Personally I'm fine with redistribution of work. People should work less hours to make room for more people to be employed. When you see that 25% of the workforce is unemployed or employed only from time to time and the economy is stagnating, I take it as a good sign that the legal work hours should be reduced with 25% to make room for the rest of the workforce which is idling on welfare which in the end is taken from the ones who work.
Did you read the grandparent's comment? Some redistribution of wealth is a solution if many people are so much in debt as a result of study loans and unemployment. Being able to survive on your own, rather than living in your parent's basement, gives dignity.
It has worked great for Western European and Scandinavian countries.
>Being able to survive on your own, rather than living in your parent's basement, gives dignity
>It has worked great for Western European and Scandinavian countries.
Has it? According to a report by the UN, it would appear the median age by which half of young people have left their parental home is 26 for males and 24 for females [1].
In some areas of Western Europe, unemployment is as high as 25% [2] and is particularly affecting young people.
So could you please quantify your statement that it has worked great for Western European and Scandinavian countries?
I hasn't worked at all in most other cases, particularly in eastern European and ex-soviet countries.
But the world is not black and white. There is a vast space between 'free for all'-capitalism and state socialism.
You can empower people by giving everyone access to good education and giving decent social security. Where 'decent' means: being able to afford housing, eat, and travel for interviews. But not so much that it makes working unattractive.
Another method for empowering people is to make it possible to make a living with an 8 hour work day by introducing a minimum wage.
The introduction of minimum wage raises unemployment.
By the way, TFA is about Great Britain, which by all accounts has a great social security net. And as you can read in the article, the people specifically suffer from unemployment and the resulting feeling of worthlessness.
They don't suffer from hunger, lack of housing, debt or lack of material goods.
People do suffer from hunger. We have increased use of food banks.
People do also suffer from lack of housing. It is ridiculous to suggest that homelessness is mot a problem in England. Homelessness does not just include rough sleeping, but even rough sleeping is a problem in England.
People living on the street are not automatically entitled to a home.
Personal debt is also a massive problem in the UK.
Since the article is about young people there are some things you need to know: Housing Benefit is restricted for young people. The type of accommodation they can get is limited. (Young people here is "under 35" http://m.england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_a... )
Most government help is in the form of tax rebates.
The combination of "lower taxes" and "government handouts" cUses cognitive dissonance for some people - they want lower taxation because fuck government, but they don't want lower taxation for poor people they only want it for very rich people people because SOCIALISM.
Redistribution of wealth?