Live data from Hacker News

No Money, No Time

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: No Money, No Time

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mostly an outside observer in both countries (fortunately), this is one of the big differences I see between the American and Danish welfare systems. The Danish one has a reputation for being much more generous, which is true to some extent, but is not as true in terms of throughput as it is in terms of latency. The Danish system does a lot of short-term "business": people get onto the system in a matter of days,…

>'Whereas the American one seems incapable of delivering anything with less than a 6-month waiting list..' My family was on a wait list for housing assistance from the time I was a child until I dropped out of school and started working, making us ineligible. The list is currently closed and was last open over half a decade ago, for less than two weeks - like something out of a fantasy novel. >...with an extremely bu…

The problem is that while there are a great many deserving people who wouldn't abuse the system, there are also plenty who would.

Worse is that if you overhear one person on the bus (like I did when I was in college) talking about having another child so she could get a larger welfare check, it has a way of getting to you. It's an anecdote so it doesn't really count from a scientific perspective. But emotionally, that's HUGE.

When I use my brain I realize that it would be far more effective to cut the military budget by 10% than the welfare budget by 10% in terms of reducing taxes. But somehow I still feel some kind of moral outrage about the person who considered a welfare payment her divine right for existing rather than a temporary thing that well-intentioned people created for the sake of trying to help lift less fortunate folks out of poverty.

Emotionally I feel less bad about the military because at least something's getting done as a result. People have jobs (even if they're not the most efficient) and technology is advanced (even at a cost greater than a private company might capable of) and actual tangible things happen. In some ways that's easier to justify, even if that justification is completely wrong given the graft and corruption that's rampant in the military-industrial complex.

It also is very upsetting from a felt-justice perspective. Here I am working hard end paying my taxes so that (in a very, very small way $ or % wise) I'm empowering someone else to just sit around and get paid to do nothing but pop out babies and raise them poorly.

Thinking critically I realize that I have no actual idea what my opinion of acceptable false positives and false negatives is, or how the system actually performs irrespective of my judgement. But as human beings we're wired to reject "unjust" gains for others even at our own expense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

"Well, there's a popular notion in the US that the process should be as difficult and unfriendly as possible - that people seeking public assistance are not just lazy, but living well. The 'welfare queen' [1] still haunts the system 40 years later."

It's hard to not feel as though it might still be happening in a measurable way when you can read articles like this: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched...

Again, I realize that it's ENTIRELY possible that the subjects of this article are the exception rather than the rule. But it's hard to use your brain rather than react to your emotions when this kind of thing gets written up.

Ultimately the problem is that not everyone can think critically all the time about everything and then react appropriately.

Re: No Money, No Time

#62
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agree with the conclusion but are upset that an example which has been simplified to make a point isn't as nebulous as real life?

You're right -- if that were the issue, it would be a bad objection; let me try again. The problem is that in real life, most such cases (of buying the more expensive item) don't result in a pure savings, but rather, leave you better off in some ways and worse off in others. The cheaper shoes, IOW, will not actually be so bad that you have to replace them entirely, and you will in fact end up with with more liquid sa…

I have seen plenty of cases that are really that clear cut, usually centered around item quality. For example, cheap tools vs. expensive ones. The "X Factor" that makes the more expensive item not strictly better is the question of use. I.E., I don't buy Snapon wrenches because I am not a professional mechanic, but neither do I buy cheapo pot-metal tools because I use them enough that the extra money spent on quality is well worth it.

Re: No Money, No Time

#63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, for the last 30 years, the number of those who are successful relative to the rest of the population has suffered sharp decline. Do you honestly not know this? Or are you simply the sort of person who just doesn't mind?

Relative mobility has remained flat and absolute mobility has increased. http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf

Not actually the point I was making but an interesting paper nonetheless.

When I said "relative" I meant "relative to the population as a whole", not "relative to the members of one's class from prior generations."

Re: No Money, No Time

#64

I wrote about this in more detail here: http://blog.seliger.com/2014/06/15/talking-about-progressive... , but one underappreciated facet of this dynamic is the extent to which the infrastructure we've collectively put in place to help people financially and otherwise has an enormous time cost of its own. I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies. Virtually all federal, state, and local programs either mand…

The time cost of welfare a big part of why I think an unconditional direct cash subsidy is a better plan than our current welfare system. The bureaucratic efficiency losses for both welfare recipients and grantors is more than enough to pay for expanding the recipient pool.

Re: No Money, No Time

#65
This was a good article.

The comments seem to focus mostly on the financial aspects but I found the portion regarding how time is spent interesting. (True, the article does tie them together to an extent).

As far as financial poverty... my personal opinion is that "finance" is too widely regarded as an unalterable given that is intrinsic to the human condition. Certainly the concept of money has produced a system that has advanced human control over our environment, but a bit of perspective suggests it is a concept that we did without for tens of thousands of years. And, I suspect sometime in the future we will do without it again.

Maybe not "poor people need money" but rather "hungry people need food" might be the type of larger and more directly useful framework to address some of these problems within. Certainly we are at the level we should be able to provide basic food, clothing and shelter to all members of our species and no one should suffer and die from want. If we aren't doing this, given what we have and what we can do, then there is something wrong with the system and this needs correcting before we will be able to move much further. IMHOP. Maybe the thing that got us here (the concept of money) is becoming a conceptual problem that is now keeping us from advancing further. I don't have a fix. I just see what I think is part of the problem.

Re: No Money, No Time

#66
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agree with the conclusion but are upset that an example which has been simplified to make a point isn't as nebulous as real life?

You're right -- if that were the issue, it would be a bad objection; let me try again. The problem is that in real life, most such cases (of buying the more expensive item) don't result in a pure savings, but rather, leave you better off in some ways and worse off in others. The cheaper shoes, IOW, will not actually be so bad that you have to replace them entirely, and you will in fact end up with with more liquid sa…

A classic one in the US would be the choice of visiting the doctors. The rich can afford to have regular checkups(or insurance) and get a sniffle checked out early. The poor can not afford to visit the doctor over minor ailments and because of this end up spending big in lost time at work and more expensive one off treatments for a serious illness they didn't nip in the bud.

But I'd have to concede that you'd be right to say it still doesn't fit the boots analogy with out some rather lax semantics around up front vs long term cost. You could also argue that any individual might get lucky/unlucky and so it's not clear cut there, but I think it would be fair to argue that in aggregate the outcome on cost is a reasonable example.

Re: No Money, No Time

#67
post #47
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty harsh. I'd bet the shirt you are wearing was made by a hard working person you consider not important enough to matter, yet worth taking a shirt from.

They're talking about advancing society, not replacing a t-shirt. You're having a separate discussion.

How "advanced" is a society without shirts? I tend to think the idea that some people "advance society" is bull. Society advances as a whole or not at all.

Re: No Money, No Time

#68
post #31

I just wish that articles like this focused more on how to solve it. It's nice that it acknowledges the problem. But that is not enough. The end of the piece gives a small snippet of examples of what works. How do we start promoting things that do work? That really work? I think that does not get done in part because many people really do not want "the poor" to solve their problems. I do not understand why that is bu…

I recently finished reading the book mentioned in the article and in the book, they have a chapter focused on ways to improve the situation for people living in poverty. What I got from it was that programs to help poor people need to be tweaked to not tax their bandwidth as much and there is no real one size fits all solution.

One example in the book is the computer skills programs that are often offered by employment services offices. These programs are usually several weeks long and build on knowledge from previous weeks. For someone who is struggling financially, attending these classes weekly could be difficult. You miss one class, and the next class makes no sense and you feel like you're wasting your time. The authors' suggestion is to restructure these classes to be more modular and allow people to attend these classes based on their schedules.

I think it's not so much that people don't want the poor to solve their problems. It's that they don't want to make it easier for them. People feel that they themselves did just fine without all the benefits that the poor get, so why should we make it easier for them?

Re: No Money, No Time

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'Whereas the American one seems incapable of delivering anything with less than a 6-month waiting list..' My family was on a wait list for housing assistance from the time I was a child until I dropped out of school and started working, making us ineligible. The list is currently closed and was last open over half a decade ago, for less than two weeks - like something out of a fantasy novel. >...with an extremely bu…

The problem is that while there are a great many deserving people who wouldn't abuse the system, there are also plenty who would. Worse is that if you overhear one person on the bus (like I did when I was in college) talking about having another child so she could get a larger welfare check, it has a way of getting to you. It's an anecdote so it doesn't really count from a scientific perspective. But emotionally, tha…

> Here I am working hard end paying my taxes so that (in a very, very small way $ or % wise) I'm empowering someone else to just sit around and get paid to do nothing but pop out babies and raise them poorly.

Personally, what causes me to feel moral outrage is when I encounter this sort of derogatory statements, aimed at the poor. Based on something once overheard on a bus, nonetheless.

The fact that there is a tiny percentage abusing the help is a very poor excuse for not giving help to the much, much larger percentage of people who are deeply, genuinely in need of it.

As a continuation of your realization that your opinions are probably based on irrational emotions: why is this irrational anger aimed at the part of society that is least well off? For instance, I wonder what is the percentage of actually rich people who are payed with tax dollars to do nothing of value, or even something destructive.

Re: No Money, No Time

#70
>>It wasn’t that the poor participants were doing better; it was that the rich ones were doing worse.

I reminds me of a sentence from a recent study of breastfeeding vs. formula milk - "It's not that natural milk is better for babies - it's that baby formula is worse for the babies".

Post reply on HN