Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 462 posts

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#371

Post by Retric »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #362
jakobegger wrote: post #266

Instead of giving money to poor people, who then have to spend it all on rent, why not provide affordable housing? In Linz we have something called "housing cooperatives" (the German word is "Wohngenossenschaften"). These cooperatives build apartments, and to rent them you become a member of the cooperative. The goal of these cooperatives is not to make a profit, but to provide affordable housing. And it's amazing ho…

Both are necessary. But it turns out people are (statistically) better at spending money for themselves, than having a nanny state spend it for them. And the cost of the 'planned economy' of the welfare state is in addition to that. E.g. US Welfare spends 60% of their budget on administration. How much better to spend 100% on benefits, and have the people figure out for themselves what they need?

Your numbers are way off: http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/21/limbaugh-dramati...

•Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): 9.0 percent

•Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8): 5.2 percent

•The Department of Housing and Urban Development's public housing program: 22.5 percent

•Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): 9.1 percent

Finally, the report estimated that the federal administrative costs amounted to $12,452,000,000 for the 11 programs studied -- 6.4 percent of total federal expenditures on these programs.

PS: For comparison Social Security spends even less on administration but is vastly more expensive, which is arguably a net loss.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#372

Post by myth_buster »

sokoloff wrote: post #5

People in poverty use services and consume goods. Someone provides those goods and services. Would they be better off if every business closed their doors to the impoverished, so as to not "make a buck off the poor"? Of course not! The trailer park owner in the article owns 131 units and "makes" (presumably grosses) $400K a year. Those units are about $250 per month, hardly the stuff of Viking-style pillaging, IMO. T…

  Those units are about $250 per month,
  hardly the stuff of Viking-style pillaging, IMO.
$250 is hardly anything until one considers the monthly earnings of the tenant.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#373

Post by awt »

tamana wrote: post #215
awt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without welfare, the mother would likely give he children up for adoption by responsible people that can afford them. At least she would have that choice, and the choice to raise the children in poverty, thus causing them to suffer, would still be hers.

People are lining up around the block to adopt poor non-white babies? Mothers have no natural human emotions of attachment to their offspring?

They aren't? If you can find the stats for non-white newborns I'd read them.

What kind of empathy does a mother have for her child that would raise him without a father in poverty? What empathy does a single mother have for the people from whom she is taking money in the form of welfare?

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#374

Post by pakled_engineer »

Retric wrote: post #365
jakobegger wrote: post #266

Instead of giving money to poor people, who then have to spend it all on rent, why not provide affordable housing? In Linz we have something called "housing cooperatives" (the German word is "Wohngenossenschaften"). These cooperatives build apartments, and to rent them you become a member of the cooperative. The goal of these cooperatives is not to make a profit, but to provide affordable housing. And it's amazing ho…

This just becomes another subsidy. IMO, we need to build a large supply of tiny but high quality apartments (good sound insulation etc.) in good locations so the market will lower their value yet there still expensive enough to attract young workers instead of the poor. (~350sf) The other reasonable approach is simply to build lot's of housing in good locations. If the supply is large enough prices end up falling. Un…

They built thousands of tiny self contained units in my city and they're all on AirBnB for $125+/night. The problem is foreign buyers speculating on all new housing and either keeping them vacant to park money or renting for short term only.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#375

Post by pliny »

crdoconnor wrote: post #340
pliny wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If every time you took an ambulance you were forced to sign over 80% of your wealth or be left to die in the streets in a 'voluntary exchange', that would be exploitation. What is wrong with this scenario? If there were no ambulance service I automatically choose "Die" (which is, apart from matters of inheritance, always the wrong choice), but if there is the ambulance service I can buy my life for the relatively me…

I presume you're familiar with the term "false dilemma" and how it applies to your post?

I don't see the false dilemma, I think you're hinting at a third choice where the ambulance company charges a price that is not extortionate, but if that was part of the hypothetical then, sure, I would have chosen to get my emergency care from the company that charges less (but it's not, the GP postulated that all ambulance companies charge 80%).

Either way it's not exploitation, even if there's a company that charges prices that always bankrupt their patients, I still choose broke over dead, and if I wanted to choose dead I can do that too.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#376

Post by NLips »

pc86 wrote: post #363
basch wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of giving money to poor people, who then have to spend it all on rent, why not provide affordable housing? You could probably make the same argument for prescription drugs and patent fees, no?

Are poor people spending an exorbitant percentage of their income on patent fees?

I guess the parent meant 'patient fees'

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#377

Post by CydeWeys »

tamana wrote: post #209
CydeWeys wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about you answer one of my questions before you ask me yet another one. What exactly are you proposing if neither people nor government are allowed to own property? I'm not aware of any such scheme in all of modern civilization. The onus is on you to explain.

Land-Value Tax. Landlord makes money by improving the land and providing services to residents, not by merely owning land in perpetuity. Land is common wealth.

So I'll admit that personally I'm intrigued by land-value tax, but it's not an answer to the other guy's question. He was precluding all public and private land ownership. There can't be taxes on land of any kind if no one owns anything and no ownership is enforced.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#378

Post by CydeWeys »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #168
CydeWeys wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire US is at-will employment. It can't be. About the most you can do is try to claw-back your training expenses if they don't stay for a certain number of years, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered.

> That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered Presumably, if the training were significant enough to be worth the company pursuing it and the now ex-employee found it economically better to use those skills elsewhere, then there might be significant enough income against which to make a claim.

If this worked you'd think it would be more widespread, but instead corporations have consistently pushed in the opposite direction with workers over the past few decades. There used to be a lot more job security, on-the-job training, and apprenticing. Corporations have figured that not having all that stuff is in their favor as by only hiring qualified people they can put the costs of the training on the employees, and then if there aren't enough qualified people, well, off-shore production.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#379

Post by olifante »

paulojreis wrote: post #357
LoSboccacc wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh, thought about it a lot, and the fact is, it's not the mafia. the whole society is like that. it's a cultural thing, where people expect other people to owe favors back as a natural way of doing business. it works at every level here, from groceries stores keeping freshest bread for friends and giving mellow salami to foreigners upward. it's easy to identify the issue with the big names, but it starts way, way bel…

Portuguese here. Same crap, everyday, everywhere. :)

You must live in a different Portugal than the one I know. While I admit perceptions of corruption are quite high among Portuguese, actual corruption is not that high, at least according to the international metrics I've seen. We're certainly not a mafia state or anything close to that.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#380

Post by CydeWeys »

vectorjohn wrote: post #237
chillwaves wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then make them more fair with better payouts. They don't need to be completely exploitative.

A non exploitative lottery is also called a bank.

Interesting that you mention that. Such a thing exists, is fairly widespread in some countries, and is quite successful at encouraging the correct behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-linked_savings_account

Basically, every so many dollars that are in a savings account for a set period of time counts as one ticket, and so of course the way to increase your chance of winning is to "buy more tickets". Winnings are paid out in lieu of interest, but in the end averages to about the same.

Post reply on HN