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

Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

straighttalkonevidence.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 149 posts

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#11

Post by bryanlarsen »

linkmotif wrote: post #5
cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work? Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t…

Being poor is buying a 2 pack of toilet paper for $2 rather than an 8 pack for $4 because even though the 8 pack is a much better deal, the extra $2 will buy the loaf of bread you also need.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#12

Post by ctrl-j »

Ashcroft001 wrote: post #6
cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

I need crack. Please send the requisite funds post-haste.

As someone who grew up poor with parents who worked their asses off and didn't touch drugs or booze - your comment is both in poor taste, and ignorant.

I'd happily give all the crack addicts assistance if it meant no children missed any meals.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#13

Post by learc83 »

linkmotif wrote: post #5
cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work? Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t…

A huge part of "can’t execute being not poor" is a direct effect of lack of resources.

There is also plenty of research that shows that poverty is detrimental to mental health in a way that reinforces poverty. The insecurity from not knowing where your next meal will come from or not knowing were to sleep is a direct cause of poor decision making.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#14

Post by torstenvl »

cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

A very large number of people absolutely do not know what they need, or - if they do - are not sufficiently motivated to pursue those needs. See, e.g., the obesity epidemic, smoking cessation, social security (in lieu of retirement savings), tax refunds (in lieu of adjusting withholding), etc.

Willpower, knowledge, and just plain old wherewithal aren't free and can't just be assumed.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#15

Post by sp332 »

linkmotif wrote: post #5
cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work? Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t…

It does seem kinda random to me. "Contrary to popular belief," he wrote over the weekend, "the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high." Between the ages of 25 and 60, Rank has found, almost 40 percent of Americans will live at least one year below the poverty line. Yet over time, most also pull themselves back above of it. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/a-shock...

Also the #1 reason people go into bankruptcy in this country is medical costs. That's not something that can be "executed".

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#16

Post by nothrabannosir »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11
linkmotif wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work? Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t…

Being poor is buying a 2 pack of toilet paper for $2 rather than an 8 pack for $4 because even though the 8 pack is a much better deal, the extra $2 will buy the loaf of bread you also need.

This is something that’s easy to forget once you have money: lack of liquidity is expensive. The (ironic) gravity of cash means the more you have the more you get (interest), and the less you have the less you get (interest).

Louis CK has a whole bit about this, back from when he was still broke: https://youtu.be/Y_-1l_SlA7c

I guess time has done him well :)

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#17

Post by bdcravens »

cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

I grew up dirt poor. Filthy home, no family car, head lice, "food or electricity this week?" poor.

Poverty was a series of choices, not something forced upon my family. Of course you eventually get to a point where you can't "better choice" your way out of it, but I think the truth needs to be said, as that reality isn't very PC it seems.

Every time my family had any money, they bought stuff. Not stuff we needed, but stupid crap. Definitely not calculated decisions to make progress to getting out of poverty.

As a technology professional, I make good money, and my income has about quadrupled since I started in 1999. I still struggle with that same poor mentality even so.

At best, it's a spray-and-pray approach. Many will fail. Maybe the few that use the money to improve will make it all worth, kind of like the "Just Say No" campaign. The real question is what level of efficiency do we demand?

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#18

Post by egwynn »

learc83 wrote: post #13
linkmotif wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work? Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t…

A huge part of "can’t execute being not poor" is a direct effect of lack of resources. There is also plenty of research that shows that poverty is detrimental to mental health in a way that reinforces poverty. The insecurity from not knowing where your next meal will come from or not knowing were to sleep is a direct cause of poor decision making.

Yup, this is definitely a big part of it. I won't pretend like it's "the whole answer", but "poverty-induced executive dysfunction" is a real contributor to poor people staying poor.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#20

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

bdcravens wrote: post #17
cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

I grew up dirt poor. Filthy home, no family car, head lice, "food or electricity this week?" poor. Poverty was a series of choices, not something forced upon my family. Of course you eventually get to a point where you can't "better choice" your way out of it, but I think the truth needs to be said, as that reality isn't very PC it seems. Every time my family had any money, they bought stuff. Not stuff we needed, but…

I think it's dangerous to take your situation and apply it to everyone in poverty. Most people are there because they don't have a way out even if in your specific circumstance that wasn't the case.
Post reply on HN