You’re getting massively down voted. I really feel like this is a huge obstacle to mitigating poverty in the first world. People focus on appearances; getting rid of things that look poor even when they actually help people.
Yes, it’s upsetting to see people taking such desperate measures. But those measures were taken in response to desperate need. If you fixed the need, then they would go away on their own. If you need to apply force to remove them, then you have not.
It’s the same reason people oppose public transit, dense housing, and informal businesses. Things that are just part of life in the third world. But wealthy and middle class westerners have decided on behalf of poor westerners that poor westerners are top good for them.
Agent641@lemmy.world 4 days ago
What the fuck? This is an example of the extreme commodification of poverty and the state’s failure to protect its citizens.
Demuniac@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s neither. I don’t remember the context exactly but none of the text on the picture is true.
anachrohack@lemmy.world 4 days ago
As compared to today, where we humanely let homeless people sleep under bridges instead
Agent641@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The states didn’t fix anything, they only legislate against its visibility when its exploitation becomes troublesome to them
anachrohack@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It appears to me that we actively made the problem worse by removing shelter options from the market. It seems like you USED to be able to pay a small fee to sleep somewhere with a roof over your head, and now your own options for shelter are $1800/mo in rent, or sleeping on the street
Fizz@lemmy.nz 4 days ago
Its a states failure to protect its citizens but its not a commodificaton of poverty. Poverty has always had value and always been a commodity. They aren’t creating the poverty or the circumstances that would perpetuate it. They’re just fulfilling a need so its really no harm.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 days ago
What?
A modern circumstance would be refusal to raise min wage to a reasonable wage. That’s absolutely a circumstance abetting poverty. If you don’t believe in that, then unfettered capitalism is commodifying poverty and increasing disparity.
You either maximize rules and services to prevent poverty, or you allow exploitation to increase it.
xavier666@lemm.ee 4 days ago
Unless they were in cahoots with the government to ensure housing prices remain high. I’m not saying that was the case back then but the incentive was always there.