Is homelessness self-inflicted?
As people may have noticed from reading the Chapel Hill News editorials, there is a widespread perception that homelessness and poverty are self-inflicted. But as the following editorial points out, that's not necessarily true.

---

Self-inflicted would imply that those who suffered the consequences of the action were those who initiated the action. This is completely untrue in this situation. The proper term may be government- orcommunity-inflicted, but these people have no control over those policies that lead to their inability to obtain good jobs or appropriate housing.

As with any policy that is adopted, there are tradeoffs that have to be made. The minimum wage laws were adopted to protect employees who are so desperate to work that they will compete in the labor force by working for employers who exploit workers, which in turn lowers standards for everyone. Most of us hear stories of sweat shops in other countries and are immediately disgusted by the idea of that happening here in the United States. Minimum wage laws prevent employers from exploiting workers in thesetypes of ways.

Needless to say there are some negative implications to these laws: mostly that employers are more limited in the number of people they are able to hire. Regardless of the fact that these lawsmay prevent people from being hired who otherwise would be, though,they exist and some people are left unable to compete in a workforce that is driven by competition, talent, and social networks.

Should anyone be penalized because we've adopted a policy in our country of respecting human dignity in the workplace? Or should we take responsibility for the policies we as a society implement and do our best to help those that suffer as a consequence?

Sandra M. Shackelford
Master's Student, Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA

---

Perhaps we should keep in mind that companies in fact did horribly exploit workers before labor unions and other progressives fought for and won things like minimum wage and workplace safety laws.

It is puzzling to me that anyone would advocate elimination of the minimum wage as something that would be beneficial to ending homelessness. There are a lot of complex reasons for homelessness, but at the core of the problem is that people simply are not making enough to meet the rising cost of living, particularly in a place like Chapel Hill where housing costs, gas prices, and other day to day living expenses are so high. It is difficult to see how people making less money would somehow be beneficial.

Yes, it is true that by paying workers more, companies have to pay out more in salaries. It is also true that another effect is that more people have more money in their pockets that they can use to buy the goods and services that companies produce. Even Henry Ford (that rabid communist) understood that people had to make enough money to be able to afford to buy his vehicles. Also, more people working means that more people are productive citizens who are paying taxes instead of using social services in the first place.

Conservatives advocate lowering the minimum wage (or not having one at all), yet at the same time, they push for drastic cuts to the social services that help people who don't make enough money to support themselves. There is more to the problem of homelessness than just the people you see panhandling on Franklin Street; there are also many families who are just one financial crisis from becoming homeless. If we as a society say that its ok that people don't make enough money and at the same time say that we won't pay to help them, what exactly are those less fortunate supposed to do? Criticizing social programs is easy enough, but it becomes much harder when one has the task of coming up with actual solutions.

-# posted by Michael McGee @ 1:43 PM