Poor and Homelessness

[PureX]

See, I don't know if that's exactly true. What have you read about other countries, in terms of land division? In Mexico for example, you might not have as much economic opportunity, but if one's family has a bit of land, does the ownership of it at least exist more firmly in the hands of the owners? Is the government after you for property tax, and to get hooked up to what they consider essential utilities?

Like for example, I could buy a little plot of land in america, with no house perhaps. But if I were to live on it with a tent or a trailer, without hooking myself up to the grid, or to water, then it seems like american society might have a huge issue with that, perhaps on some basis that I'm either not 'paying in' enough, or it's not good to them aesthetically.

So what about other countries, in this world. It can't possibly all be the same. Like in some of those countries that I saw Anthony Bourdain travel in, out toward Southeast Asia. Well it kind of seems like a large tax structure / utility operation did not really move into such places, perhaps, and so that seems to free the common populace to get a closer relationship to the land, on some level.

So maybe also, then, it might not even really be totally about the 'rich,' to some extent, and not to challenge your whole point - but in part it might be about the material structure. The material structure contains us all. They may not want you living in a tent on a piece of land, in part because that doesn't pay for the 'material structure' that is the school, or the road, or the military, or government. See what I mean?

As for your point 'very long time,' I'm not even so sure about that. In my reading of the gospels, I actually think the poor masses seemed to have more rights in the 1st century than they might have now, in our homeless epidemic. And it also seems like the apostles had less trouble crossing borders in that section of the ancient world, than people seem to have now. But of course, the roman world also had actual frontiers, at that time.

It's all about control. And money is the new weapon of mass control. Empires have always been about control but thanks to modern technology those who seek it have gotten a lot more effective at gaining it. And at gaining and maintaining it mostly without having to use armies.

 

[PruePhillip]

What does your religion say about helping those that are less fortunate than oneself?

Is it recommended that you give to another who is in need?

I ask because modern politics oft seems divided on helping the poor, or just pretending they don't exist or should go away.

According to the Havamal, we have these verses on helping and being kind to others:

Have no idea what this 'Havamai' is, but regards politics - TOO MUCH is involved in 'helping the poor' in some countries.
In California attempts were made to create housing for the homeless - these houses wound up costing even more than normal houses, and the number of homeless kept climbing. If someone is going to provide me with a house if I am poor then maybe I should just become poor for the sake of the handouts.

 

[The Hammer]

Have no idea what this 'Havamai' is, but regards politics - TOO MUCH is involved in 'helping the poor' in some countries.
In California attempts were made to create housing for the homeless - these houses wound up costing even more than normal houses, and the number of homeless kept climbing. If someone is going to provide me with a house if I am poor then maybe I should just become poor for the sake of the handouts.

No one is poor for the "handouts". Trust me.

I've been in situations that have resulted in me using those social services myself (while not homeless).

Being poor is expensive. And not pleasant regardless of what services you are receiving.

 

[Valjean]

I see what you are saying now, but it seems naïve to look at that small window of time and say, "We need to keep doing what we did to get to that point". Economies are cyclical and not stagnant. It is impossible to say let's leave everything just as it is right now (when at a high point) and the economy will simply stay that way.

Think about what led to the post-war boom. We had massive mobilization (employment) for a world war, massive spin-up in industrial capacity to fight that war, attrition in the future workforce due to war casualties, and then a cold war to maintain high military personnel levels and capital investment, rebuilding assisting the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, and then a post depression consumerism with incredible demand for housing, cars, appliances, etc.

But once that demand falls, when everyone has two cars, 3 tvs, kitchen full of appliances, cold war ends and the military is downsized, that post-war boom can no longer be sustained.

In addition, there was a baby boom, a population spike that would help keep demand high for several decades after, but that was also not sustainable.

Last change would be globalization. Once markets opened up to cheap labor available around the world, production fled overseas, creating even more pressure on employment.

Is it your recommendation that we engage in constant war, maintain high birthrate, employ an isolationist economic strategy, and make everyone buy new cars and appliances every 3-4 years to keep up demand? That's what would be required to reestablish your post-war economy, don't you think?

It's my recommendation that we stop fomenting and engaging,
in foreign wars and interventionism, benefiting the rich at the expense of the people.

We are overpopulated. Our social, economic, political and environmental problems are rooted in population. We use resources faster than they can be replenished. We need to lower birthrate.

I don't advocate the rampant consumerism of the post-war years. It's not sustainable, More stuff doesn't make you happy. More often than not stuff is just a status marker. We accumulate stuff in a competition to display our wealth and best our neighbors, not because it brings us comfort or health.

 

[Valjean]

Have no idea what this 'Havamai' is, but regards politics - TOO MUCH is involved in 'helping the poor' in some countries.
In California attempts were made to create housing for the homeless - these houses wound up costing even more than normal houses, and the number of homeless kept climbing. If someone is going to provide me with a house if I am poor then maybe I should just become poor for the sake of the handouts.

There was money to be made in these expensive little houses, so up they went. Too bad there's no money to be made managing and maintaining these communities.
If you don't want poor, then address the cause of the poverty. Charity and private initiatives are unreliable and band-aid solutions.

 

[PruePhillip]

There was money to be made in these expensive little houses, so up they went. Too bad there's no money to be made managing and maintaining these communities.
If you don't want poor, then address the cause of the poverty. Charity and private initiatives are unreliable and band-aid solutions.

One of the major 'causes' of poverty is the differences between people. Some are materialistic and some are not, some work hard and some are lazy, some get lucky and others have no luck. This is never going to change. Fact is in USA some 75% of poor people have air conditioning in their cars - so it's relative. And today's poor live to a higher standard of living than someone rich 100 years ago.

 

[Valjean]

One of the major 'causes' of poverty is the differences between people. Some are materialistic and some are not, some work hard and some are lazy, some get lucky and others have no luck. This is never going to change. Fact is in USA some 75% of poor people have air conditioning in their cars - so it's relative. And today's poor live to a higher standard of living than someone rich 100 years ago.

So nothing's really changed? Poverty and homelessness have not increased significantly?

 

[PruePhillip]

So nothing's really changed? Poverty and homelessness have not increased significantly?

Poverty is relative. Most poor people own cars - in 1922 few middle class people could afford a car.
In 1922 food was a major part of your budget, today the American poor are fat. Fat used to be a sign of wealth.
That free music you listen to wasn't really available to even kings and emperors in terms of abundance, genres, immediate access, quality etc..
So in 100 years the rich have gained more money (sort of) but now the poor have access to most of the things only rich once had.

 

[metis]

Poverty is relative. Most poor people own cars - in 1922 few middle class people could afford a car.
In 1922 food was a major part of your budget, today the American poor are fat. Fat used to be a sign of wealth.
That free music you listen to wasn't really available to even kings and emperors in terms of abundance, genres, immediate access, quality etc..
So in 100 years the rich have gained more money (sort of) but now the poor have access to most of the things only rich once had.

Economists and social scientists have long warned us that it is income disparity that is the #1 single greatest threat to our democracy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What does your religion say about helping those that are less fortunate than oneself?
I ask because modern politics oft seems divided on helping the poor, or just pretending they don't exist or should go away.

It says help. You earn merit.
We have no problem like that. Indian government is doing all it can to help the poor in various fields.

For housing of the poor, the government has a plan to build 20 million houses in 7 years for which it is providing long-term loans to people for housing.
(PMAY) Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 2022 Eligibility Criteria - PRADHAN MANTRI YOJANA

Government is providing free gas connections to 50 million house-holds with the first as cylinder free. This will reduce cutting of trees, remove use of fuel-wood or cow dung in kitchen and benefit the health of women. Rise is cost of gas has been a problem, but the poor get gas at subsidized rates.
[Apply] Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Free Gas Yojana 2022 Check Status - PM Jan Dhan Yojana

There are many other schemes in education and health. But kindly note that the Indian requirement is HUGE. It covers 1.4 billion people, 17.5% of all humanity. All what we want is not going to happen in a day.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. modern technology those who seek it have gotten a lot more effective at gaining it. And at gaining and maintaining it mostly without having to use armies.

We don't really resent that. After all, these companies provide employment to people. And then there is percolation effect.

 

[PureX]

We don't really resent that. After all, these companies provide employment to people. And then there is percolation effect.

The don't provide employment. That's the problem. Paying employees diminishes their profit margins, and in a capitalist system, the profit margins are all that matters. Not providing employment. So we have millions of people unemployed, and thanks to the paid propagandists in the media, we're blaming this on the unemployed, and touting the greedy capitalists as demigods for their gift of employment. We are not only idiots, we are mean spirited idiots praising the very system and people that are exploiting us and blaming the results on their victims.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They do. And the unions and government are there to provide the workers fair wages. Workers in organized industries are paid well. The problem exists only in unorganized small-scale companies. For that also we have minimum wage regulations.

 

[PruePhillip]

Economists and social scientists have long warned us that it is income disparity that is the #1 single greatest threat to our democracy.

It's not onlyincome disparity, it's disparity in everything. There's always one girl prettier than the others, one guy who's the better athlete, one person who routinely gets the better grades, has the most popularity etc..These four issues alone can easily lead to better outcomes - what terrifies me is the prospect that some Stalinist or Maoist would seek to iron everyone out in the name of equality - and create an inequality of gigantic proportions as Communism did.

 

[metis]

These four issues alone can easily lead to better outcomes - what terrifies me is the prospect that some Stalinist or Maoist would seek to iron everyone out in the name of equality - and create an inequality of gigantic proportions as Communism did.

I'm certainly not proposing that, but the trouble were are now seeing with our country tearing itself apart was predicted by anthropologist Desmond Morris back around 1970. He stated that Americans don't seem to know when to stop competing, and as resources per capita run lower, large-scale dissention would occur.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm certainly not proposing that, but the trouble were are now seeing with our country tearing itself apart was predicted by anthropologist Desmond Morris back around 1970. He stated that Americans don't seem to know when to stop competing, and as resources per capita run lower, large-scale dissention would occur.

Competition is built into our very DNA fiber. It's built into the whole of life actually.
Even if you FORCED people to stop competing then think about it - those doing the forcing have out-competed the competition.
And if you stop competing (ie sport, business, technology etc) then you will be steam-rolled by societies heavily into competition.

 

[metis]

Competition is built into our very DNA fiber. It's built into the whole of life actually.
Even if you FORCED people to stop competing then think about it - those doing the forcing have out-competed the competition.
And if you stop competing (ie sport, business, technology etc) then you will be steam-rolled by societies heavily into competition.

But competition is not an either/or thingy, thus too much or too little could hurt a country long term.

 

[PruePhillip]

But competition is not an either/or thingy, thus too much or too little could hurt a country long term.

So you're a third way kind of guy?
Imagine a country where everyone passes, and every sports team wins, and we force people to buy bad music so good bands don't get more than bad bands.

 

[The Hammer]

So you're a third way kind of guy?
Imagine a country where everyone passes, and every sports team wins, and we force people to buy bad music so good bands don't get more than bad bands.

That's not what it means to reduce intra-societal competition. What you list is allowable competition. But when that gets extended into every facet of existence (think keeping up with the Jones'), it foments division. The economy shouldn't be a competition; at least not at the individual/personal level.

 

[PureX]

Competition is built into our very DNA fiber. It's built into the whole of life actually.

So is cooperation, actually. And so is parasitism. The good thing about being human is that we are able to rise above our dumb Darwinian animal selves, and choose cooperation over parasitism and competition. In fact, it is this ability to transcend our dumb animal nature that defines us as being human and gives us dominion over the natural world.

And 'overcoming' does not mean eliminating. It just means taking control of and responsibility for our selfish, competitive natures so that their expression doesn't cause ourselves and each other unnecessary harm. After all, competition is an enormous waste of time and resources that generates winners and losers based mostly on exploitation, rather than serving everyone well and equally.