Why this particular idiocy (or barbarism)? Maybe it's not something that provides a positive benefit for anyone or serves a structural function, but instead something that's just an inevitable consequence of a social order where lack of a stable home, family, income, etc., is viewed as the individual's problem. If you could anthropomorphize the gov't social service bureaucracies, they (it?) would be saying to the unfortunate, "Hey--had a patch of bad luck? Lost your income and your home? Not to worry--'cause in your weakened condition, we're gonna give you what you need--MORE RESPONSIBILITY AND STRESS!"
I was in a situation like this back in the early 80s. Long story short, the skids were being greased for yours truly to enter the social services/criminal justice system (don't ask). Thanks to some very fast talking and some outrageously good luck, it didn't happen. No one would have benefitted if I had gone under--the reason I was headed that way was that no one cared in the first place.
A society depraved enough to be concerned that too low a rate of unemployment (not to glorify work for work's sake, but since it's the means through which one secures income and health benefits--if you're not working for a Wal-Mart, that is) might be bad for holders of fixed income securities is depraved enough to completely indifferent to those suffer worse displacements.
Curtiss
> Depression is one thing if the person
> suffering has a stable home, family, income,
> & treatment. It almost ought to have a
> radically different name for those who lack
> several of these supports.
> But it occurs to me that I have never seen a
> really serious attempt to analyze the social
> dynamic in the u.s. that generates this. Clearly,
> no one in any clearcut way "needs" this kind of a
> criminal system. Individual politicians indubitably
> gain by being "tough on crime," but why _this_ particular
> idiocy at this particular time (post-vietnam u.s.)?