If you subsidise people so they don't need to accept "crappy jobs" then it distorts the market instead of making it more "free" because now a potential worker with fewer skills valued by the market doesn't need to make his living by taking a job that is adequate for his level of education/skills.
> If those crappy jobs are necessary, they will have to improve, either by making the jobs more fun or interesting, or increasing the pay.
You make this sound as if an employer simply can raise the pay of his employees without taking into account the realities of the market.
Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it.
No, duress (which is what the prospect of death is) does not make a market more free. If you are forced to accept a crappy deal because otherwise you will die, you are not making a free decision. A fair deal in a free market is one that you can afford to say no to.
> Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it.
And for some services or products there simply isn't a viable market. If it's necessary to keep people in poverty to keep it viable, then I say we're better off without it.
What duress are you talking about? No one in the EU or the US will actually die if they don't take some crappy job.
These people are free to live in a tent and dive into trashcans for food if they don't like to work, which isn't nice but this certainly isn't death! It's just a crappy lifestyle.
It's just they don't want to live in a tent and they want to have a smartphone, a car and enjoy all the things that the working population enjoys.
> which isn't nice but this certainly isn't death!
It took me literally five seconds of searching to find a study [1] that notes that homeless people in the UK have a death rate that starts at twice that of people with homes and increases up to six times that of people with homes with age.
This isn't surprising considering the alcohol/drug abuse and crime among homeless people.
The reason why their death rate is higher is their state of mind.
It causes them to not take that crappy job that barely affords them a normal life and can potentially open up new perspectives for the future and instead choose to do nothing and hang out with the wrong people until it is too late and they end up on the street.
I don't see how giving them free money will in any way change their psychological condition. (of course there are always exceptions)
No I did not claim this. I wrote that drug and alcohol abuse is affecting more homeless people than others. This is obviously one of the causes why the death rate for homeless people is higher.
But you are obviously not interested in a normal discussion since you just try to read something into my statements to attack me.
> If those crappy jobs are necessary, they will have to improve, either by making the jobs more fun or interesting, or increasing the pay.
You make this sound as if an employer simply can raise the pay of his employees without taking into account the realities of the market.
Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it.