Yes, but even if none of that was true it would still be the right thing to do. We shouldn't have to justify humanitarian social policies by their national economic benefits.

Which is why i don't like this type of argument. What happens when you run into a policy to help people that doesn't have economic upsides, that is a drain on the national economy? By using this argument for morally correct social policies that happen to benefit the economy, you pre-emptively capitulate on those that don't. What about policies supporting disabled people, for instance? Should they only be enacted so long as said disabled people can contribute to the national economy? A slippery slope towards eugenics...

[–] Dialectical_Idealist@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with your point but we should avoid equivocating our words. The capitalists sees housing as a financial investment while we see it as an investment in the well being of the person/community. Housing may give a "return" on the productivity of the workforce, but we should house people regardless of financial incentive.

[–] aguasemgas@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 11 months ago

See that? That's what people should be investing instead of the other 2 bullshits. It solves the problem and does not make everybody unconfortable every place they go