12 ms·

My wife has worked in the foster care system and in community based mental health counseling. It's amazing to me 1) how little empathy people in the community h

My wife has worked in the foster care system and in community based mental health counseling. It's amazing to me 1) how little empathy people in the community have for these kids who are very clearly being dealt a crappy hand in life, and 2) how little people realize the ways in which poverty affects a person's views of reality and their ability to effectively navigate the world. In another HN thread, there was a discussion of how Utah has been far more effective at caring for the homeless and protecting economic mobility than the rest of the country. My take away from that article and discussion was the stark difference in Utah for giving a crap by the community for the less fortunate. It is the willingness of the Utah population to make an active effort to help people in their community on a regular and purely voluntary basis. Teachers, social workers, and police officers can keep the train on the tracks - but they can't solve problems that aren't specifically related to education, social services, or criminal lawbreaking (despite the fact that everyone expects them to do so). I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code.

shuntress 10y ago
"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of "This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always thinking "It's not my problem".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  >"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" We hear a variation of this in FL all the time from retirees. Their children are grown and they've already paid for schools in their previous state! Ok, thanks for moving here, then.
  - vernie 10y ago
    But they're perfectly content to bankroll their incarceration down the line.
  - branchless 10y ago
    And they will be having their care bills paid in 10 years time by ... the same teenagers going through school now. What goes around should come around.
    - velodrome 10y ago
      I think you correctly identified the symbiotic relationship. If seniors expect their benefits to be fulfilled, they need to invest (jobs, education, etc.) in very people who are paying their entitlement. Stan Druckenmiller gave a talk about this very subject called "Generational Theft": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc The chart from that talk showing the reversal of investing in the young vs the old: http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generational-theft-2013-9#druckenmiller-says-the-problem-is-the-baby-boomers-moving-into-retirement-that-population-is-about-to-explode-he-says-he-points-out-that-the-old-now-consume-a-lot-more-in-their-70s-than-they-did-in-their-20s-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generat...
      - branchless 10y ago
        If only it were symbiotic. It's parasitic.
- JoeDaDude 10y ago
  My usual answer to that statement is that the quality of the local school system has a direct relation to property values. Consider school taxes as a form of home improvement!
  - derekp7 10y ago
    Another answer: you aren't paying for the current kid's education, you are paying back (with interest) the cost of your own education.
    - jimmyk 10y ago
      Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?
      - zanny 10y ago
        Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.
        fjdlwlv 10y ago
        Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.
        zanny 10y ago
        Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate. I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.
- benji-york 10y ago
  Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    Additional issues arise if we consider the problem from the standpoint of the child rather than the family. Most families can afford to pay for schooling their children, but very few children can afford to pay for schooling themselves. A private system depends, for almost all children, on parents caring enough about the welfare of their children to be willing to pay the cost of their education. Most parents, in most societies, do care for the welfare of their children. In part this may be explained by altruism, itself explainable on evolutionary grounds, and in part by the desire of parents to have children capable of supporting them in their old age. These incentives are not perfect-there are parents who sacrifice the welfare of their children to their own welfare. But the alternative to allowing parents to make decisions for their children is not, as a general rule, having the decisions made by the children-five year olds lack not only income, but information and political power as well. The alternative to having a child's parents make decisions for him is having other adults-school administrators, politicians, voters-make those decisions. Parents may not always be altruistic towards their children, but a child's parents are, of all adults, the ones most likely to be. The argument against letting the parents make the decision is an even stronger argument against letting anyone else make it instead. Here again, the empirical evidence is striking. Under circumstances of poverty difficult for most of us to imagine, British parents of the early 19th century managed to send almost all of their children to school-not for as long as our children go to school, but for long enough to acquire at least minimal skills. In this country a century later, immigrant parents routinely sacrificed themselves to promote the education of their children. We have yet to see any similar level of altruism on the part of those who control the government schools-say a teacher strike aimed at lowering teacher wages in order to leave more money to pay for books. I'm not sure this guy actually lives in the real world. Surely there is a stronger case against public schools than this hogwash?
  - omginternets 10y ago
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  The point of schools isn't to benefit children, it's to instill certain traits that are in the state's best interest for their future citizens to have.
  - fjdlwlv 10y ago
    Little of column a little of column b. The state, it's made of people, including those children.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  A lot of this stems from the Calvinist strain of religious thought that holds earthly wealth or poverty to be a sign of God's favor (or not). If I find myself in discourse with someone who holds to draconian economic views, I often slip in a few casual questions/references to see what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions). In my experience, dealing with someone who thinks the divine will is manifested in earthly affairs is better avoided. Or to quote William Burroughs' more colorful version of the same advice: if you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing,* his word ain't worth shit - not with the good Lord telling how to fuck you on the deal.* Please note that my criticism is directed as a particular subset of religious thought rather than religion in general. Every belief system has the potential to manifest in good and bad ways.
  - phd514 10y ago
    That kind of religious thought is not Calvinist in the least. Here's an actual quote from one of Calvin's sermons on the topic: "The good things given by God are but a path to lead us to him, a ladder to ascend on high, not a tomb in which to bury ourselves. We should not cling to happiness or greet its passing with a hollow laugh, for it is fleeting. Nor should we exult when men applaud us, as if we had already attained our reward for a virtuous life on earth. No, we are determined to press on through good report and bad. Such is the measured and moderate path pursued by the believer. We do not get drowsy, still less intoxicated, when times are good. And we are always willing to abandon everything if God requires. This is not how it is with unbelievers. Prosperity goes immediately to their heads, fills them to bursting; they are so befuddled that not once do they spare a thought for God or the spiritual life. In time they grow hard, and when misfortune comes they grind their teeth and blaspheme against God."
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      You seem to know what your are talking about. So let me ask you, if it was not Calvin who was the source of this idea, then which religious leader was?
- analog31 10y ago
  "I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" Because an educated populace is necessary to support their prosperity. Those kids will enter the workforce, provide social stability, demand goods and services, and pay taxes that support other people including retirees. Actually, I estimate that I do pay a fairly high percentage of my kids' education. My house is among the most highly taxed, and my kids are among the cheapest to educate. In reality, I'm also paying to educate other peoples kids. But it amuses me to think of a system where I pay 100% of their education, but reap 100% of the economic benefits stemming from that education. One idea is a deal, where you agree to pay 100% of your kids' educational costs, and in return, their future payroll taxes are paid directly to you. It's actually a horrifying idea, but it lets people think about the relative amounts of money that we're talking about: A few thousand dollars per year for 13 years, followed by many more thousands of dollars per year for four decades.
  - photojosh 10y ago
    I'd never thought about it like that before; excellent point.
- derefr 10y ago
  I don't know how "direct" this is, but I generally see my taxes as going to making the strangers I see on the street happier and nicer to be around, because they have fewer problems to deal with. Maybe this is because my city's main "export" is tourism, so large amounts of everyone's taxes here get spent on parks and cleaning up litter/graffiti and etc., rather than on things that the locals would prioritize. I don't see that as a bad thing: there are a lot of tourists here, and when they're unhappy, they can be awful people. If my city government spends my money to make them happy, then that's a bunch of potential assholes that are instead nice, friendly people! (I can only imagine how much more I would care about this if I worked in hospitality.)
  - test1235 10y ago
    A better way of looking at the results of the tax spending is the money brought in by the tourists (who like to visit nice, clean places) which in turn helps the local economy.
  - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    Perhaps one thing to consider is that the person who isn't happy paying for others may not themselves be benefiting from society. Perhaps by a purely financial view they are better off, but that is but one metric of their life. What is going on in their life that makes them prefer every man for himself?
- prostoalex 10y ago
  > An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Property tax (and subsequent education funding) is semi-voluntary. One can always downgrade to a smaller/cheaper abode and [somewhat] opt out of the system. This makes even more sense if one is childless. Let's say two people have a net worth of $1,000,000 each. Person A has a $950,000 house and $50,000 in the bank. Person B has a $200,000 house and $800,000 in the bank. 80% of B's possessions are not subject to property tax.
swasheck 10y ago
One of the interesting things that Utah does is called "Housing First." As with most things, there are pros and cons to the program. However, Utah's analysis apparently exaggerated the affect that this program had on homelessness (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solved-homeles_b_9380860.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solve...). Regardless, what you say is correct and valid. Utah seems to care about addressing multiple issues and not just the appearance of homelessness. I hope other cities, states, and/or municipalities build upon what Utah has done.
- icc97 10y ago
  I'm not sure what the cons are? If as the Utah govenor says it's cheaper to provide housing than the police/hospital/prison costs it kind of seems pretty con free. In other parts of the country the housing would cost more, but the perhaps prison, hospitals and policing would cost more in those areas too. It also doesn't take into account the extra money injected by someone returning to work because they've got a fixed house. The article you point to rightly points out that the data is over hyped which is a shame. But the article then seems to use this to throw out everything that they've done in Utah. The author appears to have some kind of fairly strong bias which I think he brings to light with this quote: > Additional focus should be placed on transitioning people out of expensive supportive housing and into housing of their own or with family members when their well-being improves. As far as I can see, if the maths stack up then just keep building houses.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
okreallywtf 10y ago
I am not sure of the reason but I think some people are more capable of empathy than others and I think people confuse empathy and sympathy. A lot of the people I meet who are less concerned with these problems do so across the board - unless it directly affects them or they've personally lived through those exact same issues they cannot (or will not?) empathize. It takes direct personal experience to change their minds. I think people who won't/cant empathize have a more simplistic view of the world as well - if you are poor you are lazy, everyone starts relatively similarly and what happens to you is mostly (if not all) related to the effort you've put in because maybe that has been their personal experience. I've been lucky enough to relate to this because I haven't had anything directly holding me back (that I am aware of), so my success or lack of success is more directly attributable to my choices and work ethic than people in worse situations than me but that doesn't prevent me from seeing how circumstances dictate choices and opportunities. I also think that there is as psychological aspect to this in that a lack of empathy also allows people who are not poor or homeless to feel as though they achieved it. Even if they are lower-middle class average people, they've achieved more than someone who is truly poor or homeless but this is just from personal observation, I think you have the same types of "self-made-person" feelings at every level of the socioeconomic ladder.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  The perfect example of not having empathy unless it directly affects you are the endless conservative politicans who don't like rights for gay people until their own kid comes out as gay. It's so frustrating to me, this lack of empathy.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    I was thinking the exact same thing but I feel bad about turning everything into a political statement but I do agree. Most of my conservative friends have at least 1 issue they are "liberal" on, because they, a friend, or relative are affected by the issue but it never seems to cause them to re-evaluate their stance on other issues which is always frustrating.
Retric 10y ago
I think part of this is the poor community in Utah is much closer to the overall community in ethnic, country of origin, and religious terms. When the poor community is 'other' it's harder to view them part of the overall community and thus care about their problems.
lotharbot 10y ago
Utah has traditionally had plenty of negatives, but a handful of recent innovations (particularly their direct housing initiative) have put them at the head of the pack. I don't think it's fair to chalk that up to "giving a crap" so much as "trying something new".
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Ohio seems to be following a similar trend in recent years, John Kasich seems to actually walk it like he talks it where policy is concerned. I would have been fine if a meteor had landed on Trump and Clinton at the last presidential debate and we ended up with Kasich because nobody wanted to start the election season over.
hectorr 10y ago
I don't give money to panhandlers, I think it encourages bad behavior. But to anyone who asks, I look them in the eye, and say "sorry, not today". I'm surprised how few people do this, it takes less effort than actively ignoring someone.
- paulcole 10y ago
  >"sorry, not today" How does this not encourage more panhandling (aka "bad behavior")? You're implying that maybe you'll have something for them tomorrow despite the fact that you never will. Does saying that do anything other than make yourself feel better about not "actively ignoring someone"?
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    What would be a better thing to say? You don't want to start a conversation or be too rude, but also want to acknowledge them. Personally, I try to ignore panhandlers to discourage it, but that is kinda like protesting elections by not voting. It feels a bit too much like apathy.
    - Fargren 10y ago
      Panhandling is probably bad enough that it discourages itself. There are reasons not to give, but I don't think you reduce panhandling by not giving, so "discouraging" is not a good reason. Hopefully some people will manage to get enough to move to something less bad.
      - akvadrako 10y ago
        Why would you say that? One person doesn't make much difference, but naturally panhandling follows the law of supply and demand like anything else.
      - ams6110 10y ago
        Talk to anyone who works at helping the homeless or impoverished, they will tell you that the vast majority of panhandlers are substance abusers looking for just enough money to get high. They are not doing it to eat (community kitchens are free) and they are not doing it to save up for something less bad.
coryrc 10y ago
One reason people oppose spending more money on homeless is how expensive it already is with poor results; mismanaged, it seems, by half grifters and half bleeding hearts, and no one with a head for effectiveness. Here's one of Seattle's big problems: http://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/ http://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/ Here's another Seattle problem: the housing association has a ten year waitlist. The government wanted to change rents so people would be rotated through so more could be helped (since most homeless are just temporary) but the socialist council member got all the people getting a sweet deal together (unlike the others who have to work for a living) to protest and nothing got fixed: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/12/seattle-housing-authority-puts-rent-changes-on-hold/ http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/12/seattle-housing-...
Kalium 10y ago
One of the things I learned quickly, living in the Bay Area, is the power of giving a crap. You're completely right! Empathy and sympathy, translated effectively into policy, can and do work wonders. You're not going to get these things where people don't care. That said, there's a potential wrinkle. Empathy, sympathy, and compassion may be necessary but are not sufficient for effective policy. The idea that empathy compels people to find effective policy is incredibly attractive. Who doesn't want to do good? Who doesn't want to help the helpless, who so clearly deserve aid? Who doesn't want to believe that a blossoming of pure intent will help? Empathy compels us! Compassion compels us! We are moved to act, and we must! Yet, it's not enough. More than one pure-hearted program in the past has gone awry. Wasted limited funds or political capital. In some cases, gone so awry as to make things worse. You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. We need to care!. We should think carefully about if giving a crap is sufficient. If it was, I would anticipate that San Francisco's very expensively given craps would have gotten the homeless off the streets by now.
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  I think my focus is less program-specific than it is interpersonal, i.e. that I as an individual have a responsibility to take part in my community as a member of that community. This means giving my time, my effort, my compassion - not just throwing some money on the table and saying "someone else fix it".
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Awesome! Out of curiosity, what does that look like in terms of action? The idea of an individual taking the individual responsibility as a member of their community to help other members of their community represents a wonderful blooming of pure intent, but is perhaps slightly abstract. Also, there's maybe a potential issue with how community is defined. How do you define your community? What could happen if others possibly have different definitions?
    - germinalphrase 10y ago
      That is, of course, the problem for this answer. We have abstracted away our reliance on other people so effectively (whether in reality or perception) that most people don't feel the need to give back. I would feel comfortable considering public service as a requirement of citizenship, to some degree. We don't have military conscription in the United States - but requiring a year of paid public service at age 16-18 would be a reasonable option in my mind.
ythn 10y ago
> I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support In my opinion, this is one of the problems effective religion solves. I'm betting one of the reasons Utah is good at "giving a crap" is because it has a strong religious infrastructure that encourages members to reach out to others in the community. I remember one part of the article even talking about redrawing church boundaries such that people in middle/upper class neighborhoods are mingling/reaching out to people living in trailer park neighborhoods. I too am tired of the mentality that government programs can solve any problem given enough money. Social workers can only make their clients feel so loved. Having a neighbor reach out to your family without being paid to do so has a tremendous impact on mental health that social workers can't replicate.
- projektir 10y ago
  Religions of the Christian flavor (probably Muslim, as well, not sure), at least, have means to unite people who are otherwise not aligned together naturally, since Christianity specifically denies the importance of skill and power, which instantly popup as virtues when you remove religion. The philosophy of Christianity, however flawed and poorly executed and rife with error, is that nobody is special before God, that your money will be lost when you die, that an obviously superior world is possible and available, that no matter what you do you can be forgiven and receive love. That's powerful. And in the face of the world we live in also very, very strange. Once that was removed, nothing was put in its place, religious or not.
e40 10y ago
We're so stuck on left vs right in this country that we lose sight of the issues. If we focused on issues and how to solve them, we'd be so much better off. My hat is off to Utah for tackling this problem and making progress.
- SaltyBackendGuy 10y ago
  So true, it's always "us" vs "them". When you take out political tribalism, most rational people can accept others positions/beliefs without hate emerging. In the end we're all just people on a rock floating through space trying to make it. Good for the people just trying to help each other out.
tryitnow 10y ago
I think Utah's success is not only due to the willingness of the Utah population, but also to their proactive pragmatic disposition. And let's be honest here, the Mormon influence is a major factor both in instilling the willingness to do something and in creating a pragmatic, solutions-oriented culture. I'm not a Mormon, in fact, I'm a staunch atheist, but I can't deny the positive effects some religions seem to have when it comes to encouraging community involvement. So I think part of the answer to the question of "how do we rebuild community" has to do with religion. Unfortunately, as an atheist, I'm probably part of the problem here.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  I remember thinking how amazing the Mormon culture was as a child growing up for a handful of years in Utah, until our next door neighbor went to Federal Prison for Fraud. Then my Parents explained to me the Mormons had a habit of exploiting social services and manipulation that would put the Gypsies to shame. "Never invite just one Mormon over, they'll drink your liquor cabinet dry. Invite two, so they watch each other like Hawks, and neither will ever touch a drop." Cults are a trip man.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    Its interesting how in some circles it is totally cool to publicly slander a group like the Mormons. Take what you wrote and substitute "Muslim" or "jew" and people would, in one second, write you off as an ignorant racist.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      It's too bad nobody can even tell a joke anymore.
      - renegadesensei 10y ago
        I agree people are often overly sensitive, but Hacker News isn't really a place for jokes and 6stringmerc's comment didn't seem to be an attempt at humor.
Banthum 10y ago
"I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code." The obvious, true, academically-established but politically-unacceptable answer is that we need homogeneity. People give a crap about others in their tribe, who will have their back later, who are working towards the same social goals as them. People don't give a crap about people of other tribes, who disrespect/hate them and their beliefs, who are working to move the world in an entirely different direction. Robert Putnam at Harvard did a study around ethnic diversity and social trust/cohesion, hoping to find that diversity helped cohesion. But, he found the opposite - diversity eats away at public trust, far more perniciously than he thought or believed. He delayed publishing for years because this result appalled him so much. But, he's a good scientist, so he did eventually report his findings [1]. So, if you want that genuine sense of community togetherness, you need to: 1. Develop a distinct identity, with a clear definition for who is and who is not in the tribe. People being as they are, you need to develop a feeling of specialness in the in-group, and a sense of otherness towards outsiders. 2. Encourage group-signifying standards, practices, and rituals on members. 3. Do not admit new members who cannot or will not homogenize into those tribal signifiers. 4. Do not permit foreign allegiances among members. Basically, do what Japan or Korea do now, or what the West used to do in the 50's, and what all pre-modern societies did. II Unfortunately it's hard to admit this, since feel-good wishful thinking about diversity is so pervasive. The idea that "diversity is our strength" is one of the Great Lies of the modern dominant cultural dogma. It's the exact opposite of the truth. Unity (while learning from others) is strength. Diversity is conflict. And everyone knows this, when it's presented the right way. We all know that it was a great crime when the British and French deliberately drew Middle Eastern country borders to contain several tribes in one country. Iraq is in constant civil war because it was designed to be in constant civil war, by putting together Kurds and Shia and Sunni in one country. The British used diversity as a weapon on the Arabs, and it worked. It's still working. The damage never ends. Meanwhile, Iran is at peace, because it is reasonably homogenous. So is Pakistan, because they persecuted the Hindu population from 15% in 1948 to 0% today. Diversity is not strength. In the Balkans, in Rwanda, in Chechnya and Syria and Iraq and pre-partition India/Pakisan and modern India and Aceh province and western China and Paris Banlieues and Molenbeek and Malmo and everywhere else, diversity is conflict. So if you want unity, choose homogeneity. ----- [1] a starting ref on Putnam's study: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4fOQbAvXU http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e23... Other reading: Coming Apart by Charles Murray
jacquesm 10y ago
Living in Romania for a while gave me a front row seat to some of the most horrible societal problems that I've ever seen. What stood out the most for me is that nobody gives a fuck. Well, almost nobody. And that in a country that is extremely religious. Imagine a guy with two stumps trying to cross the street on shortened crutches and people at the traffic light blowing their horns for him to get out of the way. Empathy is in short supply, and who cares when you have yours how someone else gets through the day. Very, very frustrating.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The harder it is to get by, the less empathy you're going to have for other people. Because you can't afford it. That sort of behavior is pretty common in poor countries.
  - robocat 10y ago
    That doesn't explain why some poor cultures are the most sharing and caring of others...
- LoonyBalloony 10y ago
  Why contribute to a society that doesn't care about you? It's a feedback loop.

shuntress 10y ago

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of "This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always thinking "It's not my problem".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
>"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" We hear a variation of this in FL all the time from retirees. Their children are grown and they've already paid for schools in their previous state! Ok, thanks for moving here, then.
- vernie 10y ago
  But they're perfectly content to bankroll their incarceration down the line.
- branchless 10y ago
  And they will be having their care bills paid in 10 years time by ... the same teenagers going through school now. What goes around should come around.
  - velodrome 10y ago
    I think you correctly identified the symbiotic relationship. If seniors expect their benefits to be fulfilled, they need to invest (jobs, education, etc.) in very people who are paying their entitlement. Stan Druckenmiller gave a talk about this very subject called "Generational Theft": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc The chart from that talk showing the reversal of investing in the young vs the old: http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generational-theft-2013-9#druckenmiller-says-the-problem-is-the-baby-boomers-moving-into-retirement-that-population-is-about-to-explode-he-says-he-points-out-that-the-old-now-consume-a-lot-more-in-their-70s-than-they-did-in-their-20s-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generat...
    - branchless 10y ago
      If only it were symbiotic. It's parasitic.
JoeDaDude 10y ago
My usual answer to that statement is that the quality of the local school system has a direct relation to property values. Consider school taxes as a form of home improvement!
- derekp7 10y ago
  Another answer: you aren't paying for the current kid's education, you are paying back (with interest) the cost of your own education.
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?
    - zanny 10y ago
      Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.
      - fjdlwlv 10y ago
        Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.
        zanny 10y ago
        Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate. I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.
benji-york 10y ago
Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  Additional issues arise if we consider the problem from the standpoint of the child rather than the family. Most families can afford to pay for schooling their children, but very few children can afford to pay for schooling themselves. A private system depends, for almost all children, on parents caring enough about the welfare of their children to be willing to pay the cost of their education. Most parents, in most societies, do care for the welfare of their children. In part this may be explained by altruism, itself explainable on evolutionary grounds, and in part by the desire of parents to have children capable of supporting them in their old age. These incentives are not perfect-there are parents who sacrifice the welfare of their children to their own welfare. But the alternative to allowing parents to make decisions for their children is not, as a general rule, having the decisions made by the children-five year olds lack not only income, but information and political power as well. The alternative to having a child's parents make decisions for him is having other adults-school administrators, politicians, voters-make those decisions. Parents may not always be altruistic towards their children, but a child's parents are, of all adults, the ones most likely to be. The argument against letting the parents make the decision is an even stronger argument against letting anyone else make it instead. Here again, the empirical evidence is striking. Under circumstances of poverty difficult for most of us to imagine, British parents of the early 19th century managed to send almost all of their children to school-not for as long as our children go to school, but for long enough to acquire at least minimal skills. In this country a century later, immigrant parents routinely sacrificed themselves to promote the education of their children. We have yet to see any similar level of altruism on the part of those who control the government schools-say a teacher strike aimed at lowering teacher wages in order to leave more money to pay for books. I'm not sure this guy actually lives in the real world. Surely there is a stronger case against public schools than this hogwash?
- omginternets 10y ago
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
The point of schools isn't to benefit children, it's to instill certain traits that are in the state's best interest for their future citizens to have.
- fjdlwlv 10y ago
  Little of column a little of column b. The state, it's made of people, including those children.
anigbrowl 10y ago
A lot of this stems from the Calvinist strain of religious thought that holds earthly wealth or poverty to be a sign of God's favor (or not). If I find myself in discourse with someone who holds to draconian economic views, I often slip in a few casual questions/references to see what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions). In my experience, dealing with someone who thinks the divine will is manifested in earthly affairs is better avoided. Or to quote William Burroughs' more colorful version of the same advice: if you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing,* his word ain't worth shit - not with the good Lord telling how to fuck you on the deal.* Please note that my criticism is directed as a particular subset of religious thought rather than religion in general. Every belief system has the potential to manifest in good and bad ways.
- phd514 10y ago
  That kind of religious thought is not Calvinist in the least. Here's an actual quote from one of Calvin's sermons on the topic: "The good things given by God are but a path to lead us to him, a ladder to ascend on high, not a tomb in which to bury ourselves. We should not cling to happiness or greet its passing with a hollow laugh, for it is fleeting. Nor should we exult when men applaud us, as if we had already attained our reward for a virtuous life on earth. No, we are determined to press on through good report and bad. Such is the measured and moderate path pursued by the believer. We do not get drowsy, still less intoxicated, when times are good. And we are always willing to abandon everything if God requires. This is not how it is with unbelievers. Prosperity goes immediately to their heads, fills them to bursting; they are so befuddled that not once do they spare a thought for God or the spiritual life. In time they grow hard, and when misfortune comes they grind their teeth and blaspheme against God."
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    You seem to know what your are talking about. So let me ask you, if it was not Calvin who was the source of this idea, then which religious leader was?
analog31 10y ago
"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" Because an educated populace is necessary to support their prosperity. Those kids will enter the workforce, provide social stability, demand goods and services, and pay taxes that support other people including retirees. Actually, I estimate that I do pay a fairly high percentage of my kids' education. My house is among the most highly taxed, and my kids are among the cheapest to educate. In reality, I'm also paying to educate other peoples kids. But it amuses me to think of a system where I pay 100% of their education, but reap 100% of the economic benefits stemming from that education. One idea is a deal, where you agree to pay 100% of your kids' educational costs, and in return, their future payroll taxes are paid directly to you. It's actually a horrifying idea, but it lets people think about the relative amounts of money that we're talking about: A few thousand dollars per year for 13 years, followed by many more thousands of dollars per year for four decades.
- photojosh 10y ago
  I'd never thought about it like that before; excellent point.
derefr 10y ago
I don't know how "direct" this is, but I generally see my taxes as going to making the strangers I see on the street happier and nicer to be around, because they have fewer problems to deal with. Maybe this is because my city's main "export" is tourism, so large amounts of everyone's taxes here get spent on parks and cleaning up litter/graffiti and etc., rather than on things that the locals would prioritize. I don't see that as a bad thing: there are a lot of tourists here, and when they're unhappy, they can be awful people. If my city government spends my money to make them happy, then that's a bunch of potential assholes that are instead nice, friendly people! (I can only imagine how much more I would care about this if I worked in hospitality.)
- test1235 10y ago
  A better way of looking at the results of the tax spending is the money brought in by the tourists (who like to visit nice, clean places) which in turn helps the local economy.
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  Perhaps one thing to consider is that the person who isn't happy paying for others may not themselves be benefiting from society. Perhaps by a purely financial view they are better off, but that is but one metric of their life. What is going on in their life that makes them prefer every man for himself?
prostoalex 10y ago
> An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Property tax (and subsequent education funding) is semi-voluntary. One can always downgrade to a smaller/cheaper abode and [somewhat] opt out of the system. This makes even more sense if one is childless. Let's say two people have a net worth of $1,000,000 each. Person A has a $950,000 house and $50,000 in the bank. Person B has a $200,000 house and $800,000 in the bank. 80% of B's possessions are not subject to property tax.

swasheck 10y ago

One of the interesting things that Utah does is called "Housing First." As with most things, there are pros and cons to the program. However, Utah's analysis apparently exaggerated the affect that this program had on homelessness (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solved-homeles_b_9380860.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solve...). Regardless, what you say is correct and valid. Utah seems to care about addressing multiple issues and not just the appearance of homelessness. I hope other cities, states, and/or municipalities build upon what Utah has done.

icc97 10y ago
I'm not sure what the cons are? If as the Utah govenor says it's cheaper to provide housing than the police/hospital/prison costs it kind of seems pretty con free. In other parts of the country the housing would cost more, but the perhaps prison, hospitals and policing would cost more in those areas too. It also doesn't take into account the extra money injected by someone returning to work because they've got a fixed house. The article you point to rightly points out that the data is over hyped which is a shame. But the article then seems to use this to throw out everything that they've done in Utah. The author appears to have some kind of fairly strong bias which I think he brings to light with this quote: > Additional focus should be placed on transitioning people out of expensive supportive housing and into housing of their own or with family members when their well-being improves. As far as I can see, if the maths stack up then just keep building houses.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

okreallywtf 10y ago

I am not sure of the reason but I think some people are more capable of empathy than others and I think people confuse empathy and sympathy. A lot of the people I meet who are less concerned with these problems do so across the board - unless it directly affects them or they've personally lived through those exact same issues they cannot (or will not?) empathize. It takes direct personal experience to change their minds. I think people who won't/cant empathize have a more simplistic view of the world as well - if you are poor you are lazy, everyone starts relatively similarly and what happens to you is mostly (if not all) related to the effort you've put in because maybe that has been their personal experience. I've been lucky enough to relate to this because I haven't had anything directly holding me back (that I am aware of), so my success or lack of success is more directly attributable to my choices and work ethic than people in worse situations than me but that doesn't prevent me from seeing how circumstances dictate choices and opportunities. I also think that there is as psychological aspect to this in that a lack of empathy also allows people who are not poor or homeless to feel as though they achieved it. Even if they are lower-middle class average people, they've achieved more than someone who is truly poor or homeless but this is just from personal observation, I think you have the same types of "self-made-person" feelings at every level of the socioeconomic ladder.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
The perfect example of not having empathy unless it directly affects you are the endless conservative politicans who don't like rights for gay people until their own kid comes out as gay. It's so frustrating to me, this lack of empathy.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  I was thinking the exact same thing but I feel bad about turning everything into a political statement but I do agree. Most of my conservative friends have at least 1 issue they are "liberal" on, because they, a friend, or relative are affected by the issue but it never seems to cause them to re-evaluate their stance on other issues which is always frustrating.

Retric 10y ago

I think part of this is the poor community in Utah is much closer to the overall community in ethnic, country of origin, and religious terms. When the poor community is 'other' it's harder to view them part of the overall community and thus care about their problems.

lotharbot 10y ago

Utah has traditionally had plenty of negatives, but a handful of recent innovations (particularly their direct housing initiative) have put them at the head of the pack. I don't think it's fair to chalk that up to "giving a crap" so much as "trying something new".

anigbrowl 10y ago
Ohio seems to be following a similar trend in recent years, John Kasich seems to actually walk it like he talks it where policy is concerned. I would have been fine if a meteor had landed on Trump and Clinton at the last presidential debate and we ended up with Kasich because nobody wanted to start the election season over.

hectorr 10y ago

I don't give money to panhandlers, I think it encourages bad behavior. But to anyone who asks, I look them in the eye, and say "sorry, not today". I'm surprised how few people do this, it takes less effort than actively ignoring someone.

paulcole 10y ago
>"sorry, not today" How does this not encourage more panhandling (aka "bad behavior")? You're implying that maybe you'll have something for them tomorrow despite the fact that you never will. Does saying that do anything other than make yourself feel better about not "actively ignoring someone"?
- akvadrako 10y ago
  What would be a better thing to say? You don't want to start a conversation or be too rude, but also want to acknowledge them. Personally, I try to ignore panhandlers to discourage it, but that is kinda like protesting elections by not voting. It feels a bit too much like apathy.
  - Fargren 10y ago
    Panhandling is probably bad enough that it discourages itself. There are reasons not to give, but I don't think you reduce panhandling by not giving, so "discouraging" is not a good reason. Hopefully some people will manage to get enough to move to something less bad.
    - akvadrako 10y ago
      Why would you say that? One person doesn't make much difference, but naturally panhandling follows the law of supply and demand like anything else.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Talk to anyone who works at helping the homeless or impoverished, they will tell you that the vast majority of panhandlers are substance abusers looking for just enough money to get high. They are not doing it to eat (community kitchens are free) and they are not doing it to save up for something less bad.

coryrc 10y ago

One reason people oppose spending more money on homeless is how expensive it already is with poor results; mismanaged, it seems, by half grifters and half bleeding hearts, and no one with a head for effectiveness. Here's one of Seattle's big problems: http://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/ http://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/ Here's another Seattle problem: the housing association has a ten year waitlist. The government wanted to change rents so people would be rotated through so more could be helped (since most homeless are just temporary) but the socialist council member got all the people getting a sweet deal together (unlike the others who have to work for a living) to protest and nothing got fixed: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/12/seattle-housing-authority-puts-rent-changes-on-hold/ http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/12/seattle-housing-...

Kalium 10y ago

One of the things I learned quickly, living in the Bay Area, is the power of giving a crap. You're completely right! Empathy and sympathy, translated effectively into policy, can and do work wonders. You're not going to get these things where people don't care. That said, there's a potential wrinkle. Empathy, sympathy, and compassion may be necessary but are not sufficient for effective policy. The idea that empathy compels people to find effective policy is incredibly attractive. Who doesn't want to do good? Who doesn't want to help the helpless, who so clearly deserve aid? Who doesn't want to believe that a blossoming of pure intent will help? Empathy compels us! Compassion compels us! We are moved to act, and we must! Yet, it's not enough. More than one pure-hearted program in the past has gone awry. Wasted limited funds or political capital. In some cases, gone so awry as to make things worse. You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. We need to care!. We should think carefully about if giving a crap is sufficient. If it was, I would anticipate that San Francisco's very expensively given craps would have gotten the homeless off the streets by now.

germinalphrase 10y ago
I think my focus is less program-specific than it is interpersonal, i.e. that I as an individual have a responsibility to take part in my community as a member of that community. This means giving my time, my effort, my compassion - not just throwing some money on the table and saying "someone else fix it".
- Kalium 10y ago
  Awesome! Out of curiosity, what does that look like in terms of action? The idea of an individual taking the individual responsibility as a member of their community to help other members of their community represents a wonderful blooming of pure intent, but is perhaps slightly abstract. Also, there's maybe a potential issue with how community is defined. How do you define your community? What could happen if others possibly have different definitions?
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    That is, of course, the problem for this answer. We have abstracted away our reliance on other people so effectively (whether in reality or perception) that most people don't feel the need to give back. I would feel comfortable considering public service as a requirement of citizenship, to some degree. We don't have military conscription in the United States - but requiring a year of paid public service at age 16-18 would be a reasonable option in my mind.

ythn 10y ago

> I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support In my opinion, this is one of the problems effective religion solves. I'm betting one of the reasons Utah is good at "giving a crap" is because it has a strong religious infrastructure that encourages members to reach out to others in the community. I remember one part of the article even talking about redrawing church boundaries such that people in middle/upper class neighborhoods are mingling/reaching out to people living in trailer park neighborhoods. I too am tired of the mentality that government programs can solve any problem given enough money. Social workers can only make their clients feel so loved. Having a neighbor reach out to your family without being paid to do so has a tremendous impact on mental health that social workers can't replicate.

projektir 10y ago
Religions of the Christian flavor (probably Muslim, as well, not sure), at least, have means to unite people who are otherwise not aligned together naturally, since Christianity specifically denies the importance of skill and power, which instantly popup as virtues when you remove religion. The philosophy of Christianity, however flawed and poorly executed and rife with error, is that nobody is special before God, that your money will be lost when you die, that an obviously superior world is possible and available, that no matter what you do you can be forgiven and receive love. That's powerful. And in the face of the world we live in also very, very strange. Once that was removed, nothing was put in its place, religious or not.

e40 10y ago

We're so stuck on left vs right in this country that we lose sight of the issues. If we focused on issues and how to solve them, we'd be so much better off. My hat is off to Utah for tackling this problem and making progress.

SaltyBackendGuy 10y ago
So true, it's always "us" vs "them". When you take out political tribalism, most rational people can accept others positions/beliefs without hate emerging. In the end we're all just people on a rock floating through space trying to make it. Good for the people just trying to help each other out.

tryitnow 10y ago

I think Utah's success is not only due to the willingness of the Utah population, but also to their proactive pragmatic disposition. And let's be honest here, the Mormon influence is a major factor both in instilling the willingness to do something and in creating a pragmatic, solutions-oriented culture. I'm not a Mormon, in fact, I'm a staunch atheist, but I can't deny the positive effects some religions seem to have when it comes to encouraging community involvement. So I think part of the answer to the question of "how do we rebuild community" has to do with religion. Unfortunately, as an atheist, I'm probably part of the problem here.

6stringmerc 10y ago
I remember thinking how amazing the Mormon culture was as a child growing up for a handful of years in Utah, until our next door neighbor went to Federal Prison for Fraud. Then my Parents explained to me the Mormons had a habit of exploiting social services and manipulation that would put the Gypsies to shame. "Never invite just one Mormon over, they'll drink your liquor cabinet dry. Invite two, so they watch each other like Hawks, and neither will ever touch a drop." Cults are a trip man.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Its interesting how in some circles it is totally cool to publicly slander a group like the Mormons. Take what you wrote and substitute "Muslim" or "jew" and people would, in one second, write you off as an ignorant racist.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    It's too bad nobody can even tell a joke anymore.
    - renegadesensei 10y ago
      I agree people are often overly sensitive, but Hacker News isn't really a place for jokes and 6stringmerc's comment didn't seem to be an attempt at humor.

Banthum 10y ago

"I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code." The obvious, true, academically-established but politically-unacceptable answer is that we need homogeneity. People give a crap about others in their tribe, who will have their back later, who are working towards the same social goals as them. People don't give a crap about people of other tribes, who disrespect/hate them and their beliefs, who are working to move the world in an entirely different direction. Robert Putnam at Harvard did a study around ethnic diversity and social trust/cohesion, hoping to find that diversity helped cohesion. But, he found the opposite - diversity eats away at public trust, far more perniciously than he thought or believed. He delayed publishing for years because this result appalled him so much. But, he's a good scientist, so he did eventually report his findings [1]. So, if you want that genuine sense of community togetherness, you need to: 1. Develop a distinct identity, with a clear definition for who is and who is not in the tribe. People being as they are, you need to develop a feeling of specialness in the in-group, and a sense of otherness towards outsiders. 2. Encourage group-signifying standards, practices, and rituals on members. 3. Do not admit new members who cannot or will not homogenize into those tribal signifiers. 4. Do not permit foreign allegiances among members. Basically, do what Japan or Korea do now, or what the West used to do in the 50's, and what all pre-modern societies did. II Unfortunately it's hard to admit this, since feel-good wishful thinking about diversity is so pervasive. The idea that "diversity is our strength" is one of the Great Lies of the modern dominant cultural dogma. It's the exact opposite of the truth. Unity (while learning from others) is strength. Diversity is conflict. And everyone knows this, when it's presented the right way. We all know that it was a great crime when the British and French deliberately drew Middle Eastern country borders to contain several tribes in one country. Iraq is in constant civil war because it was designed to be in constant civil war, by putting together Kurds and Shia and Sunni in one country. The British used diversity as a weapon on the Arabs, and it worked. It's still working. The damage never ends. Meanwhile, Iran is at peace, because it is reasonably homogenous. So is Pakistan, because they persecuted the Hindu population from 15% in 1948 to 0% today. Diversity is not strength. In the Balkans, in Rwanda, in Chechnya and Syria and Iraq and pre-partition India/Pakisan and modern India and Aceh province and western China and Paris Banlieues and Molenbeek and Malmo and everywhere else, diversity is conflict. So if you want unity, choose homogeneity. ----- [1] a starting ref on Putnam's study: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4fOQbAvXU http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e23... Other reading: Coming Apart by Charles Murray

jacquesm 10y ago

Living in Romania for a while gave me a front row seat to some of the most horrible societal problems that I've ever seen. What stood out the most for me is that nobody gives a fuck. Well, almost nobody. And that in a country that is extremely religious. Imagine a guy with two stumps trying to cross the street on shortened crutches and people at the traffic light blowing their horns for him to get out of the way. Empathy is in short supply, and who cares when you have yours how someone else gets through the day. Very, very frustrating.

gozur88 10y ago
The harder it is to get by, the less empathy you're going to have for other people. Because you can't afford it. That sort of behavior is pretty common in poor countries.
- robocat 10y ago
  That doesn't explain why some poor cultures are the most sharing and caring of others...
LoonyBalloony 10y ago
Why contribute to a society that doesn't care about you? It's a feedback loop.