Yes, but even if none of that was true it would still be the right thing to do. We shouldn’t have to justify humanitarian social policies by their national economic benefits.
Which is why i don’t like this type of argument. What happens when you run into a policy to help people that doesn’t have economic upsides, that is a drain on the national economy? By using this argument for morally correct social policies that happen to benefit the economy, you pre-emptively capitulate on those that don’t. What about policies supporting disabled people, for instance? Should they only be enacted so long as said disabled people can contribute to the national economy? A slippery slope towards eugenics…
I agree with your point but we should avoid equivocating our words. The capitalists sees housing as a financial investment while we see it as an investment in the well being of the person/community. Housing may give a “return” on the productivity of the workforce, but we should house people regardless of financial incentive.
@Dialectical_Idealist @cfgaussian
No I am just pointing out the absurdity of it all. I am not providing economic justification to do it, it’s right regardless.
The arguments people give against it, at least the ones they ADMIT to… are wrong.
It’s not expensive at all. It has an economic return. Health care, education, welfare… it’s economically productive.
It’s idiotic in every way to not do it.
This is the kind of argument that needs to be made to win over those that hate the homeless.
Bourgois economics are a smokescreen to justify the actions of the ruling class with big pseudo-scientific words. Just as kings of old used religion to justify their place at the top. Pro-homeless policies are class warfare.
@knfrmity
They are using economics as a reason AGAINST it, not for it.
Turn it on them, watch them squirm.
Yes, it is class warfare. It’s punching down for personal satisfaction as well.
Edit: Tut tut, taking a swipe at me then blocking me so you don’t have to admit you read between the lines. made incorrect assumptions about me and what I said is shameful. You took a wrong turn at facebook dot com.
@Dialectical_Idealist
But it is also an investment.
Providing a house enables a person to study, work or otherwise just have a life and become an economically productive member of society.
Politicians won’t mention that, it doesn’t pander to the bias of the haters that vote for them, that want the homeless to suffer.
Housing the homeless is good for everybody. It’s an investment in everyone’s future.
Yes, but even if none of that was true it would still be the right thing to do. We shouldn’t have to justify humanitarian social policies by their national economic benefits.
Which is why i don’t like this type of argument. What happens when you run into a policy to help people that doesn’t have economic upsides, that is a drain on the national economy? By using this argument for morally correct social policies that happen to benefit the economy, you pre-emptively capitulate on those that don’t. What about policies supporting disabled people, for instance? Should they only be enacted so long as said disabled people can contribute to the national economy? A slippery slope towards eugenics…
@cfgaussian
I didn’t say any of that, don’t put words in my mouth.
If you want to convince the detractors you’re going the wrong way about it.
I agree with helping people for the right reasons but you’re not going to move anyone over to “your side” with that, are you?
You certainly won’t win them over by insulting them and assuming things.
It doesn’t HAVE to be economically productive, it just happens to be that it is and that dismisses the number one argument people use against it.
I agree with your point but we should avoid equivocating our words. The capitalists sees housing as a financial investment while we see it as an investment in the well being of the person/community. Housing may give a “return” on the productivity of the workforce, but we should house people regardless of financial incentive.
@Dialectical_Idealist
@cfgaussian
No I am just pointing out the absurdity of it all. I am not providing economic justification to do it, it’s right regardless.
The arguments people give against it, at least the ones they ADMIT to… are wrong.
It’s not expensive at all. It has an economic return. Health care, education, welfare… it’s economically productive.
It’s idiotic in every way to not do it.
This is the kind of argument that needs to be made to win over those that hate the homeless.
Bourgois economics are a smokescreen to justify the actions of the ruling class with big pseudo-scientific words. Just as kings of old used religion to justify their place at the top. Pro-homeless policies are class warfare.
@knfrmity
They are using economics as a reason AGAINST it, not for it.
Turn it on them, watch them squirm.
Yes, it is class warfare. It’s punching down for personal satisfaction as well.
Edit: Tut tut, taking a swipe at me then blocking me so you don’t have to admit you read between the lines. made incorrect assumptions about me and what I said is shameful. You took a wrong turn at facebook dot com.
Ah, I see. The economic argument falls apart by its own terms. Fair point.