Let's flip it upside down: never before[1] in history could you be bared from earning your food from your own work, and same for housing. That's the entire reason why people need welfare: there's no berries or roots to harvest, no game to hunt, no fields to farm, no vacant lot to build your house on with the help of your family and friends. All of this is behind the control of the gatekeepers who own the means of subsistence. The modern world is a prison in that regard.
> Nope, sorry. You‘re saying this from a privileged western perspective.
No, you misread me: barely nobody with your or my standard of living would voluntarily adopt this lifestyle. You act as if the ability not to work was a luxury that made all this worthwhile, but the truth is almost nobody ever voluntarily leave the wage-slavery state to take advantage of this luxury. Why that in your opinion?
> I‘m not comparing humans of the past, I‘m comparing it with the huge majority of people living on earth, right now. A person living on German welfare is so far removed from the average poor Afghan farmer, people in Favelas living in poverty , Ethiopians living under warlord rule or even the average poor person in the US they might as well be royalty
As I said in another thread, you cannot compare struggle between regions of the world or time periods, because all the poor people in the world today have access to things even royalty couldn't dream about. Infant death in Afghanistan (45/1000) is comparable to the level in Germany in the 50s and is roughly a tens of European infant mortality until the beginning of 19th century. Even in royal families, child death were consistently a terrible problem for millennia. And that's a problem that's almost non-existent in today Afghanistan. Same for food, as famine as disappeared almost everywhere in the world and people in Favelas have access to food in a diversity and quality (both in taste and in food safety) that would make aristocrats from the past in awe. Does that mean that Afghan farmers and people in Favelas are not struggling by your definition?
> Skipping meals is not routine, that‘s untrue as well. We have soup kitchens here. I’ve been there myself as a poor student.
Please read the massive literature about how many people refuse to go there even when it's close to their home (it's not always, especially in suburban or rural places) because they're “worth more than this”.
> It‘s supposed to have you meet your basic human needs. We give our people so much more than that. Public schooling, free access to public pools, additional housing money in cities, free internet for people on welfare, and a car.
You fail to realize how almost all of these (that is, everything except access to public pools) can be basic human needs in modern societies: schools are a no-brainer of course and I really don't understand how you can put it in your list, but so is housing. Cars and internet connection are only necessities because we shaped the world around it, but here's the world we live in: internet is basically mandatory for many government-related stuff and so are cars when you don't live in cities. Locking people out of the normal world isn't a rational move no matter how “morally good” it sounds. (Also, since I can't find it easily on the web, does welfare in Germany genuinely provide access to a car? That sounds really clever actually, because the lack of mobility is a huge blocker for people to get back to the job market once they've lost access to a car here in France, and we are subsidizing people who are practically stuck without opportunity to get a job which is a terrible policy).
[1] at least not before the “enclosure movement” in Britain in the early modern period, where this madness came from.
