[yata69420]

Yes, eventually, and we will need programs for people in their 40s+ who have been cared for by their now deceased families. I suspect you're going to need hot pockets, video games, cots, showers, and they'll do ok. Maybe by then they'll be happy they're in a community together because they've been community deprived their entire lives. Who knows, this is a new problem.

But if you force them to "sink or swim" now, you're going to have a raging generation of 20-somethings with nothing to lose and contempt for the society and families that abandoned them. Also, did you notice the planet is literally burning?

For personal reasons, I'd like to keep society going a little longer. If we could not start a Joker breeding program, that'd be great.

[nradov]

I don't know about the Japanese, but I'm certainly not willing to pay taxes to provide free food, housing, and entertainment to people who are capable of working but choose not to. Their happiness isn't my concern, and they can go get a job no matter how miserable it makes them.

The vast majority of people eventually figure out a way to "swim" when they're left with no alternative.

[imtringued]

By paying taxes to provide free housing and entertainment to people not only do you bribe them to not revolt as you are the one to blame for their "laziness" by working more than you demand in labor, it is also better for the economy and the working people as working to feed or house someone is more respectable than working for the sake of some billionaire that caused the hikkikomoriproblem.

Maybe you should start fixing the problem where most people don't work for their own sake or their fellow people but actively compete over fewer and fewer necessary working hours as productivity keeps going up without the economy growing and everyone insists they need a full time 40 hour job.

Pretty much all unemployment can be explained by the laziness of the financial capitalists rather than the people doing the work. Investors being job creators is ridiculous because saving money destroys jobs so the net job creation is zero and it is actually the opposite, saving forces investment and hence nobody gets moral superiority by creating jobs because if they don't they are massive assholes.

In European countries like Spain the elderly voted in heavy labor restrictions against firing seniors and introduced huge severance packages which means companies fire young people first instead of old people who have more than enough money and would have even more after severance pay. What this means is that the old are hoarding all the income opportunities while simultaneously saving for retirement which decreases aggregate demand and effectively makes it pointless for young people to work for their own money and very profitable for them to just stay at home while their parents pretend they are the productive breadwinners. The sink or swim/tough love idea would require parents giving up their job for the sake of the young and that is unlikely to happen. No, the economy isn't growing faster than productivity, you can't grow your way to a job for everyone.

[Dracophoenix]

> for the sake of some billionaire that caused the hikkikomoriproblem.

Who exactly caused the hikikomori problem? Hermits and recluses have existed for as long as society has.

> Maybe you should start fixing the problem where most people don't work for their own sake or their fellow people but actively compete over fewer and fewer necessary working hours as productivity keeps going up without the economy growing and everyone insists they need a full time 40 hour job.

> Pretty much all unemployment can be explained by the laziness of the financial capitalists rather than the people doing the work. Investors being job creators is ridiculous because saving money destroys jobs so the net job creation is zero and it is actually the opposite, saving forces investment and hence nobody gets moral superiority by creating jobs because if they don't they are massive assholes. In European countries like Spain the elderly voted in heavy labor restrictions against firing seniors and introduced huge severance packages which means companies fire young people first instead of old people who have more than enough money and would have even more after severance pay.

That's unions for you. It's not a problem of capitalism but rather the eventuality of state-backed labor. Labor is dominated by those most experienced in labor politics. If the state is what gives them power in the first place, why wouldn't they use it to their advantage? Considering that the elderly would have between 40-50 years of experience in expanding their influence, they would already have every single way to extract as much money as possible long before posterity would reach conception. Pension funds and Social Security, are among the top tools in robbing to young Peter to pay elder Paul.

> What this means is that the old are hoarding all the income opportunities while simultaneously saving for retirement which decreases aggregate demand and effectively makes it pointless for young people to work for their own money and very profitable for them to just stay at home while their parents pretend they are the productive breadwinners. The sink or swim/tough love idea would require parents giving up their job for the sake of the young and that is unlikely to happen. No, the economy isn't growing faster than productivity, you can't grow your way to a job for everyone.

There's no way to "hoard" an opportunity. Opportunities come and go based on circumstances and conditions all of which are bound by time, place, necessity, and ability. If they aren't used, they disappear. Opportunities may be created, but they don't work like participation trophies. Just as you mention that there's no way to grow a job for everyone, there's no way to create an opportunity for everyone.

The sink or swim is eventually going to happen. Neetbux will only delay the inevitable. As far as free housing is concerned, in Japan there are plenty of houses at a very low cost in depopulated countryside towns. They can always move out and get a place of their own.

[sneak]

> but I'm certainly not willing to pay taxes to provide free food, housing, and entertainment to people who are capable of working but choose not to.

Above you suggested that they join the military. Where do you think the money for military food, housing, equipment, training, and salaries comes from?

[nisegami]

Would you be opposed to using your tax dollars to fund a voluntary euthanasia program for these people?