161–170 of 200 posts
Consider for a moment the following: What if poor people are poor, because they spend all their money? Not one of those testimonials said, "I will put this money away for a rainy day" or "I'm putting this in my retirement fund." You're never too poor to save. Edit: Give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish. Walmart is arguably doing more good by teaching the poor how to save https://www.npr.org/2016/11/25/503316517…
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that all pictures of the $1000 winners have women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, Doctor here. Go to a doctor immediately. There is no way that old blood mixed with stool is from a stomach ulcer. In fact, that’s not how it works anyway (upper gastrointestinal bleeds are modified by stomach acid and enzymes and have a characteristic effect on stool that we call Malena). You may have one of many different things, the most serious of which is, as you fear, a cancer, but the differentials run thro…
You have no idea how much I want to, but $1k for a colonoscopy is wildly optimistic. It's probably going to be $3k or $4k minimum. I make $750 bimonthly, which barely pays the rent. My roommate pays the rest of our living expenses. There's $1,800 in the bank. What do I do? Show up and say "There's no way I can ever pay for this, but see me anyway"? I literally have no idea, and I'd feel like a complete scumbag for do…
If you won't get insurance, apply for financial aid in the healthcare system you use. They'll cover most or all of the cost based on hardship if your situation is that bad. Once you're received financial aid, it will probably apply for most of your medical expenses for several months to a year. Call various healthcare systems in your area to see what charity/financial aid programs they offer.
If you don't want to do that, at least call for quotes. $3-4k is possible to pay, but too high. It's worth driving a bit to save a few thousand dollars. Yes, you can get a quote for a colonoscopy; it's a standard procedure. Here is an example of a nationwide program that will do it for around $1,100 and that has several options in CA. It is not the only one. https://www.colonoscopyassist.com/After_Colonoscopy.html
For the sake of your health, please don't assume you have fully researched your options yet.
> We used recipients’ race, gender, and education levels to estimate incomes using Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2015. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that all pictures of the $1000 winners have women.
Plus, while Pedro and Ian have women on the pictures, it sounds like those were sent after receiving the gifts, so that couldn't have been part of the selection process.
Plus the trans individuals, whose identity or desired direction of transition I won't guess.
At the end of the day, who even gives a shit who they're helping? It's a private, for profit company sacrificing profits and trying to do "good", as seen through their own lens. Power to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't begrudge anybody their small pleasures in life. I also think they can do what they want with their money. But, when the topic of wealth redistribution comes up I do start to have a lot more questions about what people want to do with the money. After all, it's not their money. They didn't earn it. Somebody else did. I think it's pretty fair to at least have the conversation. I absolutely hate the "helpless po…
For very poor people, just having more money can often make a huge difference in their lives: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/08/23/214210692/the-... There's actually a mounting volume of convincing evidence that cash grants to poor people are much more effective than random charity programs of equivalent value. Because poor people often know what they need more than some paper pusher in a faraway city.
Although you did say 'very' poor people, this was the thought that popped into my mind.
For anyone that liked this action, you can continue it trough GiveDirectly ( https://givedirectly.org/ ). It gives Direct Cash Transfers (DCTs) to those most in need and produces evidence of the impact of their models and actions. The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapi... > > We find that treatment households increased both consum…
They've been on GiveWell's list of recommended charities for 6 years now: https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post?id=434250678224991586...
I particularly like their commitment to producing evidence on the effectiveness of direct cash transfers. They see direct cash transfers as an important benchmark against which other charities should compare.
Full disclosure: I'm one of the UK trustees.
Donate here (US, tax deductible): https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now
Donate here (UK, with Giftaid): https://www.givedirectly.org/uk
$0.91 of every $1.00 dollar ends up in the hands of the poor.
It's one of the 5 pillars of Islam. One has to give 2.5% of their wealth to poor. It's compulsory unlike Sadaqah - Charity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaqah ).
I guess if everyone followed just this 2.5% rule, there wouldn't be any poor left in the world (I didn't do the math though).
P.S. When I say poor, I'm not referring to people who cannot afford the new iPhone.
> We used recipients’ race, gender, and education levels to estimate incomes using Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2015. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that all pictures of the $1000 winners have women.
Women, especially single moms, make less and often need to spend more to survive. Plus, while Pedro and Ian have women on the pictures, it sounds like those were sent after receiving the gifts, so that couldn't have been part of the selection process. Plus the trans individuals, whose identity or desired direction of transition I won't guess. At the end of the day, who even gives a shit who they're helping? It's a pr…
On another note, I can understand why single moms would have more expenses. But why would a woman who is not a mom have more expenses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If charity works great, why doesn't government-mandated charity work even better? There are a lot of things, like civil defense and firefighting and road building, that historically started working more reliably when they became government-run instead of depending on volunteers or private industry. What makes charity different?
Government-mandated things usually work worse than the fame things done without governmental intervention. This is why government is best left to handle things that cannot be adequately done without a central command, like keeping the military forces, or collecting taxes. It can also step in where private or public efforts fail, but don't expect it to be as efficient.
I think that's the big difference with things like defense at scale. You don't need war to be cheap, or to optimize dead enemies per dollar; you just need a guarantee that if someone attacks you anywhere and in any manner, there will always be some sort of armed force to defend you. Central command is nice but not necessary. Same with roads; central command is certainly unnecessary, but having reliable nationwide roads is better for a society than intermittent roads where they're profitable.
Do you believe that govermment-run charity will be less reliable than the status quo; that is, do you believe it will help less people? Why?
(I'm not asking about whether it's moral, just whether it works.)