[–] logos_ethos 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
I guess I should use something like "unwilling to fairly exchange labor" or "unwilling to give service in exchange for something" instead of the word lazy to avoid going down this pedantic distraction. I need a more concise word for that, though.
Your post gave me an idea. What if federal welfare was only given if 1) you have already paid into the system or 2) you serve in the military. The USA was not designed with a standing army in mind, so there was not an opportunity to balance this back then. Local welfare would still be required for people unable to work or join the military.
[–] dalik 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I tend to tell people to pick your battles. Sometimes just giving people money now and tools to help them get out of their hole is a far better option and cheaper than to just let them fend for themselves. Sadly, once you're in a bad place, people tend to avoid you so getting back on your feet is extremely hard if not impossible for most. I would think most homeless people do not have the mental fortitude to have this battle.
If we only give welfare to those that paid into the system than those that didn't will likely cause much more costly problems for everyone else. How much does it cost to jail someone? How much does it cost for someone to be homeless from the problems they create? Home much does it cost if disease breaks out? All the tourism that goes to another place instead of your town? How much does that cost compared to giving people welfare and real help to get them out of their hole? Probably far far cheaper to just give them welfare.
Not giving people welfare will certainly create a justification to remove these people at all costs since they do not contribute. The reality is, these people do not want the homeless to contribute, they want them to go away. This justification will likely lead to far worse consequences and extremely poor treatment of people. The sad thing is, anyone can end up in their position, just one bad accident away from being homeless.
[–] Hebrew-Virus ago
You haven't worked in management have you? I have yet to work at a company where ex-military types were not discriminated against. Blue collar jobs with one time enlistees were somewhat okay, but career military was definitely frowned upon—especially in management.
[–] captainstrange ago
but career military was definitely frowned upon—especially in management.
Why would anyone want a corporate job after being in the military?
Going from killing people to being 'marked up' for stupid politically incorrect shit and sucking up to some prolapsed vagina of a boss.
No fucking thank you.
[–] Hebrew-Virus ago
Why would anyone want a corporate job after being in the military?
Because most military jobs don't involve killing people, and are basically bureaucratic in nature. Moreover, the type of person who finds a career in the military appealing would also find a career in corporate appealing.
In the past, corporations were modeled after the military, so the transition was relatively easy. Today, however, career military don't have "what it takes" to succeed in the corporate world because of the kind of "stupid politically incorrect shit and sucking up to some prolapsed vagina of a boss" bullshit so prevalent in the corporate world. Ironically, this shit is getting so out of hand that the military (US) is starting to model itself after corporate. Another sign of impending collapse of the US empire.
[–] logos_ethos 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
The military provides all sorts of skills, and they make you apply them. While some people might not include them in the economy directly, the military does provide security, and security has economic value. Further more, they are not comparable to people who abuse welfare and corrupt the government for personal gain.
[–] captainstrange ago
this is an underrated post from you logos.