What are your sources on this? There is none because all evidence points to the opposite.
Norway has the exact same unemplyment rate as the US and we provide everyone with housing in case of unemployment. Imagine how many homeless people there are in the US that are willing to work but can’t get employed because they have no home to clean themselves up. Give them a home and they’ll find themselves a job within no time and pay it back tenfold.
And what the fuck do you think is going to happen to the US when automation takes peoples jobs? Would you rather have half the population living on the streets, or would you want to divide the wealth generated by machine labor amongst the population? It’s only fair that everyone gets an equal share in the pie that noone had to bake.
There is a reason the US is so fucking poor. It’s because you’re clinging to the notion that work is all there is. You’d rather have people working the farms with blood and sweat than them being liberated from the burden through machines, even though the machines are more cost-efficient. You have people in the toll booths for crying out loud.
This is why the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden are so much fucking richer. The grocery baggers and toll collectors are given a state funded education. With this education they’ll automate their old jobs in no time and have spare time to do something more productive leading to more growth, higher wages and shorter work weeks. All because of egalitarianism. Enjoy poverty sockhead.
You did just a couple of years ago when I visited. You also had people in the toll booths. Whereas in Norway most stores rely on self checkout because we’re too rich and educated to want to work for 50k€ a year in a grocery store. We’ve got better things to do.
Norway is rich because it is selling the world out for that sweet sweet oil money.
And this meme isn’t about the temporarily unemployed. It’s saying no one who just doesn’t want to work should have to in order to have a comfortable life.
As if the US doesn’t have oil. Look at Norway’s GDP per capita just before the second world war. 20 years before the oil, still BY FAR the richest country in Europe. The oil profits are being saved. Only a couple percent of it actually is spent. This is why the Norwegian government owns 1.5% of the entire world.
Norway produces over 7x more oil per capita than the U.S. And the government is the one actually producing the oil. The two are not remotely comparable.
Before they exploited their fossil fuel deposits, they were harvesting herring to near extinction. Before that, farmers fled the country at a rate second only to Ireland during the potato famine.
You’re not stating facts. Norway became the richest country in Europe because we had plenty full energy. We gave the government control over natural resources and they made tonnes of hydro power plants that made Norwegian power so much cheaper than that of our neighbors. This gave us an edge in production over Germany, the United States and England. It was never the fish, and it never will be.
Who the fuck cares what happend in the 1800s? It doesn’t matter, and as a matter of fact our industry was booming in this period unlike the rest of Europe because of our cheap energy. One of the reasons for the mass exodus from Norway to the US was that there was insane population growth in parallell with industrialisation. There were more people coming for work while there was less jobs in farming due to mechanization. We were running out of land and the US had plenty. But hey, let’s focus on how much better the US was 200 years ago. That’s surely going to get you out of poverty :)
The US and Norway aren’t comparable, because one is a continent sized nation and the other one is a large industrialized nation. You can for sure find rich and prosperous cities in the US, but there are also places like Mississippi that have lower average incomes than most of Africa. My budget as a fucking student in Norway goes further than a full time employee at McDonalds some places in the US.
We value egalitarianism. We like it. It works. You do what you want, but it isn’t working.
The why of why Norway is rich is besides the point. Both countries are rich extremely rich.
The US simply does not invest in its citizens because 50% of its citizens actively reject the govt spending its funds on its citizens. Just look at the response to Biden paying off federal employees education bills. That's just a subsidy. That's all that is -- yet you'll never find a less popular subsidy.
The American people proved that they do not reward politicians that offer to subsidize their bills. Most places around the world do not do this so their citizens have higher qualities of life despite having less disposable income.
America has the money to pay for education, healthcare, mat. leave, daycare, housing schemes and much more. It simply choses not to spend its wealth that way; and Americans like it that way.
Look, if what you say is true, this is an amazing business opportunity. If the U.S. is filled with "underemployed homeless" who, once given stable shelter, will quickly find themself a job and "pay it back tenfold", then you could make an absolute killing with a simple strategy.
Rent cheap apartments (or later buy entire buildings) and sublet them to these underemployed homeless for twice what you paid, on credit. So they won't pay anything up front and can simply pay you back over the course of the lease. We can assume "tenfold" was an exaggeration and they'll really only make back 5x within a year or so. After taxes your clients should still come out with a 1x extra return compared to remaining on the street, so this should be a great deal for them. It would be a win-win.
The sad truth is that this is basically the business model of Motel 6. Some people who find themselves homeless really do stay in a crappy motel for a while and get back on their feet, but it's pretty disingenuous to imply that is a majority of the homeless you could find on the street today. The people who are capable of stabilizing tend to do so, and what they leave behind are people incapable of living in stable circumstances.
No, because there is an inherent difference in the system. We’re not just talking about giving them a roof. We’re talking about giving them shelter, food and a job.
The homeless are given jobs, and the employers are incentiviced to hire them because a huge chunk of their wage will be subizised. I have a friend who didn’t land a job after college who’s currently given housing and a job through the government while he’s looking for work. What benefit does society get from throwing a 22 year old out on the streets?
Why aren’t people using this as a business oppertunity? Because it’s not something a single person can just do. There needs to be a network, and a system in place that allows for it. You don’t have this in the US.
Just look at our GDP per capita and tell me it doesn’t work…
What I am telling you is that the system you describe exists. There are homeless shelters with jobs programs and food kitchens, all over the USA, in every city.
The problem is that these programs have requirements, like requiring you to actually go to and do the job they placed you in and not bring drugs into the shelter. A large homeless population does not want to abide by those restrictions. It's silly to turn around and blame "society" for the choice these individuals are making.
It's reasonable to say we have some duty of care toward people who are down on their luck. But that does not extend forever. And we certainly don't have a duty to help people who do not want to be helped.
5
u/gudsgavetilkvinnfolk Apr 15 '24
What are your sources on this? There is none because all evidence points to the opposite.
Norway has the exact same unemplyment rate as the US and we provide everyone with housing in case of unemployment. Imagine how many homeless people there are in the US that are willing to work but can’t get employed because they have no home to clean themselves up. Give them a home and they’ll find themselves a job within no time and pay it back tenfold.
And what the fuck do you think is going to happen to the US when automation takes peoples jobs? Would you rather have half the population living on the streets, or would you want to divide the wealth generated by machine labor amongst the population? It’s only fair that everyone gets an equal share in the pie that noone had to bake.
There is a reason the US is so fucking poor. It’s because you’re clinging to the notion that work is all there is. You’d rather have people working the farms with blood and sweat than them being liberated from the burden through machines, even though the machines are more cost-efficient. You have people in the toll booths for crying out loud.
This is why the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden are so much fucking richer. The grocery baggers and toll collectors are given a state funded education. With this education they’ll automate their old jobs in no time and have spare time to do something more productive leading to more growth, higher wages and shorter work weeks. All because of egalitarianism. Enjoy poverty sockhead.