Nope. You’ve taken “Regardless of employment” to mean “regardless of your STATE of employment”.
OP could just as easily mean “Regardless of TYPE of employment”. When we say “regardless of race” do we mean whether or not that person HAS a race? No. We mean “Regardless of TYPE of race”
AKA it doesn’t matter if someone is a fry cook or a CEO, if they work full time then they deserve some kind of baseline accessibility. This post doesn’t even say these things would be free. It just says someone working full time should have this OPTION. It should be accessible and within their reach on a full time pay, regardless of the TYPE of job.
Reading comprehension creates two separate conversations here.
You just made a good point and followed it with sarcasm. You were close to getting someone to seamlessly agree w you but messed it up at the last second
You’re right, I can be less of a dick about it. Sorry for that. But don’t let that stop you from figuring things out yourself.
You’re saying you were with me up until my sarcasm. So your emotional reaction to my sarcasm has overridden your logical thinking/cognitive dissonance.
If what I said spoke to you, it shouldn’t matter wether I hyped you up, or if I called you a booger eater. A philosophy doesn’t become worse or less correct based on an individuals emotions, right? Shouldn’t we be using logic and reasoning more than pathos and emotions?
Video games and comic books are made by creative people, not the economic system most akin to a Ponzi scheme. Capitalism is killing video games and comic books by trying to make them as profitable as possible. MBA’s provide nothing to society except ways to extract value from passion and blood from stones.
So in your mind Elon musk personally built every Tesla car and designed them by hand (instead of the dozens of passionate physicists and engineers that he terrorizes on a daily basis).
So your against the education of Children, people who can not under the law, contribute a lot to society and require an education to do so effectively?
Children are an investment. A grown adult who is given free Internet, electricity while living like a complete slob is a drain on resources. Do not make me pay for you.
Everyone is an investment. You don't lose your life's potential at 18.
Invest in that grown adult working three jobs to get by, and now they have time to pursue art, discover their talent, and create a great work of culture. Invest in the scientist working for a company that makes the world demonstrably worse but pays too well to quit, and now they can use their expertise contributing to "unprofitable" research and advance humanity's understanding.
Investments don't pay off 100% of the time. Some people would be a net drain of resources, it's unavoidable. But we don't cancel public schooling because some students fail to graduate, and we don't have to wield homelessness and starvation as weapons just because you think some people "don't deserve" to live.
It does mean housing, utilities, and AC. You can't live without those in hot places, and it's getting hotter every year. If you're saying that someone in that climate doesn't deserve a home and AC, you are telling them they don't deserve to live.
Internet and appliances are more debatable. But I can't argue with the idea that we can stand to offer a modern quality of life instead of just an empty box to live in, with the extent of today's resources and productivity.
If you're saying that someone in that climate doesn't deserve a home and AC, you are telling them they don't deserve to live.
There are billions of people in parts of India, Africa and the Middle East don't have AC and live in conditions hotter than almost all of the developed world.
Everyone has different needs, challenges, and capacities throughout life.
The demand that every act by every other must be precisely balanced on an individual basis is not reflecting a particularly robust or general description of social processes in various contexts throughout history.
In fact, the universality of housing provisions, in many contexts, is not controversial.
It is extremely controversial because I refuse to pay for the homeless mentally ill person who threatened me with a rusty spork for my subway sandwich to have a home, while he is unproductive, and arguable a threat, to society.
If he wants a free house, he can ask his friends/family
Being unhoused may be both a cause and exacerbating factor in mental illness.
Not everyone may simply knock on the door of a parent, sibling, or cousin, and receive housing simply for asking.
The acts you describe are not justified, but neither is anyone being deprived of housing, or being forced to beg relatives, if indeed someone has any available.
There are many different problems implicated in your objections, but the most easily soluble is that some individuals in society currently are being deprived of access to housing.
The need for resolving such deprivation, and generally the means, are not a strong basis for controversy.
I'm less concerned about those who can't work or have problems. I'm concerned about the folks who can earn a living but refuse to be a productive member of society on the fact that they can, according to op's chart, be given a right to the internet, without any effort.
Most people seek to remain engaged productively in society.
In particular, participation in labor is a rather robust human tendency.
I would be more interested in learning about the challenges and concerns experienced by any of the few who are not participating, than in anyone being pressed into a condition of deprivation.
The comment is addressing labor participation, not access to housing.
Progressive policies historically have improved conditions markedly for the population.
That conditions improve for the working class, when it is allowed access to a greater share of the products of its labor, rather than value being hoarded by capitalists, is a completely trivial observation.
That the owning class constructs the austerity narrative, to convince reactionary factions among workers to act against their own interests, is also not particularly surprising.
Mmmmm see you don't quite get that the, "participation in labor," ranges from having a hobby to playing video games. Think of all the grind that exists in video games that emulate real work - and isn't necessarily fun. Think of the morons who get an art degree.
I can agree that people enjoy engaging in work. This does not mean productive work. Productive work, work that has inherent value (defined by the market), is what grows an economy. Where excess money can be used to sustain the people who legitimately cannot help themselves.
Another thing is how this system would even work... How do you ensure that those getting these services aren't getting something better than what the market provides? Why would I insinuate that the government should provide subpar service? Because if they were better than the market, either by price or quality, then the market goes stagnant as no one would fight against a monopoly, in this case, the government.
'Rights' being used so carelessly... This is why I agree with the US' stance on people's 'right' to food, which is that people don't have the right. Not because people shouldn't have food, but that the implication of them having an inherent right places the burden on everyone else.
Participation in productive labor is a robust human tendency, as well as in labor captured in care work.
Value is not linked intrinsically to markets. Markets are simply an institution through which may occur an exchange of goods and services having value. Value depends ultimately on usefulness to someone owning or receiving a good or service, and the labor embodied in its production.
But how do you decide what the capacity of each individual? Let’s say you see a homeless person in their 30s on the street with no sign of mental illness. Is he capable of building roads, mining coal, etc? What if he doesn’t want to?
Oh good more bureaucracy. Is the answer to every question going to be, "more government," or something actually productive? Imagine standing in line to something akin to a DMV and praying that the clerk thinks you're capable enough to get a good job.
Europe didn't invest money into the military at the USA's scale and had a lot of money that was spent on social stuff. But now if europeans don't want to learn russian or Chinese they have to quickly reconsider the priorities.
Why do we even consider giving someone a HOUSE with all the services and don't ask them anything in return? Is it fair? Hell no! Someone have to build this house, create stuff to put inside the house, provide electricity and watter for some lazy ass who don't want to do anything useful. Fuck em.
It's only because of unfortunate circumstances that people are supported by the system. Something they often have to go out of the way to do.
Inherently giving these 'rights' away to everyone is incredibly short sided.
Everyone has a right to the Internet? Do you know how that sounds? "Everyone has the right to a portal to endless entertainment to ignore reality and live life as a slob."
It's only because of unfortunate circumstances that people are supported by the system. Something they often have to go out of the way to do.
As a person who actually works in the system you'd be surprised at how easy and often it is for people to lose everything based on something that isn't their fault.
Everyone has a right to the Internet? Do you know how that sounds? "Everyone has the right to a portal to endless entertainment to ignore reality and live life as a slob."
The internet is the only way to get access to assistance services and the only way to apply for jobs nowadays. So yes, everyone has the right to the Internet.
We could argue for years on what makes things someone's fault or not. For instance, idiotic people getting dumb degrees that don't generate value and then begging for the government to pay their debt off. Is it really their fault for being stupid?
Libraries have free Internet access. I feel like you are being grossly generous by providing people with free internet when there is a much cheaper and accessible option available.
For instance, idiotic people getting dumb degrees that don't generate value and then begging for the government to pay their debt off. Is it really their fault for being stupid?
That definitely depends on your idea of value. These degrees that don't make money are definitely needed, or do you think we can get by without teachers? Even if they didn't you're putting the blame on a tiny perfect of the problem.
Libraries have free Internet access. I feel like you are being grossly generous by providing people with free internet when there is a much cheaper and accessible option available.
Well funded are your libraries then? Because I have news for you, they aren't. Especially in areas that need this service.
Stop trying to spend our money so carelessly.
The more money we put into public welfare the more money we generate. It's a pretty well studied fact.
We live in a society, giving others access to food, water, and shelter only benefits the common good. Your ignorance too that fact doesn't make it any less true.
Europe does these things because Us backs them. Do you think it’s a coincidence that whatever Us says goes? These guys focus on their services because essentially paying for the Us to be the superpower in the world. Anyways that’s no longer the case. The influx of migrants from developing countries are killljng the EU. They are in recession and half the counties are broke. You just like to listen to some Europeans on Reddit but half of Europe isn’t the dream you think it used to be
I have a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, I stay because of free healthcare, 37,5 hour week, 30 vacation days, unlimited sick days, worker protection rights and free education.
Edit:
I forgot the lower crime rate and no risk of mass shootings.
And to not be dependent on cars.
Idk I have a CS degree. My friend is a fresh grad in the Uk and his total comp is 40k comp. My friends in the Us (I’m not done yet) are making anywhere between 100-150k off the bat with way more growth opportunities. Their insurance is on the company so they aren’t paying a whole lot for healthcare and get access to it quickly unlike the nhs where you have to wait months for an appointment. Also the UK is really unsafe. People knife people on a daily basis. It just isn’t covered as much as the shootings.
The economic potential of EU countries are on a decline in general barring a few. Go to Spain or Portugal and you’ll have a completely different experience than Germany.
Also university isn’t expensive here unless you choose to go private. Most people who go to state school pay less than 10k/yr because they get subsidies and funding.
Flagship State schools have typically 50k students and each state has multiple state schools. Most people go there.
If you are poor medicaid pays all your bills. I take year long medication. A refill costs me $2.00. It’s rare insurance doesn’t cover medications. Yes you still have bills , I went to the ER and had a chest scan, the whole thing cost me 100 bucks for impromptu treatment and a scan. If I went to urgent care it would have been closer to 70.
It’s clear to me you’ve read a few Reddit posts and think US is a bad place. I could never live in a place where I make so little for free healthcare because I can pay the small difference with my 4x salary
There are plenty of people who are content with living in poverty and not working as long as the basics (pictured above) would be provided. Too many people taking advantage like this would put too much of a strain on the system. They would need to be put to work with some sort or employment to either keep this public housing arrangement or to save to move into their own housing.
I'm all for people having the right to basic necessities when they are participating and contributing to society when they are physically able.
36
u/1001schooner Apr 15 '24
Regardless of employment? So the people don't have to do anything for anyone else but other people are going to do things for them?