That’s a pretty big blanket sentiment, I have some family who would absolutely do this but some of them literally have no other options, it sucks but it’s how life is
It depends on why they’re asking. If they’re asking because they’re irresponsible, that’s one thing. If they’re asking because they are legitimately struggling against systemic issues, then it’s another.
Life is a lot more complicated than you’re implying, and family should be there to support each other.
Then again, so should society in general. Life should be challenging, but it shouldn’t be so hard that it’s impossible for so many people just to get by.
Keep in mind that I said “challenging” not “difficult”.
But a challenge gives a person something to strive for. Motivation to be something greater. But I also believe the people should have all the support and encouragement they need to meet that challenge as well as all of the support they need should they fail— even if they fail repeatedly.
Because a system where people can avoid working would be bad for the economy. The government needs people to be able to pay a lot of taxes to afford things like the military. The whole system would collapse if some people could choose to have an easy life with a stable low income and not work
The economy exists to serve the people who live in it, not the other way around. If it’s challenging just to live, the economy has failed, and if it’s that way on purpose, it’s just slavery with extra steps.
The United States has the largest economy, largest military and gives more to Ukraine in absolute terms. Even though certain nations like the Baltics give more as a percentage of their GDP, the US just has more to give and has a larger absolute help to Ukraine. This is because the US has a larger economy and tax base. It’s not just affecting the citizens of the US, but also the entire world.
If something is challenging, then by definition, a substantial number of people who attempt it will fail. If you want life itself to be challenging, you are by necessity advocating for many people who attempt it to fail despite their best efforts. I’m not sure what exactly failing at life means in this context–probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care. What you seem to be saying is that denying people the necessities of life is a good thing if scares the rest of the population into maximizing their economic output. Squeezing the most possible work out of people who have no choice but to work is literally the value proposition of slavery.
The fact that you can use slave labor to do useful things, like defend Ukraine, cannot justify it. And I don’t even know what you’re getting at with “protecting the environment”, because the economic system that makes people live in terror of losing their jobs is the same one that’s actively making the planet uninhabitable.
Did it ever even occur to you that motivating people through fear might not even be the most effective way to get useful labor out of them? Or that even if it was, life is about more than economic output?
Yes, but “failing” doesn’t mean you die. Failing means you rely on government programs.
probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care
My ex was a failure at life and she never had problems getting any of those things in California. You get a lot of benefits being under the poverty line
And a society as rich and advanced as ours should be there to support people in all cases. In the highest of highs, to help them responsibly manage their money, and the lowest of lows to help put their lives back together when they fail.
Some people wouldn’t know what to do with money even if they had it.
OK, I’m probably misinterpreting your intent, but I don’t know how to read that in any other way than saying some poor people aren’t worth helping because they lack a skill set that wealthier people have. I find it pretty crazy that being bad at managing money is often seen as a moral failing even though it’s a skill that nobody is born with and isn’t even taught in schools (for the most part).
Yes, you are misinterpreting my intent, what you’re saying is exactly my point. Wealthier people have more access to education on these topics because it’s usually not free, additionally usually someone of low income who is a parent will also not have that knowledge to give their children
Literally I’m saying the exact opposite of what you’re assuming, if they don’t get the proper help then they can’t help themselves, sometimes
This is an ignorant take. It can be correct in some cases, but oversimplifying and making assumptions like that is entirely devoid of rational thinking.
If you’re family is constantly asking for money then they are shitty.
That’s a pretty big blanket sentiment, I have some family who would absolutely do this but some of them literally have no other options, it sucks but it’s how life is
It depends on why they’re asking. If they’re asking because they’re irresponsible, that’s one thing. If they’re asking because they are legitimately struggling against systemic issues, then it’s another.
Life is a lot more complicated than you’re implying, and family should be there to support each other.
Then again, so should society in general. Life should be challenging, but it shouldn’t be so hard that it’s impossible for so many people just to get by.
May I ask why you think life should be challenging?
Keep in mind that I said “challenging” not “difficult”.
But a challenge gives a person something to strive for. Motivation to be something greater. But I also believe the people should have all the support and encouragement they need to meet that challenge as well as all of the support they need should they fail— even if they fail repeatedly.
Because a system where people can avoid working would be bad for the economy. The government needs people to be able to pay a lot of taxes to afford things like the military. The whole system would collapse if some people could choose to have an easy life with a stable low income and not work
The economy exists to serve the people who live in it, not the other way around. If it’s challenging just to live, the economy has failed, and if it’s that way on purpose, it’s just slavery with extra steps.
If your economy can’t provide for national defense, protecting the environment, etc. then it’s a failure
Just look at aid to Ukraine
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/01/us-eclipses-all-other-nations-in-military-aid-to-ukraine/
The United States has the largest economy, largest military and gives more to Ukraine in absolute terms. Even though certain nations like the Baltics give more as a percentage of their GDP, the US just has more to give and has a larger absolute help to Ukraine. This is because the US has a larger economy and tax base. It’s not just affecting the citizens of the US, but also the entire world.
If something is challenging, then by definition, a substantial number of people who attempt it will fail. If you want life itself to be challenging, you are by necessity advocating for many people who attempt it to fail despite their best efforts. I’m not sure what exactly failing at life means in this context–probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care. What you seem to be saying is that denying people the necessities of life is a good thing if scares the rest of the population into maximizing their economic output. Squeezing the most possible work out of people who have no choice but to work is literally the value proposition of slavery.
The fact that you can use slave labor to do useful things, like defend Ukraine, cannot justify it. And I don’t even know what you’re getting at with “protecting the environment”, because the economic system that makes people live in terror of losing their jobs is the same one that’s actively making the planet uninhabitable.
Did it ever even occur to you that motivating people through fear might not even be the most effective way to get useful labor out of them? Or that even if it was, life is about more than economic output?
Yes, but “failing” doesn’t mean you die. Failing means you rely on government programs.
My ex was a failure at life and she never had problems getting any of those things in California. You get a lot of benefits being under the poverty line
Sometimes that irresponsibility is a systemic issue. Low income home life leads to lack of education, drug addiction, crime, etc.
Some people wouldn’t know what to do with money even if they had it.
That’s right on all points.
And a society as rich and advanced as ours should be there to support people in all cases. In the highest of highs, to help them responsibly manage their money, and the lowest of lows to help put their lives back together when they fail.
Agreed.
Looking down on poor people sure makes you feel better about yourself, doesn’t it?
That is basically the opposite of what the person you replied to was saying. S/he’s saying it’s not their fault because of systemic problems.
Yes correct
OK, I’m probably misinterpreting your intent, but I don’t know how to read that in any other way than saying some poor people aren’t worth helping because they lack a skill set that wealthier people have. I find it pretty crazy that being bad at managing money is often seen as a moral failing even though it’s a skill that nobody is born with and isn’t even taught in schools (for the most part).
Yes, you are misinterpreting my intent, what you’re saying is exactly my point. Wealthier people have more access to education on these topics because it’s usually not free, additionally usually someone of low income who is a parent will also not have that knowledge to give their children
Literally I’m saying the exact opposite of what you’re assuming, if they don’t get the proper help then they can’t help themselves, sometimes
Ok, my bad
This is an ignorant take. It can be correct in some cases, but oversimplifying and making assumptions like that is entirely devoid of rational thinking.
Or dying
Or desperate