In my experience the idea that the unemployed are lazy is very central to a lot of rigth wingers' world views. Attacking that idea could be beneficial, even if you should not expect to turn them into anything resembling a leftist.
If you do not mind me asking how would you attack the idea that the unemployed are lazy?
My attack would be that if we gave people a home, food, and access to higher education they will be able more likely contribute to the economy. for example it's almost impossible to get a job if you don't have a home or can't take a shower. giving people the basic necessities will necessarily make people more valuable for the economy. I know this is reactionary reasoning but if you can get a conservative to even consider federal housing i'd consider that progress. But i do not know if this would be a good line of reasoning so id be interested in your opinion.
I guess that might be hard if the other person does not believe unemployment to be a problem from the point of view of it being bad for the unemployed. I might start with the very mainstream belief that unemployment under 3-5 % would cause massive inflation, making the situation unstable. My approach would really depend on the person, and I don't have much experience of what an american conservative actually belives. Maybe combining your approach with the fact that those 3-5 % need to be kept alive without them working could work?
I think thats a good idea. By pointing out that the system neccessartly needs to have unemployment so there isnt inflation. By definition a large amount of people will b unemploymed so we should take care of them.
Thank you for your input
In my experience the idea that the unemployed are lazy is very central to a lot of rigth wingers' world views. Attacking that idea could be beneficial, even if you should not expect to turn them into anything resembling a leftist.
If you do not mind me asking how would you attack the idea that the unemployed are lazy? My attack would be that if we gave people a home, food, and access to higher education they will be able more likely contribute to the economy. for example it's almost impossible to get a job if you don't have a home or can't take a shower. giving people the basic necessities will necessarily make people more valuable for the economy. I know this is reactionary reasoning but if you can get a conservative to even consider federal housing i'd consider that progress. But i do not know if this would be a good line of reasoning so id be interested in your opinion.
I guess that might be hard if the other person does not believe unemployment to be a problem from the point of view of it being bad for the unemployed. I might start with the very mainstream belief that unemployment under 3-5 % would cause massive inflation, making the situation unstable. My approach would really depend on the person, and I don't have much experience of what an american conservative actually belives. Maybe combining your approach with the fact that those 3-5 % need to be kept alive without them working could work?
I think thats a good idea. By pointing out that the system neccessartly needs to have unemployment so there isnt inflation. By definition a large amount of people will b unemploymed so we should take care of them. Thank you for your input