deleted by creator
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…
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Ah, I see. The economic argument falls apart by its own terms. Fair point.
See that? That’s what people should be investing instead of the other 2 bullshits. It solves the problem and does not make everybody unconfortable every place they go
