Ending the poverty vs ending recidivism

Post Reply New Topic

My employer today asked me what the difference is between combatting recidivism amongst criminals though employment vs combatting poverty among the disabled also through employment.

I said that combatting the two are different because their needs and personal qualities are different.


To combat the poverty among the disabled, it takes a willingness to work as a team, and a willingness to expect the disabled isn't disabled for no reason, that they are just as disabled operating the grills, ovens and stoves and deep fryers here..

As they ever were pushing the pencils at school.

The disabled don't win, unless the team wins.

It also takes usually higher wages, because the disabled have so often been held back and often have very poor credit.

And have lower standards of living than other people with the same wages..
Because they have needs that must be met now.

For instance, my coworker who washes dishes alongside me has a car.

You see, Because I need transportation right now..
And your paychecks to me provide me with that..

I got here on a Tao TBR7D 250cc Dirtbike..
And got here yesterday on a Bintelli Scorch 150cc scooter.

That situation has arisen in my life, because I lived with my parents until they died.. and with no inheritance worth anything..
No house, no car, no wad of cash..
No nothing.


Not uncommon at all for the disabled.



To combat recidivism amongst the criminal element...
It takes very strong workplace policies that don't bend.
Although both require acceptance.


Also not uncommon for the disabled is a work record of many jobs over a short period of time...
Which is a cycle that has to be broken before the poverty can be defeated.

I think that ending poverty amongst disabled people is more important than ending recidivism. The reason I think this way is because disabled people were never given a chance to succeed in the past and that it's been overdue for a long time. I believe that every life is worth living and everybody should be given a chance to be successful, no matter how disabled they are. It would be nice if everybody could afford to live on their own, disabled or not.

It’s just as important to combat recidivism….because recidivism means the criminal has committed a crime again, quite possibly with a victim.

Ideally, there would be no victims, anywhere.

I like your observation that crooks and gimps need different types of accommodations.
Reducing overall economic inequality tends to fix both problems. If the rich were not sucking up so much production, and causing so much waste to make money, supporting the handicapped, the losers in the genetic lottery we all entered, would not be difficult. There was a ghetto kid who won a scholarship to a top-notch school. He said that the very hardest thing to get used to was the notion that he could drop his backpack beside the sports field for practise, and expect to see it again. Petty thieves are handicapped at holding jobs one way or another. Major thieves don't need low-grade jobs, but if there was no rich class for them to try to blend in to, they would be less motivated and easier to find.

Personally, I think that if a choice needed to be made, it'd be fairer to put more resources to helping the disabled get employed than former criminals. This is because criminals have made the choices that made them in to criminals themselves, unlike majority of disabled people who are so of no fault of their own (if someone drinks and drives and ends up in a wheelchair because of it, that's on them, for example, but most aren't like that.) Of course, ideally, if there were enough resources, both should be worked on, but like I said, if I had to pick... or at least, helping the disabled would be what my moral compass says, but if we take in to account which would benefit the society as a whole more, that might actually be helping those former criminals. You see, I think that when an average disabled person isn't doing well, it'll affect themselves first and foremost, plus some immediate friends and family if they got any, while in a criminal's case, it could affect all those plus put outsiders and their property at risk if the person starts committing crimes again, so giving them a solid sense of what they could have without committing crimes would benefit society more... maybe?

But as a law following disabled citizen, yeah, I'd pick help for the disabled if I had to make a choice.

There’s LOTS of overlap between the two.

Sometimes, the only criminal choice is survival, with both employment and welfare being denied. A careful study found that selling drugs for a gang in LA had half the pay and twice the risk of active military service. One tragic story I read recently was about a boy who told about his summer vacation visiting the mementos of the Great Detroit Fire. His teacher had only heard of the Great Chicago Fire, and tried to correct him. Insisting on what he saw got him in trouble, and he was treated as a troublemaker from then on. He got sucked into the school to prison pipeline, and wound up with over five years to serve, generating income or profits for everyone involved except himself.

True, and it is unfortunate, but a line always has to be drawn somewhere, and there'll always be people who'll feel like they've gotten an unfair end of the deal. Sometimes they really have, sometimes they haven't... this is a problem with everything, really.

I wish everything could be decided on who is more deserving, but we also have to consider the danger to society. Unemployed crooks do more damage. One set me back about seven years. There are societies where a criminal is treated as socially handicapped and given skilled individual help overcoming their history of abuse.