Should the government provide the basic needs of people who chose not to work?

[Farael the Fallen]

I have recently heard a controversial belief that the government should provide the basic needs of people who chose not to work. By basic needs I refer to food, water, shelter, and medical care. Do you believe the government should pay for the things that other people who work have to provide for themselves?

[jb681131]

Where did you hear that ??
If you choose not to work, why should people that work pay for you ?
But what you can do is grow your own food and be autosuffisant.

[SuperiorIronman]

The government wont.

The government doesn't even give a rats ass about kids being shot in schools, what makes you think they would care about the people who can't work? It frankly comes down to private entities willing to step up and help the people get back on their feet as dear old Uncle Sam wont. Private entities would have to come up with a system to house people, gain food, present a power system, transportation, and possess a learning center to teach required skills or partner with an entity that can. This would also require land to do so and I don't recall that building initiative Trump prattled on about ever coming into fruition.

The unfortunate reality is that there is no indication that the Government actually gives enough of a damn to do so let alone protect the people beyond Juan at the border.

[KOSLOX]

Alaska already provides this to some extent.

Basic Income isn't a new idea, and likely would make sense in a post-capitalist system. Like say one that relies on space travel, and resettlement.

[Personamanx]

Absolutely. A government should take measures to insure that its citizens are healthy, and able to live comfortably.

It's asinine to think of this as people "choosing" not to work. Yes, there are always people when given the opportunity between doing something and doing nothing will often choose nothing. But not many people have that as a choice. With massive layoffs in many industries due to automation or outsourcing there just aren't a lot of jobs to go around in many countries. Many of the jobs that are around simply aren't enough for hard working people to make ends meet, with few careers offering solid pay/benefits if they're even offering full time work. It's been bad all around for a while now, and it's only going to get worse when all the truck drivers are replaced by self-driving vehicles in the next decade.

Many nations are going to have to step their game up if they don't want a lot of homeless, and sick citizens. More so than there already are at least. I don't necessarily expect UBI any time soon, certainly not within the United States but it's gonna have to happen for any country to survive.

[MajorHoy]

The phrase "who chose not to work" is a questionable, generic one since it doesn't distinguish between people who just don't feel like working vs. other conditions, like whether someone may not be able to find reasonable employment based on various conditions like people who just aren't capable of doing the type of jobs available; people who would have to pay more to commute to a job than the job would actually pay them in the end; if available jobs would conflict with personal beliefs; etc.

[Kusanagi]

Agreed that the phrase 'choose not to work' is a bit problematic. There are those that choose not to work, there are those who physically can't work, and there are those that want to work but can't find employment, and those that do work where their job can't cover basic living expenses. Basic Income or Universal Income isn't designed strictly for 'those that don't want to work' but all categories.

In any case Finland's been doing studies on this, the whole thing is in its experimental stage, but as the world becomes more automated we might see more of it in the future.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...is-it-working/

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...-1440390211544

[zinderel]

Nah. Poor people should starve to death in the cold, like in the good old days. If they don't want to starve to death or die of exposure, they can do dangerous work in a factory or a mine, with conditions set by profit margins instead of safety standards, since safety standards are for weaklings and parasites, and hurt business, which hurts the company's ability to make a profit at any expense.

If the poor get hungry, we should demand they eat their children, too, since that will cut down on parasitic mouths taking from those who are glorious exemplars of capitalism.

Or, we could, I dunno...spend our tax money making sure every citizen has a minimum income and cheap housing and food, instead of on blowing up foreign brown people and locking up domestic brown people in disproportionate numbers. Both of which eat up WAY more of our budget than feeding people or housing them or covering medical expenses would. I mean, I know that the poor are worthless lumps with no redeeming qualities, but...because they're, like, still humans, I guess, maybe we shouldn't be smugly calling for the death and discomfort of people whose lives - and reasons for working or not working - we know nothing about?

But I guess it's easier to assume that anyone not sacrificing everything to be a cog in the machine of capitalism is a lazy parasite who doesn't deserve the same compassion as a multi-millionaire who gambles with other people's money. It's way easier to operate under the misconception - well, blatant lie... - that all it takes to become one of the wealthy elite is gumption and hard work, and not being born into wealth and influence.

As Steinbeck is attributed to say, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Maybe if we stopped trying to screw over any and everyone in our way as we fight to get rich ourselves in some fools quest to have the most stuff before we die and it all gets sold off/given away/thrown away...? Maybe if, instead, we all worked on enriching one anothers lives in the here and now, and did what we could to ensure that our kids and grandkids had a world to inherit, instead of focusing on ruining everything once we get ours the way the Boomers did? Maybe if we weren't all convinced that the point in life was pursuing the hoarding of wealth, this world wouldn't be the shitshow it is today.

But hey...what do I know? Maybe Jesus was wrong about all of that stuff, too. Clearly, Ayn Rand is a better source for ethical inspiration...

[Kirby101]

Yes. they should.

[numberthirty]

I have recently heard a controversial belief that the government should provide the basic needs of people who chose not to work. By basic needs I refer to food, water, shelter, and medical care. Do you believe the government should pay for the things that other people who work have to provide for themselves?

Before I answer this...

I'm gonna need to hear you tell me what you think of Medicare.

'Cause the way this is being framed feels like I just walked up to a Three Card Monte table.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Healthcare in general should be a basic right. I think there should be clean and well kept shelters for the homeless and people who can't afford housing and as they get a paycheck a percentage should go to that until they can rent a place or buy something. Things like that.

Should a whole lifestyle be subsidized. Probably not.

The word choose is the key word here because a government will struggle to prove someone chose not to work.

[Starter Set]

Yes, the Government should provide for people who can't work. (that's already how it is where i live)

You're born without legs or you're not intelligent enough to live by yourself, yes, the state will help you. (or if you lose your job, get kids..the list is long) We agreed to based our healthcare and social help system around the principle of solidarity.

It's expensive, it's not always as good or fair as it could be but all in all it works. Cause today you work, tomorrow you won't. Today you pay, tomorrow you're going to be helped.

And we don't leave people who can't work just to starve or as third class citizens.

Now, that being all said. People who for whatever reason don't want to work? Screw them. Who cares? If you can work but don't then you deserve nothing.

[Tendrin]

People /want/ to work. They want a reason to get up in the morning. They want a purpose.

The notion that people won't work just becasue a basic income is granted necessarily misunderstands people. It is how resentment of the poor and the hungry is fueled, casts them as people of 'bad moral character'. It all exists to serve the powerful.

It's also how the system gets to chew people up and keep them fighting for scraps while Jeff Bezos could end world hunger five times over and still have, apparently, about 11 billion left in his bank account.

So, yeah. Screw the 'if he won't work, he won't eat' mantra used to excuse impoverishment, hunger, and cruelty for the benefit of the few.

[Starter Set]

People /want/ to work. They want a reason to get up in the morning. They want a purpose.

Ah, i have been there too when i was younger. Everyone wants to work, we're all good deep inside and all the jazz.

[Tendrin]

Ah, i have been there too when i was younger. Everyone wants to work, we're all good deep inside and all the jazz.

Spare us all the puerile cynicism. Anyone who thinks people don't want a reason to get up in the morning without being 'forced' to doesn't know people anywhere near as well as they think they do. Age has nothing to do with it.