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

The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 188 posts

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#141

Post by jazzyk »

pen2l wrote: post #98
rayiner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inner city public schools are some of the most well-funded in the county. Washington DC is almost entirely "inner city" public schools (I.e. Almost all the student population is low income) and has the highest per student spending. The wealthy suburb of DC where I grew up spends $13,500 per student per year. That's a lot less than DC or Baltimore or Chicago, all of which have 70-85% low-income students, and only mode…

So what's going on then? Exactly how are inner cities misusing funds, and what are wealthy suburbs doing right that they're able to get such bang for their buck? Also, are you certain that wealthy suburbs are spending that little? I know some rich families in NYC who are sending their kids in high school to schools that ask above $50k. It's a straight pipeline to Ivy league, and from what I understand there are good…

I wish people would understand that it is not ONLY about the money. I live in an affluent suburb, our high-school is 40 years old, the roof is leaking, etc. A few inner-city schools are brand new, modern, etc.

Yes, teachers are better in my town - but the most important difference are the role models. IN my town most families are professional couples, typically doctors, executives, etc. Kids are expected to not only go to college but good college and then continue on to graduate school, to at least match their parents' status. None of that, sadly, is at work in inner city families. It is a difficult problem and not something that money alone will fix.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#142

Post by IkmoIkmo »

err4nt wrote: post #4

I grew up in Canada and went to school with rural kids, military kids, and french kids. My family wasnt in poverty but we didnt have many of the nice things others had. Around grade 5 I began to notice how we never had money for a TV, but all the welfare kids I knew had TVs in their rooms. i noticed how I had to do chores, work, save, and help neighbours to afford to buy a game console and video games, and all my fri…

We can play a game of anecdotal evidence all day. My experience is totally opposite to yours, welfare was though and no way in hell did we have more than our peers. Welfare was also something you didn't talk about, it was embarrassing and my dad yearned for a job, not for the money, he got that on welfare, but for the human dignity, the social contact, the respect, instead he was paralysed at home. Incentives played no role.

But we're in agreement on your final sentence and I do acknowledge that there are people who game the system. But the issue I feel with the welfare debate is that it's usually a discussion about reducing it (to increase incentives to work), maintaining it or expanding it, with most people leaning towards one of the first two options. When really there are genuine cases of welfare where incentives play no role, and they're being squeezed hard. The debate should be more geared towards reducing fraud, catching dishonest recipients and supporting them in their dependency, not squeezing dishonest and honest welfare recipients all the same.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#143

Post by zo1 »

XorNot wrote: post #131
Frondo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it doesn't mean that. It means that when you have $300 in the bank instead of buying a cheap TV set, and suddenly your car needs $500 in repairs, you're still going to a payday loan place, except you're on the hook for $200 instead of $500. Still paying the fees, still stuck in the let's-rip-off-the-poor cycle, except you also don't have a tv set. I know, I know, now you'll say "well you're poor, what do you n…

It's 'poor people have refrigerators' in another guise. It is apparently a laudable goal to decay our social infrastructure till large parts of our cities will resemble African poverty.

TV's are completely different to fridges in this discussion, I'd say. One is pure entertainment, the other has functional uses that help reduce costs, as well as improve health by preventing food from going off.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#144

Post by damagedcake »

rdtsc wrote: post #105
ethagknight wrote: post #103

Wait, confused how Bush brainwashed and manipulated evangelicals? The linked article discusses the Bush whitehouse reaching out to constituents. Are evangelicals really easy to brainwash?

> Are evangelicals really easy to brainwash? Yes they are. They are in a way pre-brainwashed by their leaders so using just the right rhetoric you can get them to act as a block and get them to do your bidding. They also have a nice property that they congregate in large megachurches, you really just have to convince the pastor to preach your agenda, and you instantly got thousands of voters. Here is an excerpt from…

Evangelicals aren't any easier to brainwash than so called "Progressives," Libertarians, White people, Asian people, Athiests, Republicans, or any human being categorized by any social group, demographic or other criteria you want to pull out. That said, just like all human beings they can sometimes be deceived, blinded by bias or just not put enough thought into their beliefs. 'Because, you know, we're human just like you and everyone else here.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#145

Post by zo1 »

abalone wrote: post #104
orangecat wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DARPA's budget is about $3B this year alone. Compared to $10 billion in R&D for Microsoft and Intel and $8 billion for Google: http://fortune.com/2014/11/17/top-10-research-development/

...in late stage development which is MUCH less risky. Super risky early stage tech development mostly happens in the public sector at taxpayer expense through government agencies like DARPA.

A lot of things are easier when it happens with other people's money. A lot of those projects didn't necessarily have the expectation to make/turn a profit.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#146

Post by zo1 »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #118
giardini wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the downvote? He's using irony/sarcasm!

I honestly don't mind the downvotes. Obviously libertarians would downvote. I did mind the bit where dang decided for whatever reason to move the whole thread from it's correct position.

I did so not because I'm a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist to be more precise. I did so because you're flat out not adding anything to the conversation, as well as seemingly dismissing valid points because you dislike the political ideology that the publication is associated with.

Either the ideas/points are valid, backed-up by evidence, etc. Or they're not.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#147

Post by mikeash »

Frondo wrote: post #96
mikeash wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means you can stop wasting money on buying necessities constantly in small quantities, not pay massive interest on credit cards or payday loans because your needs a sudden repair, etc. Will this solve the problem? Surely not for everybody. But a big problem (even if far from the only problem) with getting out of poverty is that it's a trap because it's so expensive to be poor.

Except it doesn't mean that. It means that when you have $300 in the bank instead of buying a cheap TV set, and suddenly your car needs $500 in repairs, you're still going to a payday loan place, except you're on the hook for $200 instead of $500. Still paying the fees, still stuck in the let's-rip-off-the-poor cycle, except you also don't have a tv set. I know, I know, now you'll say "well you're poor, what do you n…

Are you saying that being on the hook for 60% less in interest and fees isn't an improvement? Is a millionaire still stuck in a poverty trap because it's theoretically possible for them to get hit with costs that exceed their savings? What you're describing sounds like a huge improvement, not "still stuck."

Regarding your second paragraph, no, I wouldn't say that. I'm not actually passing any judgment here. I don't think that buying iPhones and fancy TVs is a particularly wise choice for poor people, but I also don't really fault them for it. I'm merely giving an example of something which could help with poverty but which the government can't provide. A decent chunk of poverty comes from poor financial choices, and that's just an observation without implying any judgment towards the affected people.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#148

Post by rdtsc »

damagedcake wrote: post #144
rdtsc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are evangelicals really easy to brainwash? Yes they are. They are in a way pre-brainwashed by their leaders so using just the right rhetoric you can get them to act as a block and get them to do your bidding. They also have a nice property that they congregate in large megachurches, you really just have to convince the pastor to preach your agenda, and you instantly got thousands of voters. Here is an excerpt from…

Evangelicals aren't any easier to brainwash than so called "Progressives," Libertarians, White people, Asian people, Athiests, Republicans, or any human being categorized by any social group, demographic or other criteria you want to pull out. That said, just like all human beings they can sometimes be deceived, blinded by bias or just not put enough thought into their beliefs. 'Because, you know, we're human just li…

One strike against them is they already believe in some magical deity who created Earth in 7 day or some such thing. That serves as a singal to other "predators" if you wish that means "I am easy to manipulate". Just say a few words about Jesus and they'll follow. Look at some of the quotes he used and language. It was very effective. Also, another plus, unlike other religious groups they already belong to large congregations, that makes it easier.

> they can sometimes be deceived, blinded by bias or just not put enough thought into their beliefs

Sure but just more so than others. Looking back it seems Bush Jr's campaign manager knew who to target and what to do. Maybe he was stupid, but people working him weren't. Didn't mean they couldn't have some kind of tea party following or something along those lines. But why work harder when you don't have to...

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#149

Post by damagedcake »

rdtsc wrote: post #148
damagedcake wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evangelicals aren't any easier to brainwash than so called "Progressives," Libertarians, White people, Asian people, Athiests, Republicans, or any human being categorized by any social group, demographic or other criteria you want to pull out. That said, just like all human beings they can sometimes be deceived, blinded by bias or just not put enough thought into their beliefs. 'Because, you know, we're human just li…

One strike against them is they already believe in some magical deity who created Earth in 7 day or some such thing. That serves as a singal to other "predators" if you wish that means "I am easy to manipulate". Just say a few words about Jesus and they'll follow. Look at some of the quotes he used and language. It was very effective. Also, another plus, unlike other religious groups they already belong to large cong…

"Evangelical" is a pretty broad term. You seem to have cherry-picked some sets of beliefs and characteristics to support your belief.

For example, not all evangelicals are young earthers. Also not all, and probably not even most, attend the type of megachurch you keep talking about.

"Just say a few words about Jesus and they'll follow" is another straw man. There are plenty of Christians who wouldn't identify as evangelical who also will try to use the words of Jesus to their advantage. Even Bernie Sanders tried that tactic recently. I somehow doubt he's going to get a wide swath of evangelical support.

Belief in God is not the same thing as giving up rationality; which you seem to indicate. That's a common bias a lot of people have.

I think your post says more about you than the large group of people you want to stereotype and marginalize.

Post reply on HN