Plan for how to meet everyone's basic needs.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?

Hypothetically speaking, that is an excellent rhetorical question. I asked my friend the same question and she replied, "Would you live that way if you had a choice? Wouldn't you prefer to live more independently and have more privacy?" I think she had a good point. Most people would rather work and have their own place.

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.

Thought I did, but I'm not so clear headed these days. Ok, good challenge though. Let's see...

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...

brianlux

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

In theory, the government would have to reduce the quality of the basic needs they provide so that fewer people would want to take advantage of this "plan". A portion of society will always need to be supported by the rest of us, but those who are simply "unmotivated" to work hopefully get motivated as the freebies are less attractive.

I'm thinking that if you reduce something that is basic it no longer serves a useful purpose (see above).

Travels With

What if I just want a cheap place to live so I can cook meth? Can I live there? I think this is an optimistic idea that puts faith in humanity -- for that, I like it; however, it takes a few to ruin it and that probably would happen.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

Thought I did, but I'm not so clear headed these days. Ok, good challenge though. Let's see...

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...

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."

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

In theory, the government would have to reduce the quality of the basic needs they provide so that fewer people would want to take advantage of this "plan". A portion of society will always need to be supported by the rest of us, but those who are simply "unmotivated" to work hopefully get motivated as the freebies are less attractive.

I'm thinking that if you reduce something that is basic it no longer serves a useful purpose (see above).

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.).

Jason P

It may work, but the dorms would need adequate supervision and staff. Otherwise, I fear it would lead to the same decrepit outcome that housing projects have fallen into.

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.

MayDay Malone

What the OP is describing, we already have.

It is called The Ghetto.

pandora

I'm picturing those futuristic movies ... not pretty

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.

_

I think it's a good idea - or at least a pretty good start. You're really only talking about housing the homeless in what sounds similar to giant, better homeless shelters.

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

I think it's a good idea - or at least a pretty good start. You're really only talking about housing the homeless in what sounds similar to giant, better homeless shelters.

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.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.

You are correct. I should not have said "Your." All I was referring to was the idea you brought up which was from a friend. I also don't mean to badger you.

I am trying to help you see the fallacy of the plan. You asked for opinions, so opinions you should expect. But, you should probably have expected more negative opinions than positive. Whenever posting something, you are more likely to get - this is why that's wrong - than - wow! what a wonderful idea.

I actually like that you posted this "plan." It definitely would be a perfect place to live. I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.

Jason P

brianlux wrote:

It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.

Don't let the badgering get to you. I see most posts (including mine) tend to follow party lines. But is does highlight the complexity in what is proposed.

In order for this to work, it's going to take private investment in developing a prototype. Be it a group that receives a grant from Bill Gates, or something personally managed by a philanthropist, a specific plan needs to be developed and then implemented. They need to monitor the test group and see what helps and what doesn't work. A group of motivated people need to spear-head this and they need the financial support of a donor.

The best way to do it is to come up with a good plan, and then establish three test sites in L.A., Chicago, and New York. The supervisors would need to coordinate weekly and see what works and what doesn't work. They could also find out that something that works well in L.A., may not work so well in Chicago. That way, you don't develop a successful blueprint in one city, and only find out it fails in different geographic areas.

It could take a few years of study, but once a good system is established, it can spread from city to city. Also, I don't believe that a government-run institution will be able to successfully complete this mission. This needs to be a group of highly motivated and educated individuals that are not bogged down in bureaucracy.

I'll bet Google could do it.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

I think it's a good idea - or at least a pretty good start. You're really only talking about housing the homeless in what sounds similar to giant, better homeless shelters.

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.

I disagree. I think "free loading" is more of a problem of perception & prejudice than it is a legitimate problem. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's as big a problem as some people make it out to be.) We are the richest country in the world. We have enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help and some freeloaders, if that's what it takes. All we would need to do is get our priorities straight, and that includes not using freeloaders (mythical or real) as an excuse to not help those who really are in need.

EdsonNascimento

Jason P wrote:

Don't let the badgering get to you. I see most posts (including mine) tend to follow party lines. But is does highlight the complexity in what is proposed.

In order for this to work, it's going to take private investment in developing a prototype. Be it a group that receives a grant from Bill Gates, or something personally managed by a philanthropist, a specific plan needs to be developed and then implemented. They need to monitor the test group and see what helps and what doesn't work. A group of motivated people need to spear-head this and they need the financial support of a donor.

The best way to do it is to come up with a good plan, and then establish three test sites in L.A., Chicago, and New York. The supervisors would need to coordinate weekly and see what works and what doesn't work. They could also find out that something that works well in L.A., may not work so well in Chicago. That way, you don't develop a successful blueprint in one city, and only find out it fails in different geographic areas.

It could take a few years of study, but once a good system is established, it can spread from city to city. Also, I don't believe that a government-run institution will be able to successfully complete this mission. This needs to be a group of highly motivated and educated individuals that are not bogged down in bureaucracy.

I'll bet Google could do it.

Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.

And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.

The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.

I'm sorry to say that's mostly likely true. I'm not even sure what could be done to make something like this work and it's easy to fall into a pessimistic view about anythings useful working but I'm obstinate that way- I always look for things that will or might work.

So let's assume you're right and the scenario doesn't work because it gets overwhelmed with to many numbers- I still don't think that would happen but let's it does... then what? Is there a better plan? Do we really just let people starve and die in the streets? Is there a way my friends plan can be refined so it does work?

This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

I disagree. I think "free loading" is more of a problem of perception & prejudice than it is a legitimate problem. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's as big a problem as some people make it out to be.) We are the richest country in the world. We have enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help and some freeloaders, if that's what it takes. All we would need to do is get our priorities straight, and that includes not using freeloaders (mythical or real) as an excuse to not help those who really are in need.

I would guess what you think I'm defining as free loading is not right. There are free loaders (As you parenthetically admit to). I think that populace is bigger than you do, I'm guessing. I understand there are folks that need help. But, there are folks that think they need help that if pushed in the right direction would fend for themsleves.

You're ok taking care of many free loaders to help the broader good. I'm of the belief we need to devise ways to eliminate the incentive of being a free loader to help natural courses differentiate.

Again - look at David Dinkins' NYC and Rudy Giuliani's NYC. That's the difference in our perceptions. Dinkins did not believe you could reduce welfare rolls, and as a matter of fact thought they had to grow. Rudy said - to hell with that AND we are cleaning this town up. If you lived around NYC in both eras, it is clear which is the better place to live for EVERYONE.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.

I'm sorry to say that's mostly likely true. I'm not even sure what could be done to make something like this work and it's easy to fall into a pessimistic view about anythings useful working but I'm obstinate that way- I always look for things that will or might work.

So let's assume you're right and the scenario doesn't work because it gets overwhelmed with to many numbers- I still don't think that would happen but let's it does... then what? Is there a better plan? Do we really just let people starve and die in the streets? Is there a way my friends plan can be refined so it does work?

This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.

Rudy Giuliani. Teach to fish. Don't give the fish. And enforce the laws strictly.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.

And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.

The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.

So what did Giuliani do with NYC? I wasn't aware that they had eliminated homelessness.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.

100% - our parents did a crappy job taking care of their own (And their kids) after Vietnam. That's a disgrace. Due to that, there are much better programs for folks leaving the military now. Still needs to do better. But, that doesn't answer the entire question you originally were trying to answer. That's just a small (but important) part of it.

And, the mental health issue in this country (which is a lot of what you are talking about - not everything, but a lot) needs to be much better handled in general.