[8K71PS]

> Well for one, you have a choice of where you want to work.

No you don't , it's entirely dependent on your birth and the luck of the draw in what class you were born into, your opportunities etc.

> If you can convince someone to hire you, the government isn't going to come in and say "actually, we need more factory workers. So you don't work there any more. You instead are working here."

There was no forced allotment of work in the soviet union, that's a nonsense claim coming from McCarthyist myths

> I'd also like to point out that there are numerous places in the US where people are perfectly capable of living on minimum wage, working 40 hours a week.

Not without exorbitant debt or unfavourable conditions compared to those who work above the minimum wage. A society that does not require you to work, and allows a livable wage for all work is a preferable one.

> Most homeless people are homeless not because it is impossible for someone to live off of these wages, in the right areas. They are instead homeless because they have some sort of mental or physical disability that makes them incapable of work.

That's not true at all, here in Ireland for example, mostly it's because of real estate speculation and treating houses as investments rather than places were people live. Mental and physical disability should not mean you live out on the streets

> The idea though, that able bodied adults are unable to provide for themselves, is ridiculous. There are numerous living conditions and places where it is cheap enough to live off of.

I've never seen a country where most of the homeless were unemployable, and in many cases the homeless have jobs, at least here. It is absurd to argue that people should move into the rural equivalent of a ghetto , devoid of job opportunities or development, or live cold.

[stale2002]

There are tons of places in the first world that are both cheap, and definitely not a ghetto.

Not everyone should live in the Bay area, or New York, or even downtown in some major city!

There are lots and lots of places that are even within commuting distance of a major city (that isnt SF or New York...), That are inexpensive.

The world is bigger than a couple coastal cities, and there are lots of opportunities if you are willing to expand your horizons beyond 1% of the land.

> here in Ireland for example, mostly it's because of real estate speculation and treating houses as investments rather than places were people live

Then maybe people shouldn't live in this very small percentage of the world, or expand your horizons beyond demanding that you be able to live in the most expensive parts of it?