Poverty-Fighting Startups • Hacker News Board

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#141

Post by blackrock » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 9:10 AM UTC

The greed of the rich and well-connected, is beyond belief. Capitalism has failed for a segment of the population. Democracy has failed for them.

You need money to make money. You need education, skills, connections, and health to get and maintain a job.

Have you seen the pictures of Skid Row in Los Angeles?

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/01...

https://world.wng.org/sites/default/files/styles/three_col_f...

This is the reality on the ground in Los Angeles. There are several blocks in downtown Los Angeles, where when you step into it, it feels like you stepped into a land that time forgot. The people are destitute. They have failed at one thing or another in life, and that has brought them to this point.

And what is the result of this? It has created a micro-3rd-world-country, right in the heart of one of the richest cities in the world. Where people drive by in expensive Mercedes, BMW, and Tesla cars.

The rich don't care about this, because they will never drive through the poor parts of town. But for everyone else, it makes life miserable for all.

At some point, you just have to cut your losses with these people. They are not going to get any corporate job. They pan-handle, beg, and harass people on the streets. Society, the city, the state, and the federal government, must step in to provide a baseline for these people.

Give them a damn fake job, give them money, give them food, give them shelter. Just get them off the streets.

If society cannot do this for them, then take the next step, and go extreme. Incarcerate them. Make it illegal to be homeless. Throw them into a prison. At least that way, they will get fed, have a jumpsuit for clothing, and a warm shelter.

This is a human rights issue. And for the United States to claim that they are the greatest at human rights, then all you have to do is to look at the homeless, the underbelly of society, and see the people that has failed in society. And here, you will see the hypocrisy of a society that has no desire or inclination to help them.

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#142

Post by skgoa » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 9:57 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #72

eartheaterrr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your reasoning, and I agree that we need more effort toward social programs that provide basic needs for the population. One argument against such programs is that they could allow people to have a lifestyle where they choose to never work, yet live a comfortable life and have lots of children. It seems like this could cause extreme population growth, but in a very bad way. Am I missing something, or is there…

millions of teenagers get part time jobs despite not needing it to live. The corollary to "if X has what they need to live they won't work" is "the only reason X works is to not die". While on a high level it can feel that way, especially at the lower rungs of society (where people get the worst kind of jobs). But ultimately humans have a lot of motivations for doing things. Unfortunately many people cannot act on th…

I suspect the real argument anti-welfare people want to make, but are too cowardly to state explicitely, is: "if the poor weren't forced to accept shitty jobs to survive, we would have to pay them fair wages and/or improve working conditions, which would reduce the wealth going into our pockets."

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#143

Post by fastball » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 10:44 AM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #138

fastball wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if they fill their time with making babies and this results in catastrophic population growth.

As you must be aware, population growth comes from high family size which in turn comes from the need to ensure one's support at old age. In extremely poor societies, where there are no pensions or social security for the old, the best way to make sure you have food and shelter when you're too old to work is to have many children.

And maybe in a society where everything is provided for you, the easiest way to find fulfillment is through having lots of kids to raise?

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#144

Post by ptaipale » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 2:09 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #143

ptaipale wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you must be aware, population growth comes from high family size which in turn comes from the need to ensure one's support at old age. In extremely poor societies, where there are no pensions or social security for the old, the best way to make sure you have food and shelter when you're too old to work is to have many children.

And maybe in a society where everything is provided for you, the easiest way to find fulfillment is through having lots of kids to raise?

If you actually want to do a good job raising those kids, it certainly isn't the easiest way to find fulfillment...

But of course, in societies where you (can choose to have) everything (basic) provided for you, there are indeed some who have many kids but don't bother to actually raise them. This is how underclass is created.

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#145

Post by TFYS » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 3:06 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #140

TFYS wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean people would buy things with votes. People could just keep a list of things they need in order of importance and the system would only use those lists to calculate the optimal allocation of resources, for example. We'd need to test what works best. I don't have the details of such a system because it doesn't exist. All I'm trying to say is that we could come up with other ways to allocate resources than…

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and I admire your optimism, but I just don't think what you're suggesting will be a society I'd want to live in. The thing is, I used to think along similar limes to you. When I was in my 20s I saw the Zeitgeist films and found the ideas behind the resource-based economy to be compelling. A way to meet everyone's needs without relying on money. However, as time went on and I…

Variety in life can come in many forms. The difference between different brands of products isn't that great. You get more spice for life from trying completely different things instead of different variations of the same thing. The PS4 and Xbox One have basically zero difference, the only difference they have is the artificial difference of exclusive games. How much better could the PS4 be if the resources used for the creation of the Xbox were instead used to improve PS4?

Sometimes too much choice can even be a bad thing. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-...

I believe people would quickly get used to less variety. But if variety isn't just a product of a system based on competition and people really desire it, there are no rules against it in a planned economy based on direct democracy. People could suggest and vote for different types of the same thing if they feel there's a need for such a thing.

money gives people the chance to make choices based on what's best for them, with far fewer restrictions on what's possible.

Most people have quite large restrictions on what they can choose due to the amount of money they have. Sure if you're wealthy enough you probably have more choice in the current system, but for the majority of people I believe a planned economy would increase the amount options they have in their lives.

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#146

Post by aphextron » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:50 AM UTC

eartheaterrr wrote: post #23

lsc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh, You can have a very strong welfare state that provides minimal food, shelter, medical care and clothing to everyone who needs it without having a planned economy. They really are different issues. there's a big difference between a welfare state and full out socialism; the difference is largely about power... Socialisim is about giving the workers control over the means of production. The welfare state is merely…

I like your reasoning, and I agree that we need more effort toward social programs that provide basic needs for the population. One argument against such programs is that they could allow people to have a lifestyle where they choose to never work, yet live a comfortable life and have lots of children. It seems like this could cause extreme population growth, but in a very bad way. Am I missing something, or is there…

Your assumption is that population growth is a bad thing. But why?

Of course the earth only has finite resources, but with our level of technology it is entirely feasible to sustain billions more people. The growth and progress of humanity is dependent on ever increasing available intellect to solve the worlds problems. If we ever want build massive civilizations spanning the solar system, it’s going to take trillions of humans. I’d rather believe in that kind of future than a stagnant “garden of eden” earth where we self limit our own progress.

Re: Poverty-Fighting Startups

#147

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 7:35 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #67

lazyasciiart wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait til you hear about the manufacturing industry using machinery!

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

It's hard to identify what 'unsubstantive' might mean when it apparently doesn't include the idea that businesses are not created in order to employ people.