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

41–50 of 149 posts

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

#41

Post by elipsey »

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…

Do you mind if I ask what you mean by "stupid crap"?

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

#42

Post by jdoliner »

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.

> Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. This program is in a very literal sense patronizing. One of the definitions of that word is providing financial assistance to someone. Another one is treating someone with an air of superiority, which is the connotation I think you meant. These two things tend to go hand in hand though, that's why they use the same word. I have trouble seeing how we could have a UBI like system that wasn't patronizing though.

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

#43

Post by djtriptych »

linkmotif wrote: post #34
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Most people are there because they don't have a way out even if in your specific circumstance that wasn't the case. That’s a huge statement. How would you back that up? “Most” people? Who? When? Why?

It's not a huge statement. The counterargument, that most poor people are there because they consciously and continuously choose to be poor is ridiculous on its face.

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

#44

Post by thephyber »

sharemywin wrote: post #19

On average, the program cost $13,459 per family, 48 percent of which was paid directly to families as cash rewards. So the best we can do is 48% efficiency?

Are you assuming that the remaining 52% is all admin overhead? Why not assume it's partially paid out in non-cash rewards?

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

#45

Post by linkmotif »

sp332 wrote: post #15
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…

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…

Being poor happens to people who have failed to get and keep money. Sometimes that starts with you, sometimes your ancestors. Obviously it’s easier to get money if you already have it. But if you’re poor, someone didn’t get it. Could be for messed up, unfair reasons. But it’s that simple. It’s not random.

Getting wiped out by a medical event means you didn’t have health insurance. Health insurance is generally affordable despite what the GOP says, especially if you’re in poverty then you can get some really good Obamacare for free. Not buying insurance is just about the poorest thing you can do. Yes, before the ACA there was the the whole preexisting condition thing. There’s all kind of whack ass stuff out there. But I’m not talking about corner cases. I’m talking big picture. Step one to not being poor is having insurance.

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

#46

Post by bachmeier »

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…

> Definitely not calculated decisions to make progress to getting out of poverty.

Yes, that's one of the big problems. If you take someone from an environment where they're taught to make the right decisions and put them in a situation of poverty, they will often be able to make the right decisions and improve their situation. If you take someone that's never learned how to make the right decisions (or that there are even decisions to be made) there's little hope that they will do the right thing. That's what makes poverty a tough problem.

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

#47

Post by djtriptych »

jdoliner wrote: post #42
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.

> Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. This program is in a very literal sense patronizing. One of the definitions of that word is providing financial assistance to someone. Another one is treating someone with an air of superiority, which is the connotation I think you meant. These two things tend to go hand in hand though, that's why they use the same word. I have trouble seeing how we could have a UBI lik…

Who gets to patronize if it's "universal"?

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

#48

Post by rubber_duck »

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…

This right here - raised in a family of 6, was starvation poor at some points (eg. memories of not eating for days and throwing up when I got food - at like 5) and regular poor at others growing up. When my grandparents died mom inherited some land - enough to kick off a long term quality of life increase - sold off at a shitty price and spent in a year 'living like a tourist' - in my mother's words. Went back to being dirt poor and now me and my siblings need to support her.

Giving her small amounts of cash would have done nothing, it was just a mindset. She's a good person, the money she was spending on crap was largely for me and my siblings - but she can't handle money and has a very distorted view of how it works.

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

#50

Post by Tarq0n »

torstenvl wrote: post #14
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.

It works both ways as well. Poverty causes stress and lowers self control and cognitive resources. This makes it harder for people in poverty to work their way back out, even if they may intrinsically have the necessary capabilities.
Post reply on HN