3 ms·
I mean..even then..not really. That's still not a lot of money at all. I grew up with people who live mouth to paycheck. A meaningful amount, like $400~$500 a
by djsumdog 9y ago
I mean..even then..not really. That's still not a lot of money at all. I grew up with people who live mouth to paycheck.
A meaningful amount, like $400~$500 a month could make a much more considerable impact. $100/month means "Maybe we can take the kids to a movie one a month or have a nice dinner to help distract ourselves."
$500/month could mean, "We can get all those extra school supplies or put our kids in extra school programs."
Seeing if people would make those decisions would be an equally important study.
These current programs see more designed to encourage people to use free programs with a small monitary incentive. I probably says more about those programs than the impact of the money itself.
- Mindless2112 9y agoAn expectation of "we'll use the money for important things after we treat ourselves" is exactly why people oppose these kind of programs. You can't just hand-wave that away.
- iovrthoughtthis 9y agoIt depends on your ability to conceive of a future without the suffering you're attempting to escape. If the money is not significant enough to meaningfully impact that assessment then a short term distraction is a rational way to spend the money. It's analogous but no the same as the prisoners dilemma with a known number of games.