19 ms·

Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

334 points by rjsamson 9y ago

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
Did they actually buy the land they said they were going to buy to keep an eminent domain lawsuit open so that The Wall can't be built?
- moonka 9y ago
  Looks like it. https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/ https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/
  - liveoneggs 9y ago
    that piece of property looks beautiful
  - FLUX-YOU 9y ago
    I doubt a law firm would put their letterhead on a fake letter, but looking at the public map, most of the subdivision I got a letter for is already owned by the USA: http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx Tarpon Haven Subdivision Edit: There's also two huge tracts of land above that subdivision that are also owned by the US. I'm not sure they even need to go through that subdivision if they wanted to just build a wall through the land the government already owns. That's rather... ineffective.
    - moonka 9y ago
      Where did you find which property they bought? I probably missed it. I also imagine that if they built north of the property, walling off a part of property from the rest of the country in that fashion would fall into some legal issues.
      - FLUX-YOU 9y ago
        It was in the letter they sent to individuals: https://imgur.com/emSk75t https://imgur.com/emSk75t
ridgewell 9y ago
>We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They’ll be fine. Yikes. I certainly got a laugh out of that, then an overly reflective period of what I'm grateful for, especially the benefits afforded from being north of the border.
- geodel 9y ago
  Yep with healthcare taken care of, Canadians have nothing to worry about. http://www.macleans.ca/economy/congrats-canadians-youre-world-leaders-in-debt/ http://www.macleans.ca/economy/congrats-canadians-youre-worl...
  - jquery 9y ago
    This entire thread is a disaster (which is why I flagged the story, it was low quality political bait). My account is old enough that I'm not violating the rules when I say HN is turning into reddit.
- throwawaycloud 9y ago
  Throwaway for privacy. I've been concealing cancer symptoms for years, mostly because I can't afford to get a colonoscopy. Even the cheapest clinics run well over $1k, which is totally out of reach. The secondary reason is an unhealthy fear of needles and a desire to live without a colostomy bag. I know I need to see a psychiatrist or a therapist to help me get over these irrational fears, but you guessed it: I can't afford to. I make just enough not to be covered by any of the ACA's tiers, which means it'd be $400/mo for health insurance. It's like.. $400/mo? Do you have any idea what I could buy with $400/mo? I'd be able to afford to eat as much meat as I want to, let alone health insurance. So yeah, just barely treading water down here in the good ol' USA. Cheers from down south. (I'm not jealous, to be clear. Hopefully we'll get our stuff sorted out someday.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
eutectic 9y ago
Why only consider within-country inequality (and, yes, I realize that the answer is 'because it's partly a publicity stunt, and humans are biased and parochial')? The average American is incomparable wealthy compared to the average African, and you can on average save a life for only a few $thousand to one of Givewell's top recommended charities.
- jquery 9y ago
  It's a stunt to prove socialism is great. What it actually demonstrated is that charity works great. Charity is not socialism.
  - GunlogAlm 9y ago
    Ah, the old "private charity will solve all our problems" meme.
    - jquery 9y ago
      People stopped starving to death when capitalism created enough wealth that we joke about First World Problems. Socialism doesn’t stop people from starving, look at Venezuela. Look at China’s history.
      - fjsolwmv 9y ago
        Look at Native Americans history and Hawaiians history and Bhopal's history.
        jquery 9y ago
        Is this the "it's not my job to educate you" reply? What Native American tribe are you talking about? Are you saying the tribes that didn't have private property were rich?
  - geofft 9y ago
    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?
mberning 9y ago
Wait... all these people paid $15 to begin with? Are you really that poor if you can flip out $15 for any little thing that comes along.
- throwercah 9y ago
  Maybe they're poor because they're constantly wasting money buying frivolous things online instead of paying their bills.
  - platz 9y ago
    Avocado toast
- jquery 9y ago
  That's an excellent point, really.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  $15 is a roughly a single meal. Are we suggesting that $15 spent towards entertainment is exceptional or excessive for anyone below middle-class, ? If that's true, than surely we're worse off than we're all aware of.
  - l4yao 9y ago
    In large parts of America, $15 is a lot more than a single meal. I grew up in relative poverty, $15 for entertainment would seem like a very poor choice in my household. Your comment makes me think we really are worse off than many people are aware of.
  - mberning 9y ago
    At a restaurant. Which you really shouldn't be indulging in very often or at all if $1000 is a major boon to your life.
    - djsumdog 9y ago
fragsworth 9y ago
I suspect the audience of people who really like Cards Against Humanity leans towards people who like being "politically incorrect", because the card game often inspires people to be incredibly offensive. It seems likely that their audience includes lots of 4channers, shitlords, extremists, racists, or any other group of people known to be generally offensive. By making moves like this, they're showing everyone else that they aren't actually so bad - which is an interesting business decision. So maybe if you're a really sensitive person, you see this kind of thing they do with their money, and don't feel too bad about buying or playing an offensive game.
- cgmg 9y ago
  > It seems likely that their audience includes lots of 4channers, shitlords, extremists, racists, or any other group of people known to be generally offensive. It seems likely that you're generalizing way too much from your own experiences. I know plenty of people who play CAH and they're far from being the "4channers, shitlords, extremists, and racists" you claim.
- bloomca 9y ago
  Honestly, having experience what are typical jokes for 4chan, CAH is a very friendly game – I never seen anything really bad there. It is mostly about vulgar sex jokes, which you usually don't use in real life, there is not a lot of actual incorrectness.
- rocqua 9y ago
  > people who really like Cards Against Humanity leans towards people who like being "politically incorrect" Not quite, it leans towards people who think that being "politically incorrect" is funny. The great thing about CAH is exactly that it should be clear everything is said in jest. It is important in a society to be able to joke about the taboos. And it is great for people that enjoy this kind of humor to have a place for it where people don't suspect you say these things because you mean them.
- sctb 9y ago
  > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Helloworldboy 9y ago
How can such a boring game have such a large following? The gimmick wears out in like 15 minutes. Edit: these downvotes. To think I pegged HN for a community with good taste in card games.
- TehCorwiz 9y ago
  It's less about the game itself and more about the people you're with when you sit down to play it. You get to know what they're squeamish about, what their prejudices are, what they're passionate about, even their fears. They say that many a truth was spoken in jest and giving someone license to say aloud dirty, disgusting, or even downright reprehensible thoughts will get to the core of someone's worldview faster than anything else. Think of it less as a game and more as a communal word-association test.
  - Helloworldboy 9y ago
    I've played it several times before with a pretty wide range of people. Without fail it just devolves into who can put together the edgiest answer. Then after 2 or 3 rounds everyone just comes to expect it and gets bored.
    - TehCorwiz 9y ago
      https://youtu.be/ZVOD5D4IArw?t=164 https://youtu.be/ZVOD5D4IArw?t=164
      - Helloworldboy 9y ago
        I think you can draw some great parallels between Harvey Danger as a band and Cards Against Humanity as a card game. Harvey Danger - 1 successful song - Edgy and cringey (eg. "and I don't even own a TV", W E W) CaH - Fun for 1 hand - Edgy and cringey I guess Harvey Danger was bored, because they sure are boring.
        TehCorwiz 9y ago
n0her0 9y ago
They took the money and put it where it seemed like it would have the biggest impact. The people who paid $15 should all be very happy to have been a part of this. For many, especially those with little income and high economic insecurity, holidays are very tough and actually result in working few days having less money at a time of greater need. To those seeking to criticize, it was not meant to be a perfect example of anything. It is also very relevant that this was done by a company who could have kept that money and sent a Christmas card with something snarky, and it would not have hurt their bottom line. One of the coolest things I've read in a long time.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  It really is. Way better than that Holliday hole.
  - notatoad 9y ago
    i feel like this wouldn't have been as well received if it weren't preceded by the holiday hole. CaH has kind of built a reputation where they do silly things with silly amounts of money. Because they spent last november literally dumping money in a pit, they can fairly easily avoid criticisms about how this isn't a perfect scheme with the "it's better than throwing money in a pit" excuse. And i don't in any way mean this as a criticism. There's a lot of benefit to be had in experimenting with non-perfect ways to help the poor, but way too often those projects are criticized harshly for being imperfect. I love that CaH is able to do this.
- jjirsa 9y ago
  Bought a few of these (for myself, and as gifts). Was happy to have been a part of just day 1 - well worth the money. Everything else is icing on the cake.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  > it was not meant as a perfect example of anything +1 this I feel like we tend to demonize incremental progress in favor of easy criticism. Let's maybe ask: "Is this a Good Thing? Is it better than nothing? Is it better than than yesterday's suggestion?" If you answer no to any of those, shut the fuck up with your criticism and start working on the next iteration.
FLGMwt 9y ago
Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers. Don't immediately react and reply that this is gameable. Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable. Pause for a second and think about why this is necessarily coming from a game company that's small and makes a crude product. Think about why something like this shouldn't be coming from an entity with much more power to effect positive social or economical change. And if you're part of one of those powers, can you do something?
- n0her0 9y ago
  They offer their base product as a download for free on their main page right below the buy button and it is licensed under the Creative Commons... And they give you instructions on how to do it most easily. They are an exceptional company, and have earned fans instead of customers.
- donohoe 9y ago
  +100
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jquery 9y ago
  Their whole schtick is that they did some private charity work and it went great so FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK CAPITALISM. And you’re asking people not to talk about the main point of their shtick? I won’t argue what they did isn’t good but literally thousands of charities do this every day.
  - FLGMwt 9y ago
    I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact? I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that. They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism. If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."
rocqua 9y ago
This is a great thing. Truly, hats of too cards against humanity. I noticed something worrying about myself when reading these stories. A small voice in the back of my head judged a lot of these people. Those who say they will use it for gifts, travel or other things I apparently deem frivolous. It is not okay of me to think these things. These people deserve happiness, and these people can make their own choices. This disdain is something I really wanna work on. :(
- cipherzero 9y ago
  I had the same moment of introspection... I remember thinking “you want to spend this money on gifts or car tires?” And then I realized that these are the things they’re stressing about. It’s nice to think those will be one less stressor in a life full of stressful things. Which I think is good - if only for the mental win of not having to worry about X. Way to go CAH - you got me thinking. And this time it wasn’t about something I had to go look up on urban dictionary.
- Pulcinella 9y ago
  Yeah honestly I think it’s good that some people spent it on gifts, travel, etc. rather than spending it all on bills/debt.
- username223 9y ago
  Reminds me of this classic track: http://www.metrolyrics.com/g00/underwear-goes-inside-the-pants-lyrics-lazyboy.html http://www.metrolyrics.com/g00/underwear-goes-inside-the-pan... Before you judge, ask yourself how you would spend the $15.
djsumdog 9y ago
I think back to last year's Holliday Hole. One of the FAQs was, "Why don't you give the money to charity?" A: "Why don't you give the money to charity. It's your money." I'm glad this year they're not literally throwing money into a hole...err..dig a hole.
bobcostas55 9y ago
Literally every single poor person pictured is obese. That baby is almost certainly going to be overweight in a few years. I'm amazed this isn't a bigger issue politically. Nutrition is a huge driver of health inequality. In 50 years the obesity rate has quadrupled. A return to the eating habits of the 1960s is perhaps the greatest possible welfare achievement right now (in the US), with impact far larger than universal healthcare. And it doesn't need to cost anything.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A return to the eating habits of the 1960s is perhaps the greatest possible welfare achievement right now (in the US), with impact far larger than universal healthcare. You are comparing a concrete policy with a policy outcome for which there is no even remote concept of a policy mechanism that would achieve it. > And it doesn't need to cost anything. Massive changes to behavior are not free; the changes in eating habits that happened since the 1969s were driven by a number of economic and other factors, and counteracting all those factors to drive people back to 1960s eating habits would not be cheap.
  - mobilefriendly 9y ago
    Actually there are plenty of policy mechanisms to improve nutrition. First repeal subsidy programs for corn and sugar, in particular remove the U.S. import tariffs that create a market for high fructose corn syrup. Next end food stamp coverage for junk food and sugar drinks. Further, allow insurers, medicaid, etc surcharge for the obese-- make them pay for the extra costs they are imposing on the system. Consider taxes on sugar drinks. Finally improve school lunch nutrition.
    - harryh 9y ago
      I would also add: - regulate advertisements for unhealthy foods, especially ads targeted at children - ban vending machines (and candy sales) on school campuses - implement sugar taxes similar to cigarette taxes
    - 9y ago
owenversteeg 9y ago
Anyone else want to discuss the wealth metric they created? That's fascinating to me, with just a handful of datapoints they were able to estimate people's income fairly effectively IMO. The biggest 3 points were census information from addresses (median income/percentage below poverty line), race/gender/education plus BLS statistics, and occupation (combined with median income for that job from BLS.)
partiallypro 9y ago
"The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?" A lot of hardworking people don't want handouts from the government. Though some do, but I believe they are a minority. I generally hate the mindset of wanting money from the government. I want off of the government if I can help it. The fact is that most Americans pay virtually no federal income tax, and get money back during their returns. When I was starting out and made the median income level for the state I was living in at the time, I still paid no tax (outside of SALT) and got a return larger than what I paid in. People don't realize the government already heavily subsidizes the poor and as well as people well above the poverty line.
- harryh 9y ago
  The fact is that most Americans pay virtually no federal income tax, This is not really true. Especially when you also look at payroll taxes which are, for all intents and purposes, income taxes. When I...made the median income level for the state I was living in at the time, I still paid no tax (outside of SALT) and got a return larger than what I paid in. This is highly unlikely to be true. I'm sure you remember it this way but without supporting data it is very hard to believe.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    Only about 1/2 of Americans at any given time work (very roughly - think kids, elderly etc.) so most Americans don't pay tax is technically kind of correct, but not very meaningful at all in any discussion.
    - harryh 9y ago
      Lots of people that aren't working do pay taxes though. Social Security benefits, for example, are taxable in a lot of cases.
    - death_and_taxes 9y ago
      Using 2015 as a reference, of the people that work in the US (represented by 141,204,625 tax returns), the top 50% paid 97.17% of all federal income taxes. The statement that about half of Americans don't pay federal income taxes is only for those that are filing taxes (and therefore probably working), so if you want to include the non-working, it's more like 75% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Here is the data from the IRS, look at the last table cell at the bottom all the way on the right. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls
FLGMwt 9y ago
pokes head out of curtain What if $15 means something different to people with fungible assets* vs. those where money is tight. *: HN population
phantom_oracle 9y ago
This would probably fall into the off-topic area considering the content of the site, but I am quite impressed about the fact that they bought this long-ass domain and went along with it. Does this give insight into the fact that under certain circumstances, we are post-dotcom (as a critical tool for branding)? Their regular domain is quite long too: https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/ https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/ (and is definitely not as friendly to the eyes as something like: cah.[trendy-extension])
bluthru 9y ago
Much better than digging a hole in the ground or buying up property along the border.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  I'll agree on the hole-in-the-ground schtick which I guess I attribute to a social experiment. As far as the border property, I wish more people of consequential power/capital would follow their lead and buy up border property. The wall is preposterous and any form of resistance is credible in my eyes.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    What's preposterous about the wall? It's not useful but plenty of far more expensive government projects are useless (e.g. Joint Strike Fighter etc.) But I see people opposing the wall more than the Joint Strike Fighter.
  - bluthru 9y ago
    >The wall is preposterous Why? This site is obviously biased, but it presents a case for the wall saving us money: https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immi... I'd rather spend money on dumb, long-term tech like that instead of our ridiculous military budget. The wall was certainly a success for San Diego: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxhhjfiSy2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxhhjfiSy2Y
MilnerRoute 9y ago
How do we know this really is "Cards Against Humanity," and not just some prankster's domain?
- MilnerRoute 9y ago
  I found an NBC story about it, so it looks like it's confirmed. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-humanity-redistributes-money-with-latest-promotion-463103443.html https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-humanity...
alexasmyths 9y ago
Wealth concentration is a problem but poor countries are not poor because some rich Westerners 'have a lot of power'. Nice sentiment though, and that counts for something.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
calimac 9y ago
Fuck off CAH, they cut off their nose to spite their face. They clearly are thinking ina zero sum with this tax bill.
death_and_taxes 9y ago
It's great they are giving away money, but they are also stressing a political agenda that doesn't make any sense. First, they are advocating for a fixed tax regardless of wealth, but not taxing the poorest 7%, then giving money to the poorest 0.07%. The Republican tax plan they hate so much still severely taxes the rich, basically doesn't tax the bottom 45% at all[1], and actually gives money back to a much higher percentage of working poor with children who can actually end up getting paid by the government instead of owing taxes. What does Cards Against Humanity have against poor people that they have chosen to benefit the rich so much compared to the federal tax system? Ok sarcasm aside, does CAH seriously want Donald Trump et al to decide what to do with more of their money? Tax cuts equal more money for you to decide what to do with instead of the people in charge of the government. They could send 1,000's of needy people $1,000 checks each year with the money they will save in corporate taxes. And they can choose where that money goes! And if there are tax cuts at all they will benefit the wealthy, because the wealthy pay all the taxes. According to the IRS, in 2015 the top 50% of earners paid 97.17% of Federal income taxes, the top 30% of earners pay almost 89.82% of Federal income taxes.[2] 1: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-fed... - new tax plan cuts taxes at all income brackets, so this number will only go up 2: (xls download) https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls linking source: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-inco...
- GhostVII 9y ago
  I don't think they are advocating for anything in particular, except for acknowledging that the income gap is an issue. What is wrong with them giving people the opportunity to help address this gap?
  - death_and_taxes 9y ago
    There is nothing wrong with the help they are giving people, that's great. But here are some quotes from the article: "I’m poor and I’m mad that I didn’t get any money. Our bad. We had to guess how much money you had with limited data. The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?" "Does Cards Against Humanity support the Republican tax bill that would give your company a huge tax break? No, bitch." "What can I do to help solve wealth inequality? The most important thing you can do is support candidates who are working to fight inequality and are not turds. In the meantime, here are some organizations that are working to fix the problem from the ground up: MoveOn.org AmericanForTaxFairness.org StudentDebtCrisis.org" The claim I am making is that the US government, and the Republican tax bill, is redistributing money much much more aggressively than the Cards Against Humanity program, but they are framed as being really evil. It seems like pure political nonsense. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
danjoc 9y ago
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/wal-marts-unconventional-approach-to-get-people-to-save-prizes https://www.npr.org/2016/11/25/503316517/wal-marts-unconvent... I'm not mad, but whoever downvoted this post is a "give a man a fish" sort of person.
- twhb 9y ago
  This is their rainy day.
fabianhjr 9y ago
For anyone that liked this action, you can continue it trough GiveDirectly (https://givedirectly.org/ 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_Shapiro_UCT_2016.04.25.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapi... > > We find that treatment households increased both consumption and savings (in the form of durable good purchases and investment in their self-employment activities). In particular, we observe increases in food expenditures and food security, but not spending on temptation goods. Households invest in livestock and durable assets (notably metal roofs), and we show that these investments lead to increases in revenue from agricultural and business activities, although we find no significant effect on profits at this short time horizon. We also observe no evidence of conflict resulting from the transfers; on the contrary, we report large increases in psychological wellbeing, and an increase in female empowerment with a large spillover effect on non-recipient households in treatment villages. Thus, these findings suggest that simple cash transfers may not have the perverse effects that some policymakers feel they would have, which has led to a clear policy preference for in-kind or skills transfers [...] and conditional transfers. EDIT: Added link to GD.
- RobinL 9y ago
  If you want a quick intro to GD and their philosophy, see here: https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differently https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differen... They've been on GiveWell's list of recommended charities for 6 years now: https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post?id=4342506782249915867 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 https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now Donate here (UK, with Giftaid): https://www.givedirectly.org/uk https://www.givedirectly.org/uk $0.91 of every $1.00 dollar ends up in the hands of the poor.
CloudYeller 9y ago
Inspiring to see why $1000 makes so much of a difference for many recipients: the most common theme was spending time with family. Sometimes work just seems like random people fighting tooth and nail to earn millions. It would be interesting to see everyone's reasons for acting that way. I bet it usually boils down to "it's for my family". But the real truth there is, having a happy family does not require millions.
akkat 9y ago
> 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.
- scott_karana 9y ago
  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 private, for profit company sacrificing profits and trying to do "good", as seen through their own lens. Power to them.
  - akkat 9y ago
    I'm not complaining. I just think that it's interesting to see the demographics of the winners. 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?
    - scott_karana 9y ago
      Hmm. I just did a poor job combining two sentences into one. Not sure if that's the case at all for non-moms. :)
    - astura 9y ago
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pink-tax-forces-women-pay-more-than-men/99462846/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pin...
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
CAH suggests they're making the case that the government should fund welfare. But it appears to me that they are unintentionally making the case that the private sector can fund welfare.
fmavituna 9y ago
Whenever I hear about wealth inequality, I think of Zakat ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zakat.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zaka... ). 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 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.

334 points by rjsamson 9y ago

Did they actually buy the land they said they were going to buy to keep an eminent domain lawsuit open so that The Wall can't be built?

moonka 9y ago
Looks like it. https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/ https://cardsagainsthumanitystopsthewall.com/
- liveoneggs 9y ago
  that piece of property looks beautiful
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago
  I doubt a law firm would put their letterhead on a fake letter, but looking at the public map, most of the subdivision I got a letter for is already owned by the USA: http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx Tarpon Haven Subdivision Edit: There's also two huge tracts of land above that subdivision that are also owned by the US. I'm not sure they even need to go through that subdivision if they wanted to just build a wall through the land the government already owns. That's rather... ineffective.
  - moonka 9y ago
    Where did you find which property they bought? I probably missed it. I also imagine that if they built north of the property, walling off a part of property from the rest of the country in that fashion would fall into some legal issues.
    - FLUX-YOU 9y ago
      It was in the letter they sent to individuals: https://imgur.com/emSk75t https://imgur.com/emSk75t

ridgewell 9y ago

>We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They’ll be fine. Yikes. I certainly got a laugh out of that, then an overly reflective period of what I'm grateful for, especially the benefits afforded from being north of the border.

geodel 9y ago
Yep with healthcare taken care of, Canadians have nothing to worry about. http://www.macleans.ca/economy/congrats-canadians-youre-world-leaders-in-debt/ http://www.macleans.ca/economy/congrats-canadians-youre-worl...
- jquery 9y ago
  This entire thread is a disaster (which is why I flagged the story, it was low quality political bait). My account is old enough that I'm not violating the rules when I say HN is turning into reddit.
throwawaycloud 9y ago
Throwaway for privacy. I've been concealing cancer symptoms for years, mostly because I can't afford to get a colonoscopy. Even the cheapest clinics run well over $1k, which is totally out of reach. The secondary reason is an unhealthy fear of needles and a desire to live without a colostomy bag. I know I need to see a psychiatrist or a therapist to help me get over these irrational fears, but you guessed it: I can't afford to. I make just enough not to be covered by any of the ACA's tiers, which means it'd be $400/mo for health insurance. It's like.. $400/mo? Do you have any idea what I could buy with $400/mo? I'd be able to afford to eat as much meat as I want to, let alone health insurance. So yeah, just barely treading water down here in the good ol' USA. Cheers from down south. (I'm not jealous, to be clear. Hopefully we'll get our stuff sorted out someday.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fjsolwmv 9y ago

eutectic 9y ago

Why only consider within-country inequality (and, yes, I realize that the answer is 'because it's partly a publicity stunt, and humans are biased and parochial')? The average American is incomparable wealthy compared to the average African, and you can on average save a life for only a few $thousand to one of Givewell's top recommended charities.

jquery 9y ago
It's a stunt to prove socialism is great. What it actually demonstrated is that charity works great. Charity is not socialism.
- GunlogAlm 9y ago
  Ah, the old "private charity will solve all our problems" meme.
  - jquery 9y ago
    People stopped starving to death when capitalism created enough wealth that we joke about First World Problems. Socialism doesn’t stop people from starving, look at Venezuela. Look at China’s history.
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      Look at Native Americans history and Hawaiians history and Bhopal's history.
      - jquery 9y ago
        Is this the "it's not my job to educate you" reply? What Native American tribe are you talking about? Are you saying the tribes that didn't have private property were rich?
- geofft 9y ago
  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?

mberning 9y ago

Wait... all these people paid $15 to begin with? Are you really that poor if you can flip out $15 for any little thing that comes along.

throwercah 9y ago
Maybe they're poor because they're constantly wasting money buying frivolous things online instead of paying their bills.
- platz 9y ago
  Avocado toast
jquery 9y ago
That's an excellent point, really.
FLGMwt 9y ago
$15 is a roughly a single meal. Are we suggesting that $15 spent towards entertainment is exceptional or excessive for anyone below middle-class, ? If that's true, than surely we're worse off than we're all aware of.
- l4yao 9y ago
  In large parts of America, $15 is a lot more than a single meal. I grew up in relative poverty, $15 for entertainment would seem like a very poor choice in my household. Your comment makes me think we really are worse off than many people are aware of.
- mberning 9y ago
  At a restaurant. Which you really shouldn't be indulging in very often or at all if $1000 is a major boon to your life.
  - djsumdog 9y ago

fragsworth 9y ago

I suspect the audience of people who really like Cards Against Humanity leans towards people who like being "politically incorrect", because the card game often inspires people to be incredibly offensive. It seems likely that their audience includes lots of 4channers, shitlords, extremists, racists, or any other group of people known to be generally offensive. By making moves like this, they're showing everyone else that they aren't actually so bad - which is an interesting business decision. So maybe if you're a really sensitive person, you see this kind of thing they do with their money, and don't feel too bad about buying or playing an offensive game.

cgmg 9y ago
> It seems likely that their audience includes lots of 4channers, shitlords, extremists, racists, or any other group of people known to be generally offensive. It seems likely that you're generalizing way too much from your own experiences. I know plenty of people who play CAH and they're far from being the "4channers, shitlords, extremists, and racists" you claim.
bloomca 9y ago
Honestly, having experience what are typical jokes for 4chan, CAH is a very friendly game – I never seen anything really bad there. It is mostly about vulgar sex jokes, which you usually don't use in real life, there is not a lot of actual incorrectness.
rocqua 9y ago
> people who really like Cards Against Humanity leans towards people who like being "politically incorrect" Not quite, it leans towards people who think that being "politically incorrect" is funny. The great thing about CAH is exactly that it should be clear everything is said in jest. It is important in a society to be able to joke about the taboos. And it is great for people that enjoy this kind of humor to have a place for it where people don't suspect you say these things because you mean them.
sctb 9y ago
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Helloworldboy 9y ago

How can such a boring game have such a large following? The gimmick wears out in like 15 minutes. Edit: these downvotes. To think I pegged HN for a community with good taste in card games.

TehCorwiz 9y ago
It's less about the game itself and more about the people you're with when you sit down to play it. You get to know what they're squeamish about, what their prejudices are, what they're passionate about, even their fears. They say that many a truth was spoken in jest and giving someone license to say aloud dirty, disgusting, or even downright reprehensible thoughts will get to the core of someone's worldview faster than anything else. Think of it less as a game and more as a communal word-association test.
- Helloworldboy 9y ago
  I've played it several times before with a pretty wide range of people. Without fail it just devolves into who can put together the edgiest answer. Then after 2 or 3 rounds everyone just comes to expect it and gets bored.
  - TehCorwiz 9y ago
    https://youtu.be/ZVOD5D4IArw?t=164 https://youtu.be/ZVOD5D4IArw?t=164
    - Helloworldboy 9y ago
      I think you can draw some great parallels between Harvey Danger as a band and Cards Against Humanity as a card game. Harvey Danger - 1 successful song - Edgy and cringey (eg. "and I don't even own a TV", W E W) CaH - Fun for 1 hand - Edgy and cringey I guess Harvey Danger was bored, because they sure are boring.
      - TehCorwiz 9y ago

n0her0 9y ago

They took the money and put it where it seemed like it would have the biggest impact. The people who paid $15 should all be very happy to have been a part of this. For many, especially those with little income and high economic insecurity, holidays are very tough and actually result in working few days having less money at a time of greater need. To those seeking to criticize, it was not meant to be a perfect example of anything. It is also very relevant that this was done by a company who could have kept that money and sent a Christmas card with something snarky, and it would not have hurt their bottom line. One of the coolest things I've read in a long time.

djsumdog 9y ago
It really is. Way better than that Holliday hole.
- notatoad 9y ago
  i feel like this wouldn't have been as well received if it weren't preceded by the holiday hole. CaH has kind of built a reputation where they do silly things with silly amounts of money. Because they spent last november literally dumping money in a pit, they can fairly easily avoid criticisms about how this isn't a perfect scheme with the "it's better than throwing money in a pit" excuse. And i don't in any way mean this as a criticism. There's a lot of benefit to be had in experimenting with non-perfect ways to help the poor, but way too often those projects are criticized harshly for being imperfect. I love that CaH is able to do this.
jjirsa 9y ago
Bought a few of these (for myself, and as gifts). Was happy to have been a part of just day 1 - well worth the money. Everything else is icing on the cake.
FLGMwt 9y ago
> it was not meant as a perfect example of anything +1 this I feel like we tend to demonize incremental progress in favor of easy criticism. Let's maybe ask: "Is this a Good Thing? Is it better than nothing? Is it better than than yesterday's suggestion?" If you answer no to any of those, shut the fuck up with your criticism and start working on the next iteration.

FLGMwt 9y ago

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers. Don't immediately react and reply that this is gameable. Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable. Pause for a second and think about why this is necessarily coming from a game company that's small and makes a crude product. Think about why something like this shouldn't be coming from an entity with much more power to effect positive social or economical change. And if you're part of one of those powers, can you do something?

n0her0 9y ago
They offer their base product as a download for free on their main page right below the buy button and it is licensed under the Creative Commons... And they give you instructions on how to do it most easily. They are an exceptional company, and have earned fans instead of customers.
donohoe 9y ago
+100
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jquery 9y ago
Their whole schtick is that they did some private charity work and it went great so FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK CAPITALISM. And you’re asking people not to talk about the main point of their shtick? I won’t argue what they did isn’t good but literally thousands of charities do this every day.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact? I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that. They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism. If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."

rocqua 9y ago

This is a great thing. Truly, hats of too cards against humanity. I noticed something worrying about myself when reading these stories. A small voice in the back of my head judged a lot of these people. Those who say they will use it for gifts, travel or other things I apparently deem frivolous. It is not okay of me to think these things. These people deserve happiness, and these people can make their own choices. This disdain is something I really wanna work on. :(

cipherzero 9y ago
I had the same moment of introspection... I remember thinking “you want to spend this money on gifts or car tires?” And then I realized that these are the things they’re stressing about. It’s nice to think those will be one less stressor in a life full of stressful things. Which I think is good - if only for the mental win of not having to worry about X. Way to go CAH - you got me thinking. And this time it wasn’t about something I had to go look up on urban dictionary.
Pulcinella 9y ago
Yeah honestly I think it’s good that some people spent it on gifts, travel, etc. rather than spending it all on bills/debt.
username223 9y ago
Reminds me of this classic track: http://www.metrolyrics.com/g00/underwear-goes-inside-the-pants-lyrics-lazyboy.html http://www.metrolyrics.com/g00/underwear-goes-inside-the-pan... Before you judge, ask yourself how you would spend the $15.

djsumdog 9y ago

I think back to last year's Holliday Hole. One of the FAQs was, "Why don't you give the money to charity?" A: "Why don't you give the money to charity. It's your money." I'm glad this year they're not literally throwing money into a hole...err..dig a hole.

bobcostas55 9y ago

Literally every single poor person pictured is obese. That baby is almost certainly going to be overweight in a few years. I'm amazed this isn't a bigger issue politically. Nutrition is a huge driver of health inequality. In 50 years the obesity rate has quadrupled. A return to the eating habits of the 1960s is perhaps the greatest possible welfare achievement right now (in the US), with impact far larger than universal healthcare. And it doesn't need to cost anything.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> A return to the eating habits of the 1960s is perhaps the greatest possible welfare achievement right now (in the US), with impact far larger than universal healthcare. You are comparing a concrete policy with a policy outcome for which there is no even remote concept of a policy mechanism that would achieve it. > And it doesn't need to cost anything. Massive changes to behavior are not free; the changes in eating habits that happened since the 1969s were driven by a number of economic and other factors, and counteracting all those factors to drive people back to 1960s eating habits would not be cheap.
- mobilefriendly 9y ago
  Actually there are plenty of policy mechanisms to improve nutrition. First repeal subsidy programs for corn and sugar, in particular remove the U.S. import tariffs that create a market for high fructose corn syrup. Next end food stamp coverage for junk food and sugar drinks. Further, allow insurers, medicaid, etc surcharge for the obese-- make them pay for the extra costs they are imposing on the system. Consider taxes on sugar drinks. Finally improve school lunch nutrition.
  - harryh 9y ago
    I would also add: - regulate advertisements for unhealthy foods, especially ads targeted at children - ban vending machines (and candy sales) on school campuses - implement sugar taxes similar to cigarette taxes
  - 9y ago

owenversteeg 9y ago

Anyone else want to discuss the wealth metric they created? That's fascinating to me, with just a handful of datapoints they were able to estimate people's income fairly effectively IMO. The biggest 3 points were census information from addresses (median income/percentage below poverty line), race/gender/education plus BLS statistics, and occupation (combined with median income for that job from BLS.)

partiallypro 9y ago

"The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?" A lot of hardworking people don't want handouts from the government. Though some do, but I believe they are a minority. I generally hate the mindset of wanting money from the government. I want off of the government if I can help it. The fact is that most Americans pay virtually no federal income tax, and get money back during their returns. When I was starting out and made the median income level for the state I was living in at the time, I still paid no tax (outside of SALT) and got a return larger than what I paid in. People don't realize the government already heavily subsidizes the poor and as well as people well above the poverty line.

harryh 9y ago
The fact is that most Americans pay virtually no federal income tax, This is not really true. Especially when you also look at payroll taxes which are, for all intents and purposes, income taxes. When I...made the median income level for the state I was living in at the time, I still paid no tax (outside of SALT) and got a return larger than what I paid in. This is highly unlikely to be true. I'm sure you remember it this way but without supporting data it is very hard to believe.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  Only about 1/2 of Americans at any given time work (very roughly - think kids, elderly etc.) so most Americans don't pay tax is technically kind of correct, but not very meaningful at all in any discussion.
  - harryh 9y ago
    Lots of people that aren't working do pay taxes though. Social Security benefits, for example, are taxable in a lot of cases.
  - death_and_taxes 9y ago
    Using 2015 as a reference, of the people that work in the US (represented by 141,204,625 tax returns), the top 50% paid 97.17% of all federal income taxes. The statement that about half of Americans don't pay federal income taxes is only for those that are filing taxes (and therefore probably working), so if you want to include the non-working, it's more like 75% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Here is the data from the IRS, look at the last table cell at the bottom all the way on the right. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls

FLGMwt 9y ago

pokes head out of curtain What if $15 means something different to people with fungible assets* vs. those where money is tight. *: HN population

phantom_oracle 9y ago

This would probably fall into the off-topic area considering the content of the site, but I am quite impressed about the fact that they bought this long-ass domain and went along with it. Does this give insight into the fact that under certain circumstances, we are post-dotcom (as a critical tool for branding)? Their regular domain is quite long too: https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/ https://www.cardsagainsthumanity.com/ (and is definitely not as friendly to the eyes as something like: cah.[trendy-extension])

bluthru 9y ago

Much better than digging a hole in the ground or buying up property along the border.

FLGMwt 9y ago
I'll agree on the hole-in-the-ground schtick which I guess I attribute to a social experiment. As far as the border property, I wish more people of consequential power/capital would follow their lead and buy up border property. The wall is preposterous and any form of resistance is credible in my eyes.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  What's preposterous about the wall? It's not useful but plenty of far more expensive government projects are useless (e.g. Joint Strike Fighter etc.) But I see people opposing the wall more than the Joint Strike Fighter.
- bluthru 9y ago
  >The wall is preposterous Why? This site is obviously biased, but it presents a case for the wall saving us money: https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immi... I'd rather spend money on dumb, long-term tech like that instead of our ridiculous military budget. The wall was certainly a success for San Diego: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxhhjfiSy2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxhhjfiSy2Y

MilnerRoute 9y ago

How do we know this really is "Cards Against Humanity," and not just some prankster's domain?

MilnerRoute 9y ago
I found an NBC story about it, so it looks like it's confirmed. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-humanity-redistributes-money-with-latest-promotion-463103443.html https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cards-against-humanity...

alexasmyths 9y ago

Wealth concentration is a problem but poor countries are not poor because some rich Westerners 'have a lot of power'. Nice sentiment though, and that counts for something.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

calimac 9y ago

Fuck off CAH, they cut off their nose to spite their face. They clearly are thinking ina zero sum with this tax bill.

death_and_taxes 9y ago

It's great they are giving away money, but they are also stressing a political agenda that doesn't make any sense. First, they are advocating for a fixed tax regardless of wealth, but not taxing the poorest 7%, then giving money to the poorest 0.07%. The Republican tax plan they hate so much still severely taxes the rich, basically doesn't tax the bottom 45% at all[1], and actually gives money back to a much higher percentage of working poor with children who can actually end up getting paid by the government instead of owing taxes. What does Cards Against Humanity have against poor people that they have chosen to benefit the rich so much compared to the federal tax system? Ok sarcasm aside, does CAH seriously want Donald Trump et al to decide what to do with more of their money? Tax cuts equal more money for you to decide what to do with instead of the people in charge of the government. They could send 1,000's of needy people $1,000 checks each year with the money they will save in corporate taxes. And they can choose where that money goes! And if there are tax cuts at all they will benefit the wealthy, because the wealthy pay all the taxes. According to the IRS, in 2015 the top 50% of earners paid 97.17% of Federal income taxes, the top 30% of earners pay almost 89.82% of Federal income taxes.[2] 1: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-fed... - new tax plan cuts taxes at all income brackets, so this number will only go up 2: (xls download) https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls linking source: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-inco...

GhostVII 9y ago
I don't think they are advocating for anything in particular, except for acknowledging that the income gap is an issue. What is wrong with them giving people the opportunity to help address this gap?
- death_and_taxes 9y ago
  There is nothing wrong with the help they are giving people, that's great. But here are some quotes from the article: "I’m poor and I’m mad that I didn’t get any money. Our bad. We had to guess how much money you had with limited data. The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?" "Does Cards Against Humanity support the Republican tax bill that would give your company a huge tax break? No, bitch." "What can I do to help solve wealth inequality? The most important thing you can do is support candidates who are working to fight inequality and are not turds. In the meantime, here are some organizations that are working to fix the problem from the ground up: MoveOn.org AmericanForTaxFairness.org StudentDebtCrisis.org" The claim I am making is that the US government, and the Republican tax bill, is redistributing money much much more aggressively than the Cards Against Humanity program, but they are framed as being really evil. It seems like pure political nonsense. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

danjoc 9y ago

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/wal-marts-unconventional-approach-to-get-people-to-save-prizes https://www.npr.org/2016/11/25/503316517/wal-marts-unconvent... I'm not mad, but whoever downvoted this post is a "give a man a fish" sort of person.

twhb 9y ago
This is their rainy day.

fabianhjr 9y ago

For anyone that liked this action, you can continue it trough GiveDirectly (https://givedirectly.org/ 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_Shapiro_UCT_2016.04.25.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapi... > > We find that treatment households increased both consumption and savings (in the form of durable good purchases and investment in their self-employment activities). In particular, we observe increases in food expenditures and food security, but not spending on temptation goods. Households invest in livestock and durable assets (notably metal roofs), and we show that these investments lead to increases in revenue from agricultural and business activities, although we find no significant effect on profits at this short time horizon. We also observe no evidence of conflict resulting from the transfers; on the contrary, we report large increases in psychological wellbeing, and an increase in female empowerment with a large spillover effect on non-recipient households in treatment villages. Thus, these findings suggest that simple cash transfers may not have the perverse effects that some policymakers feel they would have, which has led to a clear policy preference for in-kind or skills transfers [...] and conditional transfers. EDIT: Added link to GD.

RobinL 9y ago
If you want a quick intro to GD and their philosophy, see here: https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differently https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differen... They've been on GiveWell's list of recommended charities for 6 years now: https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post?id=4342506782249915867 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 https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now Donate here (UK, with Giftaid): https://www.givedirectly.org/uk https://www.givedirectly.org/uk $0.91 of every $1.00 dollar ends up in the hands of the poor.

CloudYeller 9y ago

Inspiring to see why $1000 makes so much of a difference for many recipients: the most common theme was spending time with family. Sometimes work just seems like random people fighting tooth and nail to earn millions. It would be interesting to see everyone's reasons for acting that way. I bet it usually boils down to "it's for my family". But the real truth there is, having a happy family does not require millions.

akkat 9y ago

> 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.

scott_karana 9y ago
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 private, for profit company sacrificing profits and trying to do "good", as seen through their own lens. Power to them.
- akkat 9y ago
  I'm not complaining. I just think that it's interesting to see the demographics of the winners. 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?
  - scott_karana 9y ago
    Hmm. I just did a poor job combining two sentences into one. Not sure if that's the case at all for non-moms. :)
  - astura 9y ago
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pink-tax-forces-women-pay-more-than-men/99462846/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/03/27/pin...

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

CAH suggests they're making the case that the government should fund welfare. But it appears to me that they are unintentionally making the case that the private sector can fund welfare.

fmavituna 9y ago

Whenever I hear about wealth inequality, I think of Zakat ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zakat.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/zaka... ). 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 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.