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

To help poor people, give them money

crookedtimber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#101

Post by JupiterMoon »

lliamander wrote: post #95
JupiterMoon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is perpetuating the meme of the deserving and the undeserving poor though... EDIT source http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deserving+and+the+undeserving+poor

I don't presume to speak on his behalf, but from what I can tell, he is saying that some poor are helped by direct cash payments, and some are not. How does that lead to a distinction of deserving/undeserving? I guess my question is, what do you mean by deserving/undeserving? Deserving of what?

The concept of the deserving and undeserving poor is an old (Victorian times) concept in the UK. It relates to the idea that some people are poor because they are feckless and lazy (the undeserving), whilst others are poor due to circumstances beyond their control (the deserving). The links from google in my earlier post should be sufficient to explain further details.

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#102

Post by Frondo »

pdeuchler wrote: post #77
Frondo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? How is acting rationally given your past life experience "poor decision making"? If you don't have money to spare, and then one month you get a windfall and do, it's absolutely rational to assume (and consequently base your decisions on) that you'll go back to the former state.

Because they're not actually acting rationally? Semantically correct logic built upon false assumptions is still fundamentally incorrect. You seem to be caught in a circular argument... the poor can't help that they're poor because, well, they're poor!

Yeah, what do you think "poor" means? It doesn't mean "stupid" or "makes bad choices" or "deserves to struggle/be hungry/forego medical care" or any of the judgments that usually get attached to it.

It means "doesn't have much/enough money". Poor people usually make decisions that are perfectly rational given the day-to-day grind of being poor.

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#103

Post by Frondo »

csentropy wrote: post #93
DiabloD3 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a poor person myself, who grew up poor, and am still quite poor (although less poor than I used to be).... That is exactly what it is. Poor people are poor because we are poor. We see rich people making money on the stock market, and wish we could, but we have no excess money to do that with. We see rich people upgrading their homes and their cars and their whatevers to be more energy efficient, but when our car b…

This had to be the most absurd argument ever made. Poor people are poor because they are poor and therefore they will be? I can give you a million examples of poor people that have gotten wealthier (including my own and a lot of people I personally know) but it wouldn't matter to you would it? Ever heard of social mobility? To fix society, give everyone everything they need for free? Amazing insight.

"give everyone everything they need for free" - Yes!

Exactly!

Food, shelter, access to medical care, these are the basics of human life, and no one should go without them.

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#104

Post by peterfirefly »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #25
Mikeb85 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malaria generally kills only the young and weak. It's like the flu over here. The problem is malnutrition. Hence why a large amount of mosquito nets are never used to sleep under, but rather as fishing nets. I know people who have had malaria (family that lives in a tropical 3rd world country). All survived. Giving out mosquito nets to conquer malaria makes as much sense as giving out medical masks to conquer the flu…

Confused: you can't 'have had' malaria, its a lifetime affliction isn't it?

Yes, but it only breaks out occasionally.

If you get it as a child, you will most likely end up with a lower IQ, though, which certainly is a lifetime affliction.

How much malaria costs when it is dormant is something I don't know. My intuition is that there is a cost (for example in a heightened inflammation response which is hard on the body) but I simply don't know.

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#105

Post by peterfirefly »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #2

The income of people has diverted more and more in the last decades. It is a fact, that countries really flourished (USA, Germany, other countries) with a bigger part of the society in the middle class and having a better living and education, when those countries managed to bring better income also to working-class people. Today's wealth in the US is for a big part because of the flourishing middle-class of the coun…

> The income of people has diverted more and more in the last decades.

diverged.

(In the hope that it helps another non-native speaker.)

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#106

Post by dragonwriter »

csentropy wrote: post #99
clavalle wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is making decisions based on information you aren't considering. Poor people are making economic decisions not to come out ahead but to mitigate their losses. They aren't doing this because they want to, it is because it is the best decision they can make given their constraints. For example, they can either sell their time for minimum wage, far less than the value they create, or they can starve or go homeles…

Minimum wage is an artifact of economic folly. If you are voluntarily selling your labor, it means that you are getting the best value for it. If you could get more for your labor, you would. If no one else wants your labor, it means that the price you get is the most for your labor. It does not mean that that is all you will "ever" get. It just means that is all you can get until you can figure out a way to be more…

> If you are voluntarily selling your labor, it means that you are getting the best value for it.

If you assume (as do most Econ 101 models) that humans are pure rational actors in the sense of the rational choice model, which there is considerable empirical evidence that they are not. And also assume that the market for purchase of the kind of labor that the subject is selling is perfectly competitive on the buyer-of-labor side, rather than distorted by monopsony or oligopsony (which may be more frequently true than the former assumption -- though subtle collusion make it false even when it seems to be true superficially -- but certainly is not universally true.) [The second condition is necessary because if it fails, minimum price regulation will change the best price, since in the absence of competition, the purchaser of labor can do so at artificially depressed prices.]

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#107

Post by ianferrel »

dllthomas wrote: post #59
ianferrel wrote: post #13

The best way to help poor people who make reasonably good decisions is to give them money. People who make bad decisions often end up poor. Giving them money will not help them make better decisions, and may make them worse off. How you think those two effects interact, and how much you value efficiency of donation vs. enabling people with poor decision making skills to waste probably determines where you stand on th…

Giving poor people who make bad decisions money may help them make better decisions. Recent studies have shown that the stress of persistent poverty diminishes cognitive capacity. To the degree that is the case, giving people money (and especially reliable money) may not only give them more options and better options, but help them pick better amongst their options.

That is a really good point.

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#108

Post by ianferrel »

ianferrel wrote: post #13

The best way to help poor people who make reasonably good decisions is to give them money. People who make bad decisions often end up poor. Giving them money will not help them make better decisions, and may make them worse off. How you think those two effects interact, and how much you value efficiency of donation vs. enabling people with poor decision making skills to waste probably determines where you stand on th…

Many responders seem to think that I'm saying that most poor people are poor because they make bad decisions. I'm not (that's the logical converse of the statement I made), and I don't think that's true.

My post was an attempt to summarize and contrast the two major conflicting issues that relate to how aid to the poor is made, not to argue in favor of either.

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#109

Post by rue »

pdeuchler wrote: post #68
taurath wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor decision making skills? I don't think you understand what it is to be poor. People are more rational than you think - when people experience long term problems and generally a very inconsistent world (food/money/resources come by sporadically), they make decisions that help them in the short term, because to their experience there is unlikely to be a long term. If someone below the poverty line wins $10,0000 in…

>>> "they make decisions that help them in the short term, because to their experience there is unlikely to be a long term." This is also known as "poor decision making skills". Granted, it's very understandable in many situations, but let's call a spade a spade

No; and if I have the time I’ll find an article… but basically poverty is a state that worsens decision making skills.

It’s a chronic crisis, a chronic stressor, and it affects the way people think. Short-term infusion of money will probably be blown on what you might consider to be frivolities because of this reason.

There are exceptions, to be sure, and plenty of ignorance about good decisions… but “poor decision making skills” is at best a crass, misleading oversimplification.

(Most dangerously it’s intentionally used to mislead.)

Re: To help poor people, give them money

#110

Post by lliamander »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #101
lliamander wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't presume to speak on his behalf, but from what I can tell, he is saying that some poor are helped by direct cash payments, and some are not. How does that lead to a distinction of deserving/undeserving? I guess my question is, what do you mean by deserving/undeserving? Deserving of what?

The concept of the deserving and undeserving poor is an old (Victorian times) concept in the UK. It relates to the idea that some people are poor because they are feckless and lazy (the undeserving), whilst others are poor due to circumstances beyond their control (the deserving). The links from google in my earlier post should be sufficient to explain further details.

Citing a google search is a bit lame. Suffice it to say that I am familiar with the concept (hint: it is a lot older than Victorian England) and that I am asking you to defend your statement about ianferrel's comment.

So again, what do you mean by "deserving"? What do the poor deserve that (in your interpretation) ianferrel claims they do not?

It is one thing to say that some peoples' poverty is the result of their bad decision making skills. It is another to say that cash payments are not an effective form of assistance for such people. It is something else altogether to say that we should throw such people to the wolves. Do you acknowledge these distinctions, or do you think they are insignificant?

Post reply on HN