🇳🇱
I have spent a life time trying to help get people out of homelessness. Many times I have taken homeless people in, given them a home, money for education (if they want to go that route) or other training, and all the support and resources they could need to get on their feet.
My expiuernce is always the same, if you just given them resources without conditions on it without fail they will just waste the resources and do little if anything to get out of the situation. However when reasonable conditions are put on the support, conditions which require the person to become more marketable and skilled, then there is a fairly decent successrate.
My position is simple, I will not enable poor people to keep repeating the same bad habits and perpetuate the problem, even making it worse. If I help someone I make sure I **actually** help and not make things worse through enablement.
@freemo @RyanbeLyin @scottsantens To add to that - layoffs are actually fairly recent as a thing historically ( https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/the-history-of-the-layoff/article_8963c1b1-3903-5ec7-a9df-fca08b13ee6f.html ) - the best you see is military discharging, and *even the Romans* had an idea for supporting those who couldn't go back to their previous job; they invented the welfare system.
To some extent, welfare is just "Insufficient UBI.", so we essentially already *do* it, just...intentionally cruelly?
Huh? If your laid off and find there isnt a market you then learn a skill in a market that is profitable. As stated as long as your learnign a skill the government should help you, so not sure why you think this raises an interesting point, it doesnt, my scenario would address this fine as-is
@freemo @RyanbeLyin @scottsantens My point isn't being laid off, it's learning a new skill, then getting a job in that new skill...*then* getting laid off.
Like, really early on. Not so early on that it's actually being fired or terminated during initial early months, but within a year, or just after a year, for a skill that needs training that takes longer than a year.
@freemo @RyanbeLyin @scottsantens Also, you forget that, no matter how much "Training" you do, most jobs expect you to have 3 years' work experience in the field...for entry level jobs.
Welfare can support you while you look for that job, moot point. The discussion is about UBI vs welfare, not UBI vs nothing.
@freemo @RyanbeLyin @scottsantens I think you vastly overestimate how much welfare pays out.
It does not cover rent, let alone anything else that you generally need to both get a job, and then retain said job.
Huh, I literally grew up on welfare until I used it to get out of welfare... I think I know quite well what it pays considering.
I also dont recall making any assertions about what welfare actually pays.. I made quite a few statements about what it should pay....
> My point isn't being laid off, it's learning a new skill, then getting a job in that new skill...*then* getting laid off.
Sure and that process should be supported by welfare, which should get them through it.
> Like, really early on. Not so early on that it's actually being fired or terminated during initial early months, but within a year, or just after a year, for a skill that needs training that takes longer than a year.
Sure, and you should have welfare support should you be pushing forward with your career.
@freemo @RyanbeLyin @scottsantens Query: what will you do when, after being given all those resources and education...you find yourself in any of these situations (
https://layoffs.fyi/ )?
Not all retraining and support is going to be successful - note that this is the *tech* sector, the sector people expect other industries to have their employees move to after automation makes *their* job redundant.