Public transportation in most cities is free for the elderly who have reached a certain age, but some cities are not free, but give subsidies to the elderly. I think that's ridiculous.
The elderly can enjoy the free ride dividend brought by social development, although it should be, but it implies the care and respect of the society for the elderly, which cannot be measured by money. But if this red is replaced by a form of money, the meaning is very different.
Some people will say that giving money is also a kind of welfare, and it can also reflect the care for the elderly, and even the elderly can use the money to enjoy more travel options, and the elderly are more convenient and free, isn't this a care for the elderly?
Is this statement the imagination of sitting at home, or is it in line with reality?How can we tell if the elderly are more convenient and free?Let's look at it from reality.
Since the elderly do not take the bus for free, the city's buses are no longer crowded, and the young people can have seats for the morning shift. At the same time, older people are walking instead of taking a car, or they are walking around their homes to exercise or buy groceries. Some elderly people are used to going out in the morning to meet friends because they are Xi, but now they don't come out to meet friends, so they are in a daze at home. The elderly do not use the money from the subsidy to enjoy more freedom of travel as some people think. Even they didn't use the money from the subsidy to take the bus. Most of them have chosen to stay at home. It can be seen that under the guidance of this policy, the actual situation of the elderly is much less free.
Some people just can't figure out why they don't take the bus when they give them money, and this money is completely enough to take the bus. If you can't figure it out, you can't figure it out, in fact, you just don't take the bus. This is exactly what this policy wants to achieve. Therefore, the essence of this policy is not to give money to give the elderly more freedom to choose to travel, but to use money to buy the freedom of the elderly not to travel.
Freedom", if it can be bought with money, is itself a kind of human suffering. And this kind of pain can happen to the elderly, and the hope of the young is in
The policy of subsidizing money is equivalent to a way of distributing wealth, so what is the principle of distribution according to this distribution?And how does the principle of fairness be embodied?What will the elderly in the countryside think?If these are not handled properly, it will not be possible to create a social environment in which people can feel comfortable.
To solve the problem of time conflict between the elderly taking the bus and the young people, buying with money is the lowest means, and it is also a manifestation of the poor skills of the donkey. At the same time, it also reflects that some people are lazy to investigate and have money to act willfully. And this money, but taxpayers'.
Why don't you do ideological work for the elderly, and if you do it, how do you do it?Are they really unable to cooperate with young people in a hurry?Can you adjust the detour, or add a special shuttle?You can even consider doing work for the company's leaders to postpone the morning shift a little, why arrange such an early shift?
Of course, doing things and achieving material effects is the main thing, but for some things, the focus of solving is communication and coordination, and ideological problems are solved with money, which always feels like an insult to personality.
Welcome to like and comment,**Favorite. We'll see you next time.