interviews with homeless down on their luck

I would expect it to be much harder if they are expecting/demanding to start from where they left off.

Or one of a great many other excuses could be claimed as the causation. The solution is more often a result of how one reacts to the causes, not in trying to place blame or claim to be blameless.

 

We should be solving the structural problems of our economy.

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in an at-will employment States, can solve most of our capital problems in our Republic.

Simply because, it is more cost effective than Any form of means testing.

 

Well, if you choose to be blind to the economic causes, you have no alternative but to blame the victims of the economic forces for their own situation.

 

They are victims of collapsing capitalism. We have been told for a very long time that if we would just funnel more money into the hands of the rich, it would trickle down to us. Forty years later we have outrageous wealth and income disparity. From 1980 to 2016 the income of the top 3,000 people went up 600% while 160 million people saw ZERO increase in their real income. We now have 40 years of proof that the "trickle-down" theory was nothing more than a trick to further enrich the wealthiest among us. And now the Republican majority in congress is working hard to complete the job with "austerity". They are stopping every expense they can that doesn't benefit the rich to save money so they can redirect it and REDISTRIBUTE IT to the rich with corporate perks, tax cuts, and other welfare for the rich.

 

top 1% pay 42 % of all taxes not 1% so top 1% are getting ripped off by poor and middle class!!

 

In a properly functioning economic system, money flows from a buyer to a seller.
The vast majority of persons begin their lives with little more than their physical/mental labours to sell.
If such persons are the victim of anything at all, it would not be capitalism which Wilson in 1913 laid the groundwork for perpetual growth, but instead our monetary system which by perpetually diminishing the relative value of what we call money increases the costs of things which have intrinsic and long lasting value, most noticeable being land and housing.
By eliminating the corrective action of equal offsetting deflation prices and wealth accumulation are assured to grow more constantly with losses occurring only temporarily.
This is what a fiat monetary system imposes upon capitalism.
Look at the numbers, they tell the true facts.
What was the average income in 1913?
What is the current average income?
What did land cost in 1913?
What does the same land cost today?
How much did it cost to build a house in 1913?
How much does it cost to build the same house today?
What did it cost to feed a family in 1913?
What does it cost to feed a family today?
The above questions are but a start, and if you then look at what the average annual rate of change of each item, perhaps then you will understand better.

 

Krugman's most famous contribution is understanding an intra-industry trade which celebrates free trade. You should love the fellow! And regarding Europe? The problem is actually a conservatism that has enabled hysteresis in unemployment.

 

We should be engendering full employment of resources in any given market, but especially markets involving human capital.

Solving simple poverty in any at-will employment State through unemployment compensation for being unemployed; could ensure more efficient markets in any given, local economy.

Adam Smith would be, more applicable.

 

Europe is more socialist than the US. Socialism discourages work and encourages sloth that is why Europe economy has chronically high rates of unemployment and what even socialist economists call euro sclerosis .

 

thank goodness for modern times. now we can merely use computer modeling to do in minutes, what used to take years.

 

There's no sliding scale of socialism. You either have socialism or you don't. Europe is typically Liberal Democratic, but it has suffered the consequences of neoliberalism for some time

 

however did you reach your conclusion regarding Socialism?

 

Through direct reference to socialist political economy, obviously.

 

Social-ism is usually a requirement for States and statism to exist.

 

Don't be silly, this is america; our aristocracy has more bling than your aristocracy.

 

Cobblers. Anarchism, for example, says up yours to the state. Market socialism, in contrast, eliminates the need for government interventionism

 

lol. Any dictionary supports my contention and gainsays, your contention.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social

 

If you think you can understand a political economic term, referring to an economic paradigm, by defining social then you're even less cunning than I thought!

 

Any political-economy exists within that jurisdiction.

 

Back to your tendency to reply with meaningless remark? Tut tut!

 

The US political economy is unique due to our form of social-ism, not our form of capital-ism.

 

You continue to peddle guff. Why don't you actually refer to political economy for a change? Actual content!

 

I have. Our US political economy is unique and differentiated from any other political economy; due to our form of Social-ism, not our form of Capital-ism.

Our Constitution organizes our Body Politic and society.

 

This is just repetition of guff. Have a good day, I can't be arsed with it

 

I was homeless for a while, by choice. I had a car, a bachelors degree and some money saved. Even so, it was crazy hard to get out of it. I travelled all over looking for a place and a job that I didn't hate. Then I was just loojing for *anything*. I had given up and was on my way home to move back in with my folks and work for my dad when opportunity literally fell in my lap when I least expected it. I got lucky.

Having spent time with the homeless, I can attest that the bulk of them are either too crazy for prosperous autonomy or have no desire for it. But for the minority of them that can and do, its no easy task, far easier to 'get stuck' there.