• CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    The main reason why it exists is to provide jobs. The number of people who work at the TSA at every airport in every state…no representative wants to cut those jobs.

    • AltheaHunter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      1 month ago

      I fucking hate that this is a thing. “We can’t stop doing this useless and/or detrimental thing, look at all the work it makes for other people to do!!!” Absolutely bonkers that it’s just a standard political argument.

        • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          The worst part is if people only worked two or three days a week corporations would still be profitable and everyone would have a job.

          • smb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            i once heared something like this:

            “the idea of having more than those who have nothing is the very only reason shareholders can ever imagine someone would work for at all, thus they also falsely believe they would do something good when enforcing this by removing everything from those who already are vulnerable and thus create a living example of how you would end when you don’t help them rob even more.”

        • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          What’s wild is that if you replaced them with a single payer system or whatever else, you would still have a lot of bureaucratic work that needs to get done by the new system, so most if not all of those jobs would still exist - they would just shift from trying to deny people care to trying to connect people to care.

        • vonxylofon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          It shouldn’t exist? I’d like to see you pay for your medical expenses out of pocket.

          P. S. No, I am not American.

          • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 month ago

            Here in the states when we say “medical insurance shouldn’t exist” what we mean is “the medical insurance industry shouldn’t exist”

            Basically the cluster fuck of insurance companies we have now shouldn’t exist, we should just have a single payer type system where medical expenses are paid for through our tax dollars. In its current state it’s a nightmare to deal with.

          • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            A lot of private insurance in the US amounts to paying a couple hundred monthly to have the insurance and then they deny payment for basically anything and everything. So you pay them to pay out of pocket anyway.

            Just got state insurance which covers everything, but very few offices accept it.

            So yeah. Insurance in the US is super fucked up and people go without healthcare, even if they have insurance because they simply can’t afford it.

          • not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            24 days ago

            Yeah I guess the kind of Single Payer model I prefer can be conceptualised as “insurance.” But it feels more like health care is taxpayer funded. The similarity to insurance is just details for the detail nerds.

    • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean if a state removed the TSA and spent the money on something else, surely they could use the money to create as many jobs as they removed but in an actual useful field.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t mean to be ungrateful, but I wouldn’t vote for a republican who got me a job, and I probably wouldn’t vote for anyone who got rid of my job (unless they were otherwise really great). So at least for me, getting rid of the job means you lose my vote and replacing it doesn’t necessarily gain my vote.

      • nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 month ago

        No, it’d be more useful just on account of the harm they are not doing. I don’t give a rat’s ass what they do instead, hell, do a huge UBI experiment and just let them chill. Might as well.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If it’s just for the jobs we can put them to work doing something useful like carrying bags for old people in the airport. Literally anything would be more useful.