>>12
>So why don't people just commit a crime and live a wonderful life in jail without ever having to work?
some people do just that, but your suggestion of the government providing all nesscessities is even worse because you don't even have to make the effort to find the right crime that will keep you behind bars for a while for a while before you have to do it again. and since you'd only have to work for luxuries, there's that much less incentive, and you'll get that many more half-assed workers who know they don't need the job and really show it with thier performance. your average person would probably only work enough so they couls get some of the stuff they want, so that they have plenty of time to enjoyment.
and there'd be that much more income tax, those that strive to climb the ladder would be doing so while fighting the costs of paying for the collective mass of those who would be pleased enough just to have the basics, and those that are only for limited luxuries, and maybe work a little bit at Mcdonalds on the weekends.
and, are you inderectly contradicting yourself here?
first you speak of the homeless who are unable to get jobs, THEN you speak of how mass immigartion is a benefit as it brings in more workers. is there no connection between the size of the work force and how available jobs are? does it register in your brain that the guy on the street who can't afford a shower would be even WORSE off when employers have the cheap labor of these young adults to choose from?
okay middle point first, the poor person who can't get a job.
first, let's not suffer under the delusion that poverty is a disease that swoops from the sky and randomly attacks, or the paranoid conspiracy that the govenment singles out people to make poor.
i'm not going to say that there's no way someone can become poor through no fault of thier own, but those people are no doubt few and far between amid those who spent more than should have, or became totally dependent on someone else who decided to dump the moocher or otherwise stopped paying thier way for them, or for whatever other reason ended up with self-inflicted poverty.
On top of that, i'm sure we'd all like the option of cutting off funds we send to a nonprofit if say, it was found most of the money was being embezzled, rather than going to the cause, but turning off the tap on a government program for such a purpose isn't so easy, as the giving is done FOR you, and before you even get your money if it's with an income tax.
while i'm not saying that maybe quite a few of them would do better given a second chance, doing so should be optional, not funded by tax dollars, but paid for by nonprofits that work from donations. people should have a choice, and not invariably be playing for the poor choices of others.
second, i don't see any signs of america hurting for employees, if there's unemployment at all, then the workwers outnumber the jobs. mass immigartion may be a benefit if america as a whole were understaffed rather than underemployed, but only counting them as workers, it's more of something there isn't a shortage of to begin with.