Plan for how to meet everyone's basic needs.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
In another Moving Train thread I mentioned a plan a friend of mine has proposed that would provide for the basic needs of everyone (well, at least everyone in a wealthy country like the U.S. or Canada). Her idea goes like this:
With government funds, dormitory-like housing in each community is refurbished or built to provide clean, safe housing, modest amounts of basic nutritious food, modest clothing if needed and adequate medical care if needed to anyone who wants to live there. Job search and training opportunities are provided for those who wish to move on, acquire discretionary income, etc. If someone has a job but can't afford to buy their own home, they have the opportunity to live in the dormitory and save their money. If somebody is disabled or mentally impaired, they do not go homeless. And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.
Now if you are assuming that the person who came up with this is one of my Marxist-commie-pinko friends who only listens to Rage Against the Machine, I must tell you, this woman is relatively conservative, politically moderate/leaning-toward-republican and mostly listens to modern country radio.
No doubt the idea has it's flaws, but something like it could be done. No one- at least in America- needs to starve, no one needs to be homeless and no one need go without at least good, basic medical care.
With government funds, dormitory-like housing in each community is refurbished or built to provide clean, safe housing, modest amounts of basic nutritious food, modest clothing if needed and adequate medical care if needed to anyone who wants to live there. Job search and training opportunities are provided for those who wish to move on, acquire discretionary income, etc. If someone has a job but can't afford to buy their own home, they have the opportunity to live in the dormitory and save their money. If somebody is disabled or mentally impaired, they do not go homeless. And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.
Now if you are assuming that the person who came up with this is one of my Marxist-commie-pinko friends who only listens to Rage Against the Machine, I must tell you, this woman is relatively conservative, politically moderate/leaning-toward-republican and mostly listens to modern country radio.
No doubt the idea has it's flaws, but something like it could be done. No one- at least in America- needs to starve, no one needs to be homeless and no one need go without at least good, basic medical care.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
See that's what pisses me off. You should at least be trying to get some kind of work. At least work to get your basic needs...
And yeah, there's something wrong with that.
I should??
As Clint Conley of Mission of Burma once said after a grueling show, "How much more d'we have to work to get paid?" :wtf:
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
as far as your friend being a "moderate" republican type" i can live with those people. example jon huntsman, ron paul.
it's the new age "batshit crazy" republican types that are scary. example rick perry, michelle bachman ect.
I hear ya!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
minus the c,h,a and w.
How about we add this:
Convert some portions of closed military bases for those veterans who are currently homeless. Many of them understand the military and how it works and pull duty as caretakers of the grounds. It does not have to be permanent or mandatory living arrangements, just a place other than the sidewalks of our cities.
Pay for it out of the defense budget... less nukes and more housing.
Hail, Hail!!!
What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?
Is this based upon the world view of all Americans as being lazy asses?
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes you fucking should. If you are able to work then you should work.
Well peacefrompaul, this last week not counting (I took a bad fall and have been home bound with injuries), I am able to fucking work and I do fucking work so I'm not sure what the problem is here. :wtf:
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Wasn't talking about you personally if that's what you thought. I was referring to this proposed bill. lazy people not working. Jesus man.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Doesn't her plan remind you of government housing projects, food stamps, county hospitals/free clinics & night school?
All of these have been implemented, but not all have worked.
Hey, I'm just throwing the idea out there. Yeah, I was pretty sure you meant "people in general", not "you" as in me.
Look, I just don't respond very seriously to posts that attack people, even lazy people. I think overly ambitious people can be as problematic as lazy people.* But I don't come here to disparage others. I come here to share ideas and see if we can come up with positive ideas.
(*For a really beautifully written, excellent argument for living lighter and less ambitiously check out Masanobu Fukuoka's recently re-printed book The One-Straw Revolution.)
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Yes, but an idea that isn't well planned or carried out well doesn't necessarily make the idea a bad one. But yes, so far most efforts along these lines are riddled with short comings. And we still have a huge number of homeless and we still have a very large number of Vietnam vets who are homeless-- and both are some of America's greatest shames.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
find a park....set up a tent.... everyone has a skill to contribute.....and we keep the place clean.
this should work.
You didn't really answer the question, but I will make it easier for you. What if half of the population decided to do this and/or had no choice and another quarter gave up because the marginal gain from working wasn't enough to make it "worth it" to try?
I'm thinking that scenario isn't quite as hypothetical.
I really don't think most people would choose the dorm style living. My friends scenario states that only basics would be provided. Everyone uses shared bathrooms and there are no frills. What your provided with is enough to sustain you. It's not a prison- people are treated with respect, decency, compassion, but unless you work or somebody gives you extra money, you're probably not going to have your own computer or phone or hair stereo or car or espresso maker or margarita blender etc., etc.
You added to the scenario, "had no choice". That's not part of the scenario as I understand it so I can't answer to it. I'm also not sure why you say "marginal gain from working wasn't enough to make it 'worth it' to try." I would think living with only basic needs met and not having as much privacy would motivate most people to find work that would get them out on their own.
So let me ask- would you, EdsonNascimento (or any others here) would you opt for the no frills, basic only dorm life over the life you live now? If the dorm living were your only option at the moment but you know you could work your way to something better (that's part of the scenario as I understand it) how long would you say with basics? If you answered yes, at this time in your life you would opt for the dorm living, then you probably like idea of the the scenario. Most of us, I'm guessing would probably say, "no thanks".
On the off (in my opinion) chance that half the population chooses to live in the dorms the scenario crashes and I go pour myself a drink and watch a movie bye...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You still didn't. Saying I think this will happen doesn't answer for the contingency if it does. That's how Dinkins got NYC into the mess, and what I'm trying to guide you toward is how Giuliani got NYC out of it. This line of thinking is dangerous, and your inability to say what would happen if the majority (or even half) do follow this is indictative of folks that don't live in the real world. You have to think of the contingencies. Now, you may say it's unlikely. But, you still have to admit it's possible, adn answer the question. Saying you don't think it will is why Obama is struggling so much getting the economy going. He doesn't get it.
And, BTW, it's already happening. 99 weeks of unemployment (and looking for an extension!). Ridiculous. Your scenario is already playing itself out. You're just creating a scenario for an even greater the gov't can help you if you are unwilling to help yourself scenario. Half the population is already not contributing to the collective.
And wheteher I would or not is not the question. Look at Zucotti Park - they started getting upset because "free loaders" were taking food. Doesn't take a whole lot to "see the light."
So, then what is the minimum? There's only so much money in the pot. This is classic liberal thinking. We'll give out the money before we've even figured out how to collect it. Oh, yeah - the 1%. They won't mind us taking their wealth. It's only a free country for those in need. Not those that have.
You have to balance what you spend with what you take in. And there is a limit to what you can take.
You have just helped prove why it is far more important for Congress to look at what we are spending rather than what they are taking (this is not saying some tax increases may not be necessary, but if we don't cut spending SIGNIFICANTLY, all the tax increases in the world are not going to pay for it. You will eventually get to a point where the 1 % will say - screw this. I'm moving to Monacco.).
If there was some kind of work-incentive required (i.e. mowing, painting, cooking, etc), I think it would lead to a more positive outcome for residents that cycle through.
The problem with letting unmotivated people stay without consequence is that sooner or later the number of unmotivated people will outnumber the people trying to use the dorm as a stepping stone. And once that happens, the stepping stone people go elsewhere, and the dorm will fall into disarray.
We have history and we have seen the outcome of housing projects in major cities. Over several generations, we have seen the effect they have had on the residents living in them and what they have done to the surrounding neighborhoods. By trying to help, society ended up hurting.
But if it was supervised, it could help lead people to a better life. Without supervision, it's doomed to fail.
It is called The Ghetto.
great if it could be a happy, loving commune with respect, love and kindness for each other
but we don't have that now in society ... can't expect it in a situation like this
Once the govt pays someone to do nothing why would they ever do anything again?
Motivation goes, some people adapt to a lazy lifestyle,
matters not if they would get more with hard work, they are living fine enough
this already we are seeing.
Oh again....spotted a fella in a beautiful Cadillac Escalade buying his groceries with food stamps
last weekend :?
My opinion clean up the fraud in the system and govt programs we have
there would be plenty to go around for those who are truly in need and hungry
hungry and need being key words.
It's absolutely shameful that such a wealthy nation has so many people who have to live on the streets. I was recently talking to the Chief of a location in rural Kenya - one of the poorest areas of the world, with poverty like most of us will never even understand - and he was absolutely shocked that anyone in the US would go hungry or live on the streets. Even there, where many people don't have so much as a glass of drinkable water, people pitch in to help the least fortunate in their communities.
Anyway, I think the likelihood of half the population of people with real homes & jobs choosing to give up their homes & jobs to live here is about the same as the likelihood of half the people now saying we're not going to work because we could just move into a homeless shelter instead. And no one has a fear of that happening. No one WANTS to live in a homeless shelter.
My primary concern would be security & services for the mentally ill. I'm not saying that poor people are criminals or anything like that. But I am acknowledging that many of our nation's homeless are mentally ill (many, of course, being veterans). So we'd have to take special care for that. Of course, we should be providing that care anyway. If we did, we wouldn't have so many homeless people to begin with.
Here's the problem - there are many people taking that don't need to be taking. Thereby, taking up resources that could be going to folks that REALLY need the help. This plan only exacerbates that problem. If we could eliminate the "free loaders," the problem wouldn't exist. Nobody does not want to help. It's that the help is so broad and unwieldy that it's unsustainable.