Where's our compassion?
I think homeless people should be made to do something constructive with their lives. There should be "Bum ACTION Teams" that get paid by the city to clean up parks, streets etc.
Interesting that the christian types here are the least compassionate. It seems that religious zeal goes hand in hand with lack of humanity.Boliver and penguinlover, you both say you are connected to churches yet you have attitudes that with all respect I don't find very christian.Saying there are "legitimate homeless" as opposed to (what?) illegitimately homeless (?) and suggesting people are on the street because they somehow deserve it or brought it on themselves or "don't want to be helped" is in my mind arrogant and condescending and completely lacking in human empathy.On second thoughts, I suppose those attitudes are TYPICALLY christian.I'm not suggesting it's a matter of giving homeless people your loose change. I live in an area that's full of socially disadvantaged people and I don't give everyone money cos I simply wouldn't have enough to go around.I guess my comments related to the inequities of western society and how as a society we collectively abandon those who don't have the backgrounds, the means or the skills to make it.And why so down on drug addicts and alcoholics? Addiction is a disease. Addicts aren't on the street for fun.Most junkies who are on the street have been born in to dysfunctional families amongst generational unemployment and poverty. Many have been sexually and physically abused from a young age and are struggling with lack of education, social networks and mental illness.How does that make them "illegitimately" homeless? How can someone who professes to be a christian look down at these people?What exactly is a "legitimately" homeless person? I am sorry but I have never heard such nonsense.
Hey, have you ever played Star Wars Episode I the Phantom Menace for PC?In the Coruscant level, Captain Panaka is forced to take a dangerous trek through the lower levels of the city. One of the bums inhabiting the alleys asked me for some republic credits. I decided to shoot him with my blaster. It turned out that if you shoot one, the rest come after you with knives for the rest of the level. Smooth move on my part.
The other day I saw a homeless (and probably mentally ill) person sleeping on the street in front of a department store display window which contained an oppulent and luxurious bedroom.Then I learn that a park in LA has made it an offence to feed the homeless. Apparently vans that provide free meals to the homeless people who sleep in the park have been banned from serving food to them. It only attracts homeless people, authorities say.what?Where's our compassion?
In a game called Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords, I gave an homeless guy some money, after that he got punched to death by two other homeless guys because he had money.
Kreia also gets pissed at you even if you don't give money to the homeless guy. What a b*tch.
Aw penguinlover don't take it so hard. I know you are a good person. It's just me being me. Ask pianistimo . But for the record I do think many christians are hard hearted, pious, self-righteous and arrogant.But not all
I find it very disturbing when I read remarks that suggest capitalism causes homelessness. If anything it causes far less homelessness than any other system of government. The poor in the United States of america are vastly wealthier than the poor anywhere else in the world, and we have a far lower unemployment rate than many of the socialist countries in europe. Now, what is better for homeless poor people? Capitalism or socialism? Look at the facts!Please don't start harping on the "vast disparity" in wealth between the poor and the rich. Why should that matter? Why can't we just look at how well off the poor are? Anyway, do you really think that there is an endless continuum of grotesquely opulent lifestyle? No! Where does all that extra money go...back into the economy, new jobs, fewer homeless people, MORE WEALTH FOR EVERYONE. I'm not saying we shouldn't give to the poor---but I think that should be done entirely voluntarily---government should not put a cancerous tumor in the economy to try to help the poor---this ends up screwing them over!! WHY DON'T SOME OF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS??Basically the bottom line is, the poor man's best friend is the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs CREATE WEALTH! Government DOES NOT! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD AND THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE.
Low unemployment rates in the USA are not due to the altruism of USA entrepreneurs or their super-efficiency or whatever; it is due to the US government and Federal Reserve's financial and monetary policies: low interest rates, low tax rates, low exchange rate for the dollar and every year going deeper in national public and private debt; indeed it's a strategy which works, at least currently but in the long run it makes USA very vulnerable to a major financial crisis and then you'll see how unemployment will sky-rocket. So your statement about irrelevance of government action in wealth creation is pretty mislead.Now, about the “entrepreneur”, let me tell you something, I've worked all my career as a finance manager in private firms and the later years in a global one; I can tell you that the goal of private firms is to you use as few employees as possible and at the lowest salary. Capitalism aims at rewarding the shareholders for their financial investment, so the less wages you have to pay the more you can satisfy them. Actually, just the announcement of a downsizing makes the stock exchange quotation improve. More and more, you will see the big players leave western countries, including USA, to use cheap labor in less developed, hence more “competitive” countries, especially in Asia and eastern Europe. For the moment it's mainly European countries which have to undergo the consequences, because they made the EURO currency error, but believe me, sooner or later, US economy will have the same problem, by the time the current financial/monetary strategy becomes not sustainable anymore. And it is inevitable, you cannot indefinitely maintain a “way of life” just by getting into more debt each and everyday.
If Business A doubles it's price, Business B will take all of business A's customers. In the same way, if one corporation is paying the workers too little, they won't be able to keep employees. They'll have to raise their wages to the market level to keep their workers.
That's pretty theoretical. Just look at Wal-Mart... Luckily, not all American firms act like this one, but Wal-Mart is the total application of a capitalist approach, yet if a majority of big companies imitated them (and many are probably tempted), USA's conditions of employment would soon be similar to Thailand's or Indonesia's.Modern firms do not value labor from a moral point of view. Labor is just a ressource like any other. IMO that's a wrong approach, not only morally but also economically in the long term.
Every human needs to hire themselves out. And when you are no longer needed you are disgarded. From some point of view slavery is more moral. Which cars are treated better? Those that people have bought or those that people hire?It's pretty sick.
I'd take theoretical over anecdotal any day of the week. Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the theory. If it doesn't work in the real world, you should have no problem telling me why. It makes perfect sense to me that, as long as firms have to compete for labor, workers will recieve fair wages. Wal-mart is doing exactly this. Working at Wal-mart doesn't require any talents at all, be they physical strength or education. Of course they'll be paid fairly lowly. If you want to make them better off, you need to get them educated so their labor will be worth something. And let me ask you one question, if Wal-mart can set its wages without regard to the market, why is it paying its workers more than minimum wage?You are correct that labor is another resource. It's just like any good. Workers voluntarily sell their labor to some company, and use it to buy other goods and services. Valuing labor from 'a moral point of view.' Can you explain exactly what that means in the real world? Does it mean we should support heavy handed government regulations that don't make anyone better off simply to make ourselves feel good?
If companies don't compete for labor, how do wages get set? You seem to think I'm too theoretical so let me give a personal example. A few years back I had a summer job as a carnie(carnival worker) at the Kemah Boardwalk. I made $5.50 an hour. This summer my brother interviewed there this last summer. Now they are paying $6.50, because they couldn't keep enough workers at the previous wage. I know I sound like a broken record(particularly if you've been reading my posts in other threads), but it's all about supply and demand. Labor is not magically exempt from these rules.No, one has a right to a comfortable lifestyle. The natural state of man is abject poverty. Capitalism has moved a large part of the world out of that poverty. The gains may be unequal but that's their very nature. You can't just take the good parts of capitalism and leave out all the bad bits. I have to call BS on your last bit. In America, if you have a full time job you can afford food. You even get food stamps from the government. Quite frankly, the poor of America are historically in the top 1% of humanity in terms of wealth.
Topic: homeless people 