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

Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 155 posts

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#31

Post by mypastself »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #21
mathgradthrow wrote: post #15

My father and I fight about this a lot. His take is that if you give peiple money, they won't work, which will be bad. I understand his complaint, but the empirical evidence for it is that, when welfare was tied to having children, people apparently gamed the system by using less money on their kids than the welfare provided. This seems like it's probably most american's understanding of a welfare system, and my fath…

> His take is that if you give peiple money, they won't work, which will be bad. There are a lot of people with money (high net-worth) that work (have some position in a company that they could get fired from), e.g. Jeff Bezos, many if not all CEOs, etc. So your father's take is either A) false, or B) what people with money are doing is not work, and is therefore bad.

Couldn’t it be the case that it’s much harder for poor people to find employment they enjoy as much as CEOs enjoy theirs? Or that ultra-rich CEOs are able to reach that status in part because their work ethics is an extreme outlier?

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#33

Post by malfist »

nvahalik wrote: post #30
datadrivenangel wrote: post #6

We're not fighting poverty, we're fighting poor people! Which is a very expensive war, so it might be cheaper to give some of that money to the poor people, so they can spend it more effectively.

Yes, but _why_ are they poor? This is the thing that bothers me about this conversation more than anything. It's like giving pain killers to someone who has pain—in some cases that may be the only real solution but arguably the vast, VAST majority of the time, there is a basic desire to do the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different outcome. Giving money to people who aren't willing to change only perpetuates th…

Given the conservative, punish the poor, attitude of your post, I really don't think you want to know why the poor are poor.

I'll give you a hint, look at wealth distribution graphs

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#34

Post by dfxm12 »

tharmas wrote: post #9
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #4

> Then, to the dismay of advocates and recipients alike, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) blocked the Democratic Party’s effort to make the expansion permanent, fearing, among other familiar concerns like the cost, that recipients would just buy drugs (the data shows that recipients spent the money on food, clothes, utilities, rent, and education). This just in: when you give people who chronically lack resources some resourc…

In the USA (and UK) if you are poor you are considered a LOSER! Society in these two cultures is all about Winners and LOSERS. If you are not rich you are a LOSER. A LOSER is a pariah. Everybody loves Winners and hates Losers. If the game is rigged, then you lost because you didn't figure out how to manipulate it for your benefit. That makes you a loser. This belief or philosophy or religion is also known as "Surviva…

The belief in religion is called prosperity theology. I'm not sure this describes any philosophical definition of "survival of the fittest", as systemic issues rig "survival" towards people who already have the most resources, regardless of their fitness. This isn't a meritocracy.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#35

Post by hellojesus »

mypastself wrote: post #31
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His take is that if you give peiple money, they won't work, which will be bad. There are a lot of people with money (high net-worth) that work (have some position in a company that they could get fired from), e.g. Jeff Bezos, many if not all CEOs, etc. So your father's take is either A) false, or B) what people with money are doing is not work, and is therefore bad.

Couldn’t it be the case that it’s much harder for poor people to find employment they enjoy as much as CEOs enjoy theirs? Or that ultra-rich CEOs are able to reach that status in part because their work ethics is an extreme outlier?

Of course. The only reason people work is because the expected value of their work maximizes their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs. I go to work because I need money to live. I find employment by maximizing the pay I'm able to get conditional om my skillset and preferred job functions.

But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#36

Post by governmentdude »

endisneigh wrote: post #27
governmentdude wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money solves problems, if I'm interpreting the article correctly. We usually don't concern ourselves with accountability for other government spending (from corp tax breaks for R&D to FEMA shelters/tarps, and not forgetting the infinitely juicy supply contracts, big4 consulting fees). Why do you feel that poverty-relief is different to these other types of government spending? Why should it be held to a higher st…

When did I say it was different? There should be accountability there too.

> but how can you ensure accountability

Right there is where you suggest that accountability MUST be 'ensured'. This is a very high accounting standard to set, much higher than normal for any federal programs that I'm aware of. I don't understand why you feel that a program that relieves a core ill of society (poverty) should waste no money. Anything that reduces poverty makes the rest of government services cheaper, as it so closely relates to crime. Is it that you don't trust the decision making of the individuals just because they're poor? If not, then what is it you expect?

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#37

Post by Scoundreller »

dfxm12 wrote: post #24
mathgradthrow wrote: post #15

My father and I fight about this a lot. His take is that if you give peiple money, they won't work, which will be bad. I understand his complaint, but the empirical evidence for it is that, when welfare was tied to having children, people apparently gamed the system by using less money on their kids than the welfare provided. This seems like it's probably most american's understanding of a welfare system, and my fath…

People work in Alaska. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ An employer that wields that carrot also wields that stick, and can exploit the difference to incredible social harm. It is especially cruel that in the US, so many benefits are tied to employment. It means employers have this huge power over workers and also makes sure that it is almost impossible for some workers to invest the time and money in themselves required to gain the skills…

> It is especially cruel that in the US, so many benefits are tied to employment.

And so many taxes tied to employment. Not just US, but pretty much everywhere.

Why discourage the most the thing you want people to do?

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#38

Post by dfxm12 »

gosub100 wrote: post #22

Do economists share any culpability here? I thought their job was to apply their sharp minds and apply "systems" to achieve certain goals (not limited to addressing poverty). What if we compare it to other sciences? Say we didn't understand flight as well as we do, and we have this problem where planes keep crashing, maybe 2-3 a year (like it was in the 1980s-1990s) and instead of getting to the bottom of it and fixi…

As the article suggests, the issue is with political policy. Economists don't implement political policy. Politicians do.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#39

Post by FredPret »

malfist wrote: post #33
nvahalik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but _why_ are they poor? This is the thing that bothers me about this conversation more than anything. It's like giving pain killers to someone who has pain—in some cases that may be the only real solution but arguably the vast, VAST majority of the time, there is a basic desire to do the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different outcome. Giving money to people who aren't willing to change only perpetuates th…

Given the conservative, punish the poor, attitude of your post, I really don't think you want to know why the poor are poor. I'll give you a hint, look at wealth distribution graphs

I think lots of conservatives desperately want to help the poor, just not in ways that might seem kind & empathetic to you.

Don’t confuse tough love with no love - many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#40

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

hellojesus wrote: post #35
mypastself wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t it be the case that it’s much harder for poor people to find employment they enjoy as much as CEOs enjoy theirs? Or that ultra-rich CEOs are able to reach that status in part because their work ethics is an extreme outlier?

Of course. The only reason people work is because the expected value of their work maximizes their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs. I go to work because I need money to live. I find employment by maximizing the pay I'm able to get conditional om my skillset and preferred job functions. But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activ…

> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others.

This is a good example of a "thought-terminating cliché"[0]. In this case, the statement assumes its own veracity, which makes it difficult to respond to in a discussion.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

Post reply on HN