> For reasons I've never understood, many Americans seem fixated on viewing poverty and homelessness as MORAL failures, which deserve punishment.
I think you slightly misstate it: they view poverty and homelessness as an outward evidence of moral failures (particularly, an insufficient work ethic) and (often, though this view is sometimes found divorced from religious judgement today) divine disfavor, not as moral failures in themselves.
This has been traced back (both by people who view this attitude positively and by those who view it negatively) to various elements of theology of various strains of Protestantism that shaped American culture, particularly the Puritan concept of “visible saints” whose outward signs were wholesome living and material success.
It sure seems that way but we also see the same tendencies in many other disconnected cultures. It’s widely associated with consumerism. Do you think that’s a misconception? I don’t. I am really far from being an expert but I grew up around a lot of I think was protestantism aftermath. I get the impression Puritanism was a culture founded on demonizing symbolism by way of different symbolism, which making it ripe for commercialism thanks to simplistic abstractions of pride and honor and whatnot. Protestantism/Puritanism in the US seems like it was an optimized for agrarian life, which from my POV sounds pretty dismal. It was latent with judgement but not irreverent to social commitment; in many ways the opposite. I think it’s nature made it particularly vulnerable to consumerism in so many awkward ways. I think the stubborn social roles have persisted to an extent because they are still serving the existential purposes they originally served. Something many don’t realize is these tendencies are only amplified under the pressures of poverty. It looks like a paradox from the outside but on the inside, it’s a psychological survival tactic, which I relate to the isolation and precarity of agrarianism. But I can’t imagine it being so incredulous if it were not exploited and reinforced in consumer culture, ridiculous pop politics and advertising.
I might be wrong about some of this. It’s been a difficult subject to learn about.
It stems from the Protestant Work Ethic and religion more generally. One of the biggest sticking points, if not the single biggest, between rational humanism and religious viewpoints is the place of suffering in the world. Rational humanists view suffering as negative, and something to be avoided, alleviated, and prevented, hopefully to be eliminated. The religious view suffering as purposeful, as bearing meaning, and of a potential way others might be driven, out of stark desperation, into the arms of their religion.
The Protestant Work Ethic measures a persons virtue by how much suffering they endure in their work. The more poorly paid the work is, and the greater the suffering it causes, the more moral the worker. Desire for respite is vice. Desire for pay based on the value of the work being done is greed. Desire itself is far more immoral than any suffering inflicted, and something for which forgiveness should be sought.
My comment was replying to the wondering over why so many in the USA in modern times see poverty and homelessness as moral failures to be punished. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "multi-cultural libertarian extremism," whatever you imagine that to be.
I was not speaking of inflicting suffering, but of experiencing it. Views on inflicting suffering and ethics, of course, are affected by a mindset which places value on suffering. It leads to things like the church opposing development of vaccines, of which they have always been among the staunchest opponents. Even as recently as the 1990s, the chaplain of the CDC in the US publicly stated that he would actively fight against the development of any kind of vaccine for HIV. Luckily I don't think he really had much influence in deciding what was to be researched or developed. But it is also quite easy to tell one's self that any suffering caused might not be all bad and might even be part of some greater plan if one considers experiencing suffering to have inherent value.
What church is against vaccinations? Even the RCC, with its concerns about some vaccines being derived originally from aborted fetuses, encourages vaccinations.
For that matter who was the Chaplain at the Center for Disease Control of whom you speak? Does the CDC have a chaplain?
One example is Christian Science, which has had issues with vaccinations which has varied throughout its history. Also, according to Wikipedia:
> "Forty-eight US states allowed religious exemptions for compulsory vaccination as of June 2015. In Australia the church was the only group with a religious exemption for vaccination as of April 2015; the government said that it planned to remove it."
Apart from the Weberian Protestant Work Ethic mentioned in other comments, it's also a consequence of the converse of what you wrote, to whit: "My success is a result of my efforts (in isolation) and thus if you are unsuccessful it must be due to your poor efforts".
In other words, you don't want to believe that someone else's misfortune might not be (only) the result of their actions, else it calls your own belief about your success into question.
This is why Obama's seemingly unremarkable comments in 2016 about how we all depend on the roads and the work of others offended so many people.
Myself it seems blindingly obvious that I was lucky to be born in a rich country, to have moved to another rich country (USA) and have the benefit of huge investments (physical, moral and financial) by others.
It absolves them of responsibility for the problem and makes them feel like they are exempt from being at risk of homelessness. Since they aren't currently homeless themselves, this is proof in their minds that they aren't guilty enough to ever be homeless.
It's a convenient means to opt out of addressing social ills while simultaneously not feeling like that choice might come back to bite them in the butt someday.
More succinctly: "It is your fault for being a bad person. Society didn't do this to you. Not my problem."
So true. I wish more people had progressive and liberal views towards the matter. Like in the Bay Area... probably the most progressive (and wealthiest) place in the U.S. It's population is comparable to Finland's. And, like Finland, there is virtually no homelessness. Closest thing to Utopia you'll find in the U.S. We should look to it as the example for the rest of the country.
To be clear, where did the money come from to build such things? If it came from a free giving choice from nearby residents, that is incredible, and I'm blown away by their generosity and we should study how they raised the funds. If it came from a tax that you cannot opt out of, it is wrong, regardless of the end result.
I'm all in favour of opting out of taxes -- provided that one simultaneously opts out of using public roads and utilities; opts out of being protected by public police, fire, and emergency services; opts out of using public legal regimes for the enforcement of contracts and property rights; and opts out of being able buy goods or receive services from people who have been received public educations.
If you're happy to live without any of those things, then fine -- don't pay taxes.
I suppose you don't live in Finland, because I've never heard opinions like that from a fellow Finn.
Last night the outdoor temperature here was -20 C (-4 F). In conditions like this, it's basic human behaviour to give shelter to those in need. I gladly pay taxes so that the government can solve the problem in the most efficient way for the society. It would be much more expensive to let the ER and health care system handle these people when they get severely frostbitten outside.
That's our jam here in the US. Can't afford $1k/month rent? Sleep in the streets, or get assaulted in an overcrowded shelter. If you're lucky once you freeze off a couple of toes you'll be taken to a hospital, where they'll load you up with debt. Then, we'll pass you off to one of our for-profit prisons for failing to pay off the debt, who will also charge you for the time you spend in the prison.
This is an actual worst case scenario in our country. If you think we're a little psychotic, it's because if we've experienced poverty in our lives at all, that daily lottery draw has been in the back of our minds since. That sort of insecurity just does not go away.
In light of the weather, would one expect a sizesble number of truly homeless people? Regardless of gov't policy, Finland isn't the place where one can sleep outdoors on the sidewalk or on a park bench. Such a person will either find housing, die, or get train ticket to Italy.
I think you've been downvoted a bit hastily because you didn't agree to the "forced subsidy" that came in the form of taxes. One reply caricatured your stance as if you said you didn't want to pay any taxes at all.
More importantly you should have read the article until the end. It mentions that the program pays for itself. In other words, the government spends less by providing this housing to the homeless, because the savings due to medical/emergency services are _larger_ than the costs of providing the housing.
From a pure money perspective, it sounds like they cost less to society when they are provided housing, so your concern is somewhat moot if you only look at the monetary side of things (which is, I believe, the angle you were concerned about).
Exactly. I'm more than willing to pay for things I use and see worthwhile as investment in my community. However the government is not a charity, and if it were, their monetary efficiency would be very very low (revenue collected : actual benefit ratio).
Worth mentioning that Finland does this much better than Sweden. If you google "hemlösa" in Swedish, you will see pictures blond ethnic swedes living in the streets. If you google "kodittomat" in Finnish, youll see mostly dogs.
This is because in Swedens housing projects are foremostly aimed for foreigners. Even the web-page helping the "hemlösa" seems to be mostly aimed for EU-citizens, meaning beggars from Romania.
Still, according to this thread, spending on SF homeless comes out to $40k per year. You could in theory house and feed a person for that much. So where's all that money going?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16645258
29 comments
[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 81.6 ms ] threadI think you slightly misstate it: they view poverty and homelessness as an outward evidence of moral failures (particularly, an insufficient work ethic) and (often, though this view is sometimes found divorced from religious judgement today) divine disfavor, not as moral failures in themselves.
This has been traced back (both by people who view this attitude positively and by those who view it negatively) to various elements of theology of various strains of Protestantism that shaped American culture, particularly the Puritan concept of “visible saints” whose outward signs were wholesome living and material success.
I might be wrong about some of this. It’s been a difficult subject to learn about.
The Protestant Work Ethic measures a persons virtue by how much suffering they endure in their work. The more poorly paid the work is, and the greater the suffering it causes, the more moral the worker. Desire for respite is vice. Desire for pay based on the value of the work being done is greed. Desire itself is far more immoral than any suffering inflicted, and something for which forgiveness should be sought.
For that matter who was the Chaplain at the Center for Disease Control of whom you speak? Does the CDC have a chaplain?
> "Forty-eight US states allowed religious exemptions for compulsory vaccination as of June 2015. In Australia the church was the only group with a religious exemption for vaccination as of April 2015; the government said that it planned to remove it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Religious_ex...
In other words, you don't want to believe that someone else's misfortune might not be (only) the result of their actions, else it calls your own belief about your success into question.
This is why Obama's seemingly unremarkable comments in 2016 about how we all depend on the roads and the work of others offended so many people.
Myself it seems blindingly obvious that I was lucky to be born in a rich country, to have moved to another rich country (USA) and have the benefit of huge investments (physical, moral and financial) by others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
It's a convenient means to opt out of addressing social ills while simultaneously not feeling like that choice might come back to bite them in the butt someday.
More succinctly: "It is your fault for being a bad person. Society didn't do this to you. Not my problem."
If you're happy to live without any of those things, then fine -- don't pay taxes.
Last night the outdoor temperature here was -20 C (-4 F). In conditions like this, it's basic human behaviour to give shelter to those in need. I gladly pay taxes so that the government can solve the problem in the most efficient way for the society. It would be much more expensive to let the ER and health care system handle these people when they get severely frostbitten outside.
This is an actual worst case scenario in our country. If you think we're a little psychotic, it's because if we've experienced poverty in our lives at all, that daily lottery draw has been in the back of our minds since. That sort of insecurity just does not go away.
More importantly you should have read the article until the end. It mentions that the program pays for itself. In other words, the government spends less by providing this housing to the homeless, because the savings due to medical/emergency services are _larger_ than the costs of providing the housing.
From a pure money perspective, it sounds like they cost less to society when they are provided housing, so your concern is somewhat moot if you only look at the monetary side of things (which is, I believe, the angle you were concerned about).
This is because in Swedens housing projects are foremostly aimed for foreigners. Even the web-page helping the "hemlösa" seems to be mostly aimed for EU-citizens, meaning beggars from Romania.
Still, according to this thread, spending on SF homeless comes out to $40k per year. You could in theory house and feed a person for that much. So where's all that money going? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16645258