i disagree. true that no sign = no hire, but there are plenty of other options for those who do not wish to foot the costs of society. the tradeoff is that you will not get as many of the benefits, either.
everything in life is a tradeoff. we gave up our ability to climb trees as effectively so that we could walk the plains instead. in the case of human evolution, the benefit outweighed the cost.
every single decision we make every single moment of every single day is a cost/benefit analysis if you look at it through the right lens.
"Everything in life is a trade-off"... sure it is, until a government forces it's people to make a trade-off for the benefit of others, who would never have been able to reap the rewards otherwise.
Government no longer gives people the option to receive less benefits. They make you pay for those benefits whether you want to receive them or not, even though the risk comes at one's own monetary expense, if they had actually been able to opt-out of such benefits.
For you to comment on "looking at most things through the right lens", is truly hilarious.
You seem to look at things based on how "right-to-do" or how "good" they are, rather than if they actually work properly on a fundamental level, in regards to such systems being able to exist in the first place. Not only exist, but exist in an ethical fashion.
Example:
You presumably agree with SS. SS is a fundamentally flawed system, based off erroneous math, that was created with a complete lack of due-diligence.
Though SS to you is "right", or tries to accomplish "good" while you're looking at it through your "right lens", you're lens is actually just very dirty.
There is no justification under the sun that one could possibly use, in regards to defending the government's ability to take one's money, in order to save for that person's, and/or another's retirement. The government in this situation likes to use the justification that "well, since you guys can't save for your retirement, we'll do it for you". Not only is that not a justification, it's simply not ethical on that same basis. It provides a foundation of enabling, for those who are irresponsible or half-witted enough, not to save for their own retirement, and it ultimately comes directly off the backs of those who are fiscally responsible. This is a benefit to some, while resulting in a complete, or potential loss to others.
The cost/benefit analysis of SS is mathematically proven to be erroneous when sided with the aspect of being a "benefit". In fact the cost would be lesser, and the benefit more, if SS did not exist. Some would of course lose in such a situation, but that loss would come as the direct result of those who brought upon such a loss to themselves, through their own personal conduct. Thus it's not actually a true loss. With proper logic, you absolutely do not make another person, or group of people, subsidize another human-being's conduct.
Do you see why you're lens is dirty? I'm sure you don't, because it seems as long as it's for the "right" reason, you're dirty lens is crystal clear to you. Unfortunately the world and it's affiliated economies are not sustainable this way. Your cost/benefit equations are undeniably off as well.
