if you give someone free food and housing, they’ll just start going out there and look for a job. Some people might, perhaps even most, especially if they don’t have to worry about losing their benefits once they do, but some will still prefer to waste their time with drugs and alcohol, and that will foul things up for the rest, because it’s difficult to motivate yourself to make a consistent effort when you see others getting the same benefits as you do without doing anything to earn them.
No problem has ever been solved by throwing more money at it. While it certainly may help, it will never be a guaranteed solution.
Nobody is assuming every single person is going to go out and work… Hell I would argue that most people don’t want to work in general but hey… Capitalism…
However, I think that this argument is slowing down real progress that could be made. We both agree that housing and food is a great way to lower barriers and help people get stable. This will, at the very least, help every single one of those people regardless of if they decide to get a job after. So we should at least start here and get everyone stable first.
I agree, and I didn’t intend for this to be an argument to do nothing. But I do think it’s necessary to have a plan for this situation because few things are worse than setting out with the best intentions and being met with misfortune and failure anyways, since it can take a long time to pick yourself up again after that.
Basically what I’m saying is, if you go out into the forest, it’s a good idea to be prepared for running into a wild animal. Best case scenario, it will never happen, but if you keep going again and again, chances are that one day it will. And if you don’t have a plan for what to do in that situation, you might end up as their dinner.
Yes, I understand that, and I’m not trying to argue it would be better to try nothing at all. What I’m saying is that merely having a roof over your head and food on the table does not automatically translate into a willingness to give back to society by finding ways to contribute in some sort of meaningful way – it merely removes some obstacles and lowers the barrier to entry, but unless people are willing to make an effort to work on overcoming the challenges that still remain after that, they are still not going to ever get better.
Basically, I think it’s a mistake to assume that if you give someone free food and housing, they’ll just start going out there and look for a job. Some people might, perhaps even most, especially if they don’t have to worry about losing their benefits once they do, but some will still prefer to waste their time with drugs and alcohol, and that will foul things up for the rest, because it’s difficult to motivate yourself to make a consistent effort when you see others getting the same benefits as you do without doing anything to earn them.
No problem has ever been solved by throwing more money at it. While it certainly may help, it will never be a guaranteed solution.
Nobody is assuming every single person is going to go out and work… Hell I would argue that most people don’t want to work in general but hey… Capitalism…
However, I think that this argument is slowing down real progress that could be made. We both agree that housing and food is a great way to lower barriers and help people get stable. This will, at the very least, help every single one of those people regardless of if they decide to get a job after. So we should at least start here and get everyone stable first.
I agree, and I didn’t intend for this to be an argument to do nothing. But I do think it’s necessary to have a plan for this situation because few things are worse than setting out with the best intentions and being met with misfortune and failure anyways, since it can take a long time to pick yourself up again after that.
Basically what I’m saying is, if you go out into the forest, it’s a good idea to be prepared for running into a wild animal. Best case scenario, it will never happen, but if you keep going again and again, chances are that one day it will. And if you don’t have a plan for what to do in that situation, you might end up as their dinner.