Any individual who walks through a major city is liable to see a homeless person. They lie on the streets, beg for money, and are generally considered unsightly by those fortunate enough to be in better circumstances; where a lack of stability and poverty intersect, homelessness will always be a given. The question that this brings to mind is how will society react – will these people just be left as they are, or will the government try and intervene for good or for ill? What sort of intervention – carefully regulated and limited job training and shelters with time limits and strict rules, or a gentle, unhindered support for as long as a person need in order to get back on their feet? The plight of the homeless people additionally evokes the
…show more content…
Specifically, she cites the life of a girl named Dasani and her parents, Chanel and Supreme – while they originally received a temporary rent subsidy that allowed them to live in a small apartment (in turn limiting their cost to society), when that expired they were forced back into the shelter system, which costs the city nearly double what the rent subsidy did (Elliot, 2), as in an apartment they could cook their own food – in the shelter food had to be provided to them. So why does the city allow this – a crueler, cruder method at a higher cost? The city’s claim is that the intention of the rent subsidy is to give those unable to support themselves a chance to ‘turn their lives around’, but in the reality of a city like Manhattan, with a cost of living well above what many low earning workers can ever even hope to afford, expecting a family to magically be able to afford rent after a few months is both overly optimistic, and may as well be doomed to failure in all but a few outlier …show more content…
Elliot’s piece is that the city has absolutely no obligation to help, and that all aid to those in need should be temporary in order to prevent people from leeching off of the government instead of working; those unable to support themselves should be left to their own devices or depend solely on the charity of nonprofits and individuals. “But the Times and Elliott… seem to think it’s the city’s job to provide comfortable lives to outrageously irresponsible parents” (‘The New York Times’ Homeless Hooey’). The article shows the belief that life’s misfortunes should be born solely by those suffering them – if someone is in pain, they must have caused it, and should take responsibility, but when this approach is taken, there are consequences for more than just the people causing the problem. In the specific case of Chanel and Supreme, it is clear that they are are not exactly blameless for their plight, even when they do have a choice – both struggle with drug addictions, and have trouble keeping jobs even when sober. While advocates for natural consequences simply ask the question “Will it be more profitable for the government to abandon this family, or support the family in hope that they will eventually become economically productive?”, they ignore the reality of life: the part the truly makes this an ethically difficult question is that Chanel and Supreme are not the only ones who suffer when welfare benefits are reduced. The children are
Specifically, she cites the life of a girl named Dasani and her parents, Chanel and Supreme – while they originally received a temporary rent subsidy that allowed them to live in a small apartment (in turn limiting their cost to society), when that expired they were forced back into the shelter system, which costs the city nearly double what the rent subsidy did (Elliot, 2), as in an apartment they could cook their own food – in the shelter food had to be provided to them. So why does the city allow this – a crueler, cruder method at a higher cost? The city’s claim is that the intention of the rent subsidy is to give those unable to support themselves a chance to ‘turn their lives around’, but in the reality of a city like Manhattan, with a cost of living well above what many low earning workers can ever even hope to afford, expecting a family to magically be able to afford rent after a few months is both overly optimistic, and may as well be doomed to failure in all but a few outlier …show more content…
Elliot’s piece is that the city has absolutely no obligation to help, and that all aid to those in need should be temporary in order to prevent people from leeching off of the government instead of working; those unable to support themselves should be left to their own devices or depend solely on the charity of nonprofits and individuals. “But the Times and Elliott… seem to think it’s the city’s job to provide comfortable lives to outrageously irresponsible parents” (‘The New York Times’ Homeless Hooey’). The article shows the belief that life’s misfortunes should be born solely by those suffering them – if someone is in pain, they must have caused it, and should take responsibility, but when this approach is taken, there are consequences for more than just the people causing the problem. In the specific case of Chanel and Supreme, it is clear that they are are not exactly blameless for their plight, even when they do have a choice – both struggle with drug addictions, and have trouble keeping jobs even when sober. While advocates for natural consequences simply ask the question “Will it be more profitable for the government to abandon this family, or support the family in hope that they will eventually become economically productive?”, they ignore the reality of life: the part the truly makes this an ethically difficult question is that Chanel and Supreme are not the only ones who suffer when welfare benefits are reduced. The children are