Right, because even that requires someone do work to support people on welfare.
>> Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.
It would lead to quick death if we all tried to live that way at once.
I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.
Oh, yes, absolutely. But this is moving the goalpost. The question was not whether one could stop working without having to make changes to their lifestyle. The question was whether one could stop working without literally starving to death. In most developed countries, the answer is yes. No one really starves to death due to poverty in developed nations anymore.
I am not too familiar with the situation with the poverty in the US. Do people there still die from poverty-induced starvation in the 21st century?
Getting thrown in jail will get you fed without working. But most people would consider that an absurd tradeoff. So we pretend it’s not an option, moving the goalposts in order to have a more interesting discussion about how to stop working without upending your life or withdrawing from society.
I would argue you can already live a comfortable life with a minimum of work (say 20h per week part time at big city minimum wage, $13/hr). For example, in Chicago you could rent a room with heating and AC, cook your own basic but flavorful meals, have healthcare through Medicaid and basic transportation on the bus/trains, thrift store clothing and a cheap cell phone with data plan for internet.
So we concede. smnrchrds wins the point. It's not a point we cared about, though, and we're going to move on to talk about a question we find more interesting: Can a person live a decent life without working?
Here is how I read this:
"Can I live a decent life?" - > Can other people make sure I have what I need when and where I need it?
"...without working?" -> ...without me doing anything for them in return?
Sounds awesome. For me.
The point of welfare is to make not working so unpleasant that a minimum wage job is less work to hold down.
This is true across the whole developed world, the majority of which I have lived in.
I think the question needs to be a little more nuanced than that. Here are a few resources to get you started:
https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-i...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-...
https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/11/23/hungry-at...
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/54-million-people-america...
Is it? What statistics do you have to support that? And do those statistics track poor nutrition due to poverty as a component, or do they just ignore that?
> more than a third of the country still lives in an area where able-bodied adults are exempt food stamp work requirements.
How many countries allow people to move there for the purpose of collecting public assistance?
Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. But in many countries, it does not go one inch beyond this. Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.