- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Currently cities have a massive problem with extremely poor and homeless people. I have been trying to understand why people of such poverty would live in areas with such high costs of living.
Why is it that a company can move an employee to other regions for his/her job, career oriented people tend to move to where the jobs are; yet the homeless and poor do not feel this applies to them?
I've spent my life growing up in both big cities and small towns, there's really no difference except for a more open and tight community in the smaller towns. The cost of living in these smaller towns are litterally nothing.
For the same price of giving handouts to a person on the streets in a major city, the same person can actually pay rent, buy food and be integrated into society. Therefore I propose we as citizens demand people who cannot work, live or survive in the cities be moved to rural towns where they can a) get off the street, b) lead a normal life, c) not die from homelessness, d) get a sense of community and hopefully get back on their feet.
It just seems like we are going in circles on this issue and we as tax payers should not put up with investments with no return. Notice I am not arguing against any social program here, just that funds can be appreciated/realized in a different environment.
Why is it that a company can move an employee to other regions for his/her job, career oriented people tend to move to where the jobs are; yet the homeless and poor do not feel this applies to them?
I've spent my life growing up in both big cities and small towns, there's really no difference except for a more open and tight community in the smaller towns. The cost of living in these smaller towns are litterally nothing.
For the same price of giving handouts to a person on the streets in a major city, the same person can actually pay rent, buy food and be integrated into society. Therefore I propose we as citizens demand people who cannot work, live or survive in the cities be moved to rural towns where they can a) get off the street, b) lead a normal life, c) not die from homelessness, d) get a sense of community and hopefully get back on their feet.
It just seems like we are going in circles on this issue and we as tax payers should not put up with investments with no return. Notice I am not arguing against any social program here, just that funds can be appreciated/realized in a different environment.