He has a job, an education, isn't addicted to drugs, isn't violent and is generally a well-adjusted and contributing (more or less) member of society. All of that takes a lot of work, and merits some appreciation. How is that not "being better" than drug addicts, drug dealers, muggers or single moms on welfare, or even people who just watch reality TV all day? Many normal people put in a lot of work into being self-sufficient and productive, instead of relying on free money from others.
Single mothers are, in many cases, that way because of making bad life choices. When you're poor and in a bad relationship (or in some cases not even in a relationship), kids aren't such a good idea (or at least that's how it seems to me). No one forces them to have kids (unless they've been raped, in which case I'm more sympathetic to them; how often is that the case?)
Maybe people being stuck in shitty situations is a consequence of things beyond their control more often than your willingness to apportion blame is willing to admit.
One possible alternative is to deny them welfare, thus endangering the health of the children they care for, thus forcing the state to take the children into custody.
Financially that puts a burden on the state that now has to employ someone to take care of the children, whereas it was getting that for 'free' via the mother.
Also, being a better person should be a moral judgment not a judgement on their financial state.
I'd be very interested to see a citation for this. You seem to be very knowledgeable on the topic, could you provide one?
Could you give some good examples of why a woman would have kids then wind up on welfare? IMHO the only 2 reasonable examples are raped women and widows.
If you took the time to talk to "those people" you would likely find that more often than not they are victims of circumstance out of their control, plain and simple.
Just as much as the supposed "wizards" of new tech startups are in reality about 90% lucky and 10% self determined.
I have talked to "those people" (I'm from a far less privileged background than you think) and, while I do admit there are some good people who drew the short stick, I have also seen a lot of assholes. Not everyone who is poor is that way because they're "unfortunate", many of them actually have bad habits and work ethic.
EDIT: My point is that there are people from crappy families who still manage to get very far in life. There is such a thing as individual responsibility.
My point is that in between those two extremes exists the majority of homeless people who are mentally ill and who got to that place because of circumstances beyond their control. If you believe that the majority of homeless people fall into the lazy asshole category, then I'm sorry but you're delusional. We as a society should expend energy and resources fixing this problem at its root, and not just brushing it away into a new neighbourhood each time it becomes gentrified.
This raises an interesting question: what is the root (I'm genuinely asking)? It seems like a hard question along the lines of "what makes people mentally ill?". While I'm against permanent welfare, I wouldn't mind if my taxes went to curing these people and making sure they become functioning, productive members of society. I don't really know how or if we can do that.
There ought to be some basic ground rules that are enforced in public spaces, even if it takes horrible Guiliani-style police state tactics. Whether you're homeless or a well-off tech dweeb, you shouldn't be allowed to poop on the street, run around screaming at people, obstruct traffic, openly deal drugs or stolen goods. If you're doing any of these things, you should be instantly and forcefully removed, regardless of your circumstances. You can be pro-civility without being anti-homeless.
None of which requires police-state tactics to bring into check. But the fact that so many people from well-to-do half of the city seem ready to clamour for such tactics says, well, lots of things.
Aside from that, if we're supposed to condone people in our public places making them unsafe and unsanitary, what's the point of having them/paying for them at all?
That some in the tech aristocracy in SF might consider him a viable candidate wouldn't surprise me in the least. And if you can enough people to join you at the polls, well, you more than deserve to have him.
> Guiliani should run for mayor of SF
You don't mean this because you don't know what it means to have the police force we have here. Also, we have street people too. So it turns out, 'your problems' doesn't just magically disappear when you get different mayor in office.
He moved to SF in 2011 and maybe has a few million dollars from a founding few startups. That sure seems like a lot to people below him. That is peanuts to the people above him who run the city.
The simplistic two tier breakdown is a hindrance to understanding unless it is understood as the divisive control structure it is.