• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 days ago

      It means it’s often cheaper for society to intervene and help young people before they experience trauma and grow up to be troubled people who end up costing society a lot more money.

    • wieson@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 days ago

      Who is going to pay for it if a country doesn’t have a foster care/orphanage programme? The children and orphans, with their lives.

      • einlander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 days ago

        Not only that, it effectively takes potential people out of the workforce. It also gives people no reason not to be deviants leading to higher expenditure on enforcement and incarceration. Not to mention potential higher crime rates.

    • threeonefour@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’m confused too. It lists programs aimed at helping people become productive members of society, so my best guess is it’s suggesting not paying for these programs would lead to social issues that have a larger cost.

    • salacious_coaster@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 days ago

      It means private enterprise can’t or won’t pay for certain things that we want, so they need to be taxpayer funded if we want them to exist at all.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      If society pays for things that eliminate individuals’ needs before they begin to suffer from them, society doesn’t have to pay to incarcerate or rehabilitate them when they turn to destructive behavior to cope with or reduce that suffering.