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

Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

metafilter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 337 posts

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#81

Post by nphase »

xenophanes wrote: post #18
pavs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ust because something is good doesn't mean the tax payers should pay for it. There are other options. if you remove 'good' with 'useful', and it seems to me that this is exactly what tax payers should pay for. There are tons of useless shit tax money is used for, libraries is not one of them.

You seem to have no idea what the libertarian position is. So I'll try to help: Just because something is super good and super useful -- and uncontroversially worthwhile -- like groceries, cars, delivery of packages, the production of beds, health care, retirement savings, and so on ... absolutely does not imply that the Government should be paying for it with tax money. Libertarians believe that Government is kind o…

Running then with the library example, who then would be inclined to fund and run libraries in local communities across the nation (where companies may not be heavily invested or even able to afford such efforts)? In the libertarian stance, what would the alternative here be?

Don't get me wrong - I generally find the libertarian mindset quite agreeable but there are certain examples where I'm unable to reach the conclusions truer libertarians do, and this would be one of them.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#82

Post by urbanjunkie »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #61
neilk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is also useful for things which have massive positive externalities. Education is the paradigmatic example. Libraries are also an example of a good where maintaining the "option to buy" is potentially more important than any service you consume. In other words, having a big pile of books in a building, available for close to no cost, enables us all to act more freely -- knowing we can get more information…

What "massive positive externalities" are created by a library? The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? Since I am the sole beneficiary, the library can charge me for it, and prevent me from consuming it if I don't pay. Why should you be forced to pay for me to receive these ben…

> I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me?

That actually made me feel sorry for you.

Are you really this much of an island, or do you just enjoy trolling? Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before? Is there no benefit to me that perhaps because someone in a library showed you how to apply for your housing benefit online you didn't feel the need to break into my car?

And yes, much crime like theft can be related to drugs. But a significant proportion can also be tied back to poverty.

You're like a parody of all that's bad about the libertarian ethos. Or whatever you think you are.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#83

Post by theblogdoctor »

Here in San Francisco, it's a whole different story.

Our main Library cost tax payers $109.5 million and occupies over 376,000 square feet, boasting six floors above ground and a size twice as big as the building it replaced.

What it has become now is a Country Club for the Homeless population in the Tenderloin, who use it to eat in, sleep in,pee in and pretty much live in.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#84

Post by yummyfajitas »

lemmsjid wrote: post #69
yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

I'm going to reject one of the premises of the article, namely the premise that he is helping people who are "barely surviving". Let's consider people who are receiving cash or non-cash benefits, as the article described. Among these people, 67% have cable or satellite TV. 38% have a playstation. 47% own a computer. 23% have a big screen TV. Only 14% of people receiving government benefits lacked all of these luxurie…

I'm struggling to understand what conclusions you can draw from that. For one thing, what of that 14%? Do those people not exist? Are they not statistically significant for you to care about them? For another, are the 47% who own a computer somehow automatically well off? Do you understand the economic situation a family can be in? They own a computer whose net worth is about $50. At some point they bought a televisi…

The 14% you describe are bottom 14% of the bottom 10-20% - i.e., the bottom 2-3% of the nation. They can be dealt with by a small, targeted program.

The rest can turn off cable and go pay for a computer at kinkos once in a while. Last time I was in NYC, it was about $0.10/minute, so if the "struggling" man skipped one or two big macs he could afford to pay for internet service (and he'd be slightly closer to a healthy bodyweight).

There are places where housing is cheaper. Those places are inevitably situated the furthest distance from locations of economic opportunity.

You seem to be holding the mistaken belief that the poor work for a living. Please educate yourself. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#85

Post by urbanjunkie »

lemmsjid wrote: post #69
yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

I'm going to reject one of the premises of the article, namely the premise that he is helping people who are "barely surviving". Let's consider people who are receiving cash or non-cash benefits, as the article described. Among these people, 67% have cable or satellite TV. 38% have a playstation. 47% own a computer. 23% have a big screen TV. Only 14% of people receiving government benefits lacked all of these luxurie…

I'm struggling to understand what conclusions you can draw from that. For one thing, what of that 14%? Do those people not exist? Are they not statistically significant for you to care about them? For another, are the 47% who own a computer somehow automatically well off? Do you understand the economic situation a family can be in? They own a computer whose net worth is about $50. At some point they bought a televisi…

So, there is a need for external assistance.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#86

Post by [deleted] »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #61
neilk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is also useful for things which have massive positive externalities. Education is the paradigmatic example. Libraries are also an example of a good where maintaining the "option to buy" is potentially more important than any service you consume. In other words, having a big pile of books in a building, available for close to no cost, enables us all to act more freely -- knowing we can get more information…

What "massive positive externalities" are created by a library? The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? Since I am the sole beneficiary, the library can charge me for it, and prevent me from consuming it if I don't pay. Why should you be forced to pay for me to receive these ben…

[deleted]

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#87

Post by xenophanes »

philwelch wrote: post #57
xenophanes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to present the good side of libertarianism. The argument you present for libertarians is bad and borderline shameful (and, I think, not representative of the majority of libertarians. but certainly something some of them would say). But there much better arguments with similar conclusions. The main reason it's an awful position, in my view, is that it's premised on conflicts of interest and compromise --…

This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a leg…

You're wrong and should stop hating people you're ignorant of.

I'll give brief examples in hopes you, recognizing you really were wrong about some basic facts, will either learn about the subject or stop making nasty, ignorant accusations in the future.

Ayn Rand did not have a policy of "never accept handouts", said so, and, for example, signed up for medicaid.

Ayn Rand's argument I cited does not consist of denying there are public goods. Whatever her position on public goods, if you read the chapter, public goods are simply not what she talks about, and your comments do not address the argument she did make.

Ayn Rand rejected and harshly criticized libertarianism. Calling her a libertarian is ignorant.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#88

Post by yummyfajitas »

philwelch wrote: post #57
xenophanes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to present the good side of libertarianism. The argument you present for libertarians is bad and borderline shameful (and, I think, not representative of the majority of libertarians. but certainly something some of them would say). But there much better arguments with similar conclusions. The main reason it's an awful position, in my view, is that it's premised on conflicts of interest and compromise --…

This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a leg…

Rand doesn't recognize a legitimate interest in public goods,...

This is simply false. In Atlas Shrugged, she explicitly acknowledges that providing public goods is a legitimate function of government, and taxation is legitimate insofar as at it used to pay for public goods. If I remember correctly (it's been a long time), it was Hank Reardon who states this point.

I believe a (fair) judge was also allowed into Galt's Gulch, though I might be misremembering this point. As I said, it's been a long time since I read the book.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#89

Post by lemmsjid »

feralchimp wrote: post #21

TL;DR - Just because you don't use the library doesn't mean no one needs them anymore. Not everyone's Real Life Issues are amenable to a self-service web portal, and that's not just because no one has built the right widgets yet. > it will be a slow death by a thousand cuts It will be a slow descent into budget fugue, followed by an extremely quick death when we pass an inflection point in "the number of people who r…

Santa Monica (near where I live) recently re-opened its public library. A lot of shelf space was sacrificed for meeting rooms. They're basically white board equipped conference rooms with tables and chairs. You walk through there, and see all sorts of groups of people meeting in those rooms, talking animatedly. It's kind of fun to imagine what they're meeting about, I've seen evidence of startups, community groups, etc. based on what's on the board. The rooms are pretty sound-proofed, so you don't hear them as you're perusing the books. There's also quiet study rooms where you can do your business if you want to be absolutely quiet. A lot of space was devoted to a cafe area, which is nice for doing coffee-shop-style laptop work (except they won't kick you out).

Santa Monica is the position of being an economically well-off city (and thus able to afford such a lavish library) with a significant homeless/poor population, which is very well represented in the library. For areas in the midst of complete economic blight, I doubt there's as many niceties opening up--which is sad.

As is the point of the article, in the midst of all this Information Age online-this and online-that, there's a sad lack of civic-mindedness. How does the community as a whole uplift the people within it who are not doing as well? I doubt most of the higher-end property-tax payers in Santa Monica actually go to the library--and it is clearly servicing the people paying the least (or nothing) for it. Sadly, most of the rhetoric I see on the public policy level is, "I was in line at Albertson's and saw someone buying a steak with their food stamps!!! And a bottle of wine! How dare they? You should only be able to buy lima beans and tepid water with food stamps."

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#90

Post by njs12345 »

xenophanes wrote: post #59
reinhardt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) for things that provide value but don't (necessarily) make money. And no, persuading people to voluntarily pay for these is not generally sustainable.

I knowingly, intentionally disagree with the public good argument. See: http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods

Surely as argued above, contagious disease prevention would qualify as a public good — it is certainly something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Why do you agree with government provision in this case but not in the case of, say, free education for all?

That article doesn't seem to give much sway to the issue of transaction costs in letting people organise to provide a public good, which is really central to the issue..

Post reply on HN