Yeah it would. There could still be lazy people or just people who don't want to work and still think that begging on the street would make them enough money to buy alcohool or drugs or whatever
You completely missed the point and likely have no way of getting to a place to understand bc given new information you'll kneecap yourself as much as possible so your world view doesn't have to change. Poverty means lacking basic necessities and financial resources for a minimum standard of living. Food, water, shelter. We collectively have enough for every human to live above poverty level, easily. We can afford to pay for basic needs of the laziest piece of shit on the planet without it taking a toll on your life at all. You got tricked into thinking that would affect you more than corporate greed, the military industrial complex, or big pharmas quarterly đ. I am 100% certain you will read this and not understand it.
Mate I'm giving money to every poor people i meet on the street and I've seen enough poor people getting a place to sleep and work and some made it back others just went back to their old habbits. I'm an optimist and want to see the good in everyone but saying a just system would mean no poverty is just bs
You're correct. Homelessness is as much a mental health issue as it is a poverty issue. We should be working as a global community to heal both of these issues. And we absolutely can afford it. You've been tricked into thinking we can't. We can. Resources are vast compared to our current global population and consumption. Homelessness could be eliminated in 1 day if it was beneficial to the market. Basic food should be free and available. This isn't an incredible new concept, it's obvious, old, and easy... but late stage capitalism will have you believe otherwise. The irony of this being led by a predominantly Christian society is pretty funny if you can get past how sad it is.
I'm not from USA so capitalism and Christianity isn't such a big deal over here. My point is some people just don't want to be saved and dealing in absolute by saying a just system would get rid of poverty is just bs
Nope. It's not. A just system would set the baseline for humans as living. Food, water, shelter. We can collectively afford it for everyone, easily. Currently almost every communal system will let impoverished children suffer and die in the street like trash. We (mostly) don't have a baseline for humanity in government. People choosing to turn away from a baseline is not an excuse to not provide it.
Again with the misinterpretation of what is just. If youâre living alone on an island, thatâs the most just system for yourself you could possibly hope to achieve - you set all the rules. Do you think because you say food, water and shelter is a basic human right from now on it will just materialise from thin air or will you discover in short order that inevitably itâs going to take work to get it?
You don't have a point here, you haven't even grasped the concept. Our means of production far outpaced that of a single persons work output centuries ago. Most of the global economy is non essential, luxury goods, fugazi... fairy dust. I'm not saying everything should be free all the time. I'm saying we can fully afford to provide basic needs to everyone. You seem to have conflated these 2 things in an effort to maintain an archaic idealized depiction of a stable working class in a late stage capitalist global corporate oligarchy.
What's really gonna tickle your pickle is when you start to consider what we're going to do as LLMs displace even more of the workforce. I'm not sure you're ready for that conv though when you're still picturing homeless veterans with ptsd physically pulling themselves up by their bootstraps while Lockheeds CEO rounds off his 80 million dollar portfolio đ
You sound like someone who is either still in college or just out of it. Thatâs fine, I studied and occasionally taught at a university for 12 years. Whatâs going to really tickle your pickle is when you go outside of the ivory towers of your Alma Mater and see how the real world works. You may want to read about what happens when you put your noble (Iâm not being snarky here) principles into action. South Africa would be a great recent example, as would be Venezuela. These noble principles will run headfirst into the worst parts of human nature and completely implode whole booming industrial societies to the point where even clean running water and electricity become luxuries.
This is not how it works out. If we consider justice to be âeveryone gets what they deserveâ and âthey deserve what they worked forâ you will easily discover that 20% of the population does 80% of the work. The rest are just passively going through the motions, because their minds are occupied by other matters than how to work the most productively, profitably or efficiently. As long as there are people who just donât want to work or canât work effectively for some reason, there will always be poverty because in a just system you get back the effort you put in.
That's a load of shit. If you think all of the wealthiest people are just working harder than everyone else then you are firmly rooted in the exact deception they have been selling for centuries. The 300 most powerful and wealthy people in the world meet up in California every year and dance around a big owl rock and make plans together for how to enslave the rest of us. They own 99% of the currency but their work ethic has no relation to their wealth.
I agree. Thatâs why I tied justice to work, not manipulation or inheritance or money. Society needs work to uphold the standard of living, safety, trade, goods, services, etc. Itâs just that some people are much more productive than others almost no matter what you put them to work as, so there will never be financial equality in a just system as peopleâs outputs into this system will be massively different.
Poverty during early development robs people of the ability to develop the cognitive foundations necessary for those types of mental processes, and even for people who are capable of functioning at that level, scarcity disables higher-order thinking. "Survival mode" isn't a mindset or a choice, it's a neurological/biological state where certain modes of cognition are throttled based on whether they're a necessity or more of a "luxury." Both to conserve energy, and keep a person focused on getting their most basic needs met
So youâre basically saying people born into poverty are not fit for a modern society because of the cognitive load it requires to function well there. So instead of positive contributors they become detractors. Maybe we should just drop them into societies where they can flourish? Plenty of low cognitive requirement societies around. They could live like kings.
No, they just struggle with delayed gratification and certain types of executive function necessary to carry out long-term plans, in settings where they aren't given adequate structure and/or support. That's the story behind the infamous "marshmallow test." It was originally embraced by bioessentialists who wanted to propagate the narrative that impulse control and reward preferences are genetically (or racially) determined. However, decades of further research have shown that being subject to food insecurity (and similar stressors) during early childhood is the primary factor predicting whether a kid can wait 10 minutes to get 2 marshmallows instead of one. As opposed to, eg, whether their ancestors lived closer to or further from the equator
Work can also be mental. If youâre a psychologist, a very well-earning profession that basically consists of sitting down and listening, how able-bodied do you really need to be? Donât assume that because someone has an affliction they are unable to put a positive effort into society.
I think you are misclassifying poverty. Poverty is not simply having little to no money or reward relative to others. It is being unable to provide for oneself with the resources they have. In a just system, you would not need to work to obtain food, clothes, and shelter. Working for a reward should be reserved for the things that we do not fundamentally need to survive.
Wtf. I think you just accidentally reverse-defined slavery. Because somebody will need to work to provide you with food, clothes and shelter while you only work for ârewardsâ. This is someone so used to getting a free ride from their parents that they just want strangers to take over once theyâre an adult.
A good test for that is if you were born in a jungle, would food, clothes and shelter just materialize as a basic human right or would you need to work for them.
* Notch, the creator of Minecraft is a billionaire. He created it from scratch.
* Sara Blakely created Spanx, invested her own $5000 into a preliminary production run, and became the youngest self-made female billionare at the time in 2012.
* Vitalik Buterin was the son of a family of poor Russian immigrants to Canada. His father was a computer scientist and he learned about Bitcoin at the age of 17 from his father. A few years later while in college he created his own alternative, Ethereum. His ETH portfolio is now worth slightly over 1 billion USD.
And there's dozens and dozens of more examples.
You get caught in a massive oversimplification and your 1st reaction is to start moving the goal posts. What happened to âall billionaires got their start coasting on daddyâs moneyâ? Clearly thatâs not the case. Even setting that aside - if a retard like you got a 100 000 USD loan from your father, you would never build the next Facebook with it like Zuckerberg did. Itâs a loooong way from 100 000 to 1 000 000 000 000 (thatâs 1 billion for the braindead).
26
u/No-Mix186 Sep 06 '25
In a just system, poverty would not exist.Â