Yeah, but the trades, and even warehouse pickers require some skill (the trades require a lot of skill), and people doing the work need to have at least some desire to do a good job. I mean would you want to give some homeless person who's homeless because he's a slacker who doesn't want to work a job as OBS on an Amtrak long-distance train?
I mean, that job doesn't require a college degree.If you limit support because the recipients might be slackers then you get what we have now. Is this a good solution? Should we be proud of this?
No, I agree with neroden that even the "slackers" need to get support. I think I slightly disagree with Just Thinking, who seems to imply that that the very small percentage of people who are demotivated to work will somehow become motivated by providing them access to trade schools (which I support) or unskilled labor, like warehouse jobs. If a person is not motivated to work for whatever reason, though usually it's stuff beyond their control, how would they be motivated to do a good job, even if you throw the job in their lap? Nonetheless, letting them rot in the street comes back to bite us in the rear. At the very least, we should be giving all these homeless people basic housing. In the long run, it's probably cheaper for the rest of us and saves us all a lot of problems, aside from being a right thing to do for people with a lot of problems.
Well, that was my point actually. Far too many people want to limit support because the recipients might be slackers, and... they're wrong. If the recipients are slackers, all the more important to give them support to stay out of the way.
