[i习作temp] Issue190 [复制链接]

lixd
UID：2125367

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 71
注册时间: 2005-8-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-25 11:40:13 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Does it in appropriate or even cruel to employ public resources to support the arts while some people are still hungry, unemployed, or lacking the basic skills to earn a piece of bread? Some extreme humanists would insist on this notion, but a rational and practical person who seek to solve social problems rather than just debating about them will hold otherwise idea. Social crisis such as unemployment, famine and unengaged labor are not so simple as one pluses one then gets two that whole public resources' investing in those problems would not solve but rather be deleterious and aggravate them. If it is not true for all the time, at least for nowadays.
First of all, the fantasy of ensuring every individual is occupied and can earn him or herself necessary living materials such as food and shelters is impractical. Generally speaking there are three categories of unemployment. One is that the individual is handicapped; another is that the person lacks adequate skills or ability; and the last situation is common and takes up a great portion of the unemployment, which is those people tend to lead an idle life. As to the first situation, government already have set a well-running system to help the handicapped not only provide them food and shelters but also vocational trainings which they may find suitable for them. And the second group of unemployed people can also get free food, though may not delicious but enough to make a survival, and take part in job trainings which can refresh them with proper skills to find jobs. Undoubtedly, it would be imperious to force the third kind of unengaged people to accept job training or find jobs. What is more, the society is motive but not still, as long as new businesses are emerging, old, not so competitive ones are diminishing, unemployment is inevitable, and according to some economists' theories, a proper portion of unemployed is the token of a prosperous economic system.
Secondly, investment in arts would not only promote the development of arts itself but also generate a myriad of job opportunities. For example the expanding of a museum entails carpenters, masons, plumbers and so on and so forth. The protecting of historical sites and buildings also needs amounts of people. Investment in publishing may not only creates new jobs in press factory, but also incites those unengaged to write. Since arts are part of human culture which has intricate, convoluted relationship with economic production, each single investment in arts will turn out to be job-offering.
However, the base of my analysis and illustration is that public resources spent on arts and on social welfare--say, free food supply and job-training for handicapped and unemployed people--should has a justifiable and even-handed balance. The discussion on how to divide public resources properly is convoluted with sociological, economic problems

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-26 at 11:47 ]