9 ms·

Poverty can also be a trap because the simple solution (just giving someone money to alleviate poverty) isn't the same as earned success. When you feel like yo

Poverty can also be a trap because the simple solution (just giving someone money to alleviate poverty) isn't the same as earned success. When you feel like you've earned money through hard work and you feel like you're a contributor and needed and respected by your peers it brings a significant amount of satisfaction and happiness in life, which in turn drives you to be more productive and alters the way you think about your resources. When you're given wealth, you don't feel like you've earned it, you have no buy-in, and you feel like a burden to those around you. You can see the difference starkly with those who earn wealth and those who inherit it. All to often the next generation squanders it. I think we should give money to those in need, in fact I think it's a moral imperative. But I also think it's important to remember the more complex human psychology behind the scenes. In addition to satisfying basic needs how can we get this person a meaningful way to contribute and feel like they're earning what they're given in the future. How can we plug them into a community that can sustain them through tough times, and likewise that they can support? Consider http://streetsteam.org/model http://streetsteam.org/model which supplies the homeless with work cleaning city streets: > We believe that treating people with dignity and empowering them to be a part of the solution to their struggles is a major factor in their ultimate success.

vertex-four 8y ago
Note that Streets Team doesn't pay anybody - nobody's earning anything. I see people forced into "volunteering" or working below minimum wage regularly in the UK in order to receive benefits. Forcing people to work for near-nothing is detrimental to their health - it doesn't help anyone feel like they're earning a living, since they're not, and in fact in practice this practice is just the Government giving companies near-free human labour, with the threat to said humans of killing them (by removing the resources they need to survive). There's also a remarkable amount of people who can't work and maintain their health at the same time (mental illness), who should be on disability benefits but have been denied them, who are badly affected by policies like this one. Go far enough down this line and we have the workhouses of the past. By all means - provide people with the opportunity to access work (The Big Issue et al), or the ability to volunteer and develop their skills and resume. But don't force them to in order to access the money they need to survive.
waistland01 8y ago
That's a nice set of hypotheses, and I don't doubt that there is some truth to them. But right now, your comment reads like the back cover summary to a right wing pundits book. Jordan Peterson himself might plagiarize it. If you would provide some data or research supporting your claims, everyone would benefit.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Working menial jobs isn't the same as success either. Giving someone shelter, food, and other basic things that society expect folks to have - such as transportation, for example, or clothes that are up to par - isn't exactly wealth to be squandered. These are the sorts of things that help. We aren't talking riches, just an actual safety net. That way, when your employer decides to close shop, you get sick and miss work, have a low-paying job.. you can actually devote resources into the things that will make a tight situation better rather than trying to decide if you need to eat one less meal a day to be able to afford a doctor's appointment. Things alike that. I'll even argue that menial work set aside for poor folks has its own stigma, one similar to working at a fast food place. Not only does the public treat you badly for working there, but management often treats you as disposable as well.
jimnotgym 8y ago
> Poverty can also be a trap because... Actually there is contrary evidence. A study was carried out on the streets of London where they gave larger sums of cash no-strings-attached, and it showed that people in general took that money and used it to set themselves up in a job. One started a gardening business, for instance [0]. The idea that work is what people need is very Victorian, and reminds me of the tread-mill in the workhouse. Surely we should be looking for ways to remove the tyranny of physical labour. I most certainly do not need to be working in a regular job to feel successful. On the matter of terminology the poverty trap as I have seen it looks very different. There is a trap that means in the UK if I am out of work I can get job-seekers allowance and housing benefit and child benefit. If I can find a single days work I lose all of it (although I may get some working tax credit it will not cover the loss), so anything other than a full time job has to be avoided at all costs. That is the poverty trap, benefits systems that penalise attempts to get off them. [0] : https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/providing-personalised-support-rough-sleepers https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/providing-personalised-support...
- bequanna 8y ago
  > If I can find a single days work I lose all of it. I can't speak to social programs outside of the US, but here, most of our programs (SNAP, Section-8, unemployment benefits) are on a sliding scale. This allows for benefits to somewhat decrease as earnings increase. That said, I anecdotally have noticed a couple things: 1. Many low income people actually aspire to be accepted into these programs, especially Section-8 (US housing assistance). 2. Once people are accepted into these programs, they never leave. I own dozens of rental properties, some of them low income where we accept tenants who receive housing assistance. I've never seen a singe person lose this benefit or have it decreased because they start earning more. Now, I'm not sure whether these programs are a trap or not. I think it is waaay more complicated than that. Some people need help. Some people will leverage this assistance to climb up or make it through a tough time. Some people will take advantage.
  - zappo2938 8y ago
    I can recall two students I knew at Stuyvesant who lived in a couple of the more violent public housing projects who went on to college. My anecdote proves your anecdote wrong. That said I will need for you to come with studies and real data that show you are not wrong. This is because what you are saying has very real world implications that will hurt children who do need sometime up to 18 years of housing assistance so that they can also go on to college and become productive members of society.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
This is based on the myth that poor people don't contribute, while rich people contribute more. Perhaps you don't understand that many people in poverty have jobs. In fact many have multiple jobs, because it's the only way they can stay afloat financially. Workfare is not a solution. The economy either needs to be reinvented with stable jobs and financial democracy, or essentials - not just cash, but education, health-care, and housing - need to be provided for free, and the cost of economic self-development made so low that anyone with an idea and a hint of a work ethic can try it out without being terrorised by the prospect of absolute economic failure and destruction.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
notacoward 8y ago
> it's important to remember the more complex human psychology Yes, and it's important to remember that it is complex, not reduce it to simplistic formulae. Your theory is pretty much exactly contrary to empirical evidence. When you've earned money through hard work it can create a reward cycle, but it can also create a feeling of completion, of having done enough and having the right to stop. When you haven't earned money it can make you feel like a burden, but that doesn't necessarily lead to defeatism. Feeling indebted can also motivate someone to pay it back or pay it forward. There are plenty of theories leading in all directions. Where does the evidence point? There's plenty of evidence that unconditional cash transfers (the term you should Google for) work just as well as in-kind or strings-attached aid[1][2]. Often better, and easier to administer too. Maybe the problem isn't that poor people lack motivation or work ethics. Maybe that's just an ugly stereotype. What they seem to lack is, obviously, money - or not money itself but the time and security and opportunity that even a little bit of money can provide. One of the most important things money can provide (especially in the absence of universal health care) is better health, including mental health, which is in a sense what the OP addresses. Giving people a small temporary opportunity without addressing these more permanent limiters to their success might be putting the cart before the horse. Preference for such approaches might have more to do with the givers' attitudes and biases than with results. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/we... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/unconditional_cash_transfers_giving_money_to_the_poor_may_be_the_best_tool.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/unco...
- cdoxsey 8y ago
  I think providing assistance with no strings attached is a good thing. I just don't think its sufficient and a more holistic approach would work better. I also don't think this kind of program can scale though. It needs to be local and involve the community, not a faceless bureaucracy. To your point, you may feel indebted to a friend who helps you with some cash. But no one feels indebted to the federal government.
  - notabee 8y ago
Viliam1234 8y ago
> Poverty can also be a trap because the simple solution (just giving someone money to alleviate poverty) isn't the same as earned success. Taking a pill when you are ill is also not the same as doing your own medical research. I just never heard that used as a reason for denying people pills. I can imagine good reasons for not giving poor people money (such as: the money is needed somewhere else), but "then they would not feel what my pet psychological theory says is the optimal state of mind" is not among them. Feeling that you earned money is nice, but it is not the most important feeling in the world. People can feel good about doing stuff they can't easily convert to money. For example, poor people helping each other is in my opinion a good thing, but usually not very profitable. Or taking care of your kids... okay, one could argue that this will bring some profit in the future... yeah, maybe, but you and the kids need to eat something today. (Also, it feels unfair to blame people fully for their inability to make money, when they live in a society where everything is regulated -- such as jobs they could hypothetically do, but they do not have the required education, or cannot pass some other artificial barrier to entry.)

vertex-four 8y ago

Note that Streets Team doesn't pay anybody - nobody's earning anything. I see people forced into "volunteering" or working below minimum wage regularly in the UK in order to receive benefits. Forcing people to work for near-nothing is detrimental to their health - it doesn't help anyone feel like they're earning a living, since they're not, and in fact in practice this practice is just the Government giving companies near-free human labour, with the threat to said humans of killing them (by removing the resources they need to survive). There's also a remarkable amount of people who can't work and maintain their health at the same time (mental illness), who should be on disability benefits but have been denied them, who are badly affected by policies like this one. Go far enough down this line and we have the workhouses of the past. By all means - provide people with the opportunity to access work (The Big Issue et al), or the ability to volunteer and develop their skills and resume. But don't force them to in order to access the money they need to survive.

waistland01 8y ago

That's a nice set of hypotheses, and I don't doubt that there is some truth to them. But right now, your comment reads like the back cover summary to a right wing pundits book. Jordan Peterson himself might plagiarize it. If you would provide some data or research supporting your claims, everyone would benefit.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

Working menial jobs isn't the same as success either. Giving someone shelter, food, and other basic things that society expect folks to have - such as transportation, for example, or clothes that are up to par - isn't exactly wealth to be squandered. These are the sorts of things that help. We aren't talking riches, just an actual safety net. That way, when your employer decides to close shop, you get sick and miss work, have a low-paying job.. you can actually devote resources into the things that will make a tight situation better rather than trying to decide if you need to eat one less meal a day to be able to afford a doctor's appointment. Things alike that. I'll even argue that menial work set aside for poor folks has its own stigma, one similar to working at a fast food place. Not only does the public treat you badly for working there, but management often treats you as disposable as well.

jimnotgym 8y ago

> Poverty can also be a trap because... Actually there is contrary evidence. A study was carried out on the streets of London where they gave larger sums of cash no-strings-attached, and it showed that people in general took that money and used it to set themselves up in a job. One started a gardening business, for instance [0]. The idea that work is what people need is very Victorian, and reminds me of the tread-mill in the workhouse. Surely we should be looking for ways to remove the tyranny of physical labour. I most certainly do not need to be working in a regular job to feel successful. On the matter of terminology the poverty trap as I have seen it looks very different. There is a trap that means in the UK if I am out of work I can get job-seekers allowance and housing benefit and child benefit. If I can find a single days work I lose all of it (although I may get some working tax credit it will not cover the loss), so anything other than a full time job has to be avoided at all costs. That is the poverty trap, benefits systems that penalise attempts to get off them. [0] : https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/providing-personalised-support-rough-sleepers https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/providing-personalised-support...

bequanna 8y ago
> If I can find a single days work I lose all of it. I can't speak to social programs outside of the US, but here, most of our programs (SNAP, Section-8, unemployment benefits) are on a sliding scale. This allows for benefits to somewhat decrease as earnings increase. That said, I anecdotally have noticed a couple things: 1. Many low income people actually aspire to be accepted into these programs, especially Section-8 (US housing assistance). 2. Once people are accepted into these programs, they never leave. I own dozens of rental properties, some of them low income where we accept tenants who receive housing assistance. I've never seen a singe person lose this benefit or have it decreased because they start earning more. Now, I'm not sure whether these programs are a trap or not. I think it is waaay more complicated than that. Some people need help. Some people will leverage this assistance to climb up or make it through a tough time. Some people will take advantage.
- zappo2938 8y ago
  I can recall two students I knew at Stuyvesant who lived in a couple of the more violent public housing projects who went on to college. My anecdote proves your anecdote wrong. That said I will need for you to come with studies and real data that show you are not wrong. This is because what you are saying has very real world implications that will hurt children who do need sometime up to 18 years of housing assistance so that they can also go on to college and become productive members of society.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

This is based on the myth that poor people don't contribute, while rich people contribute more. Perhaps you don't understand that many people in poverty have jobs. In fact many have multiple jobs, because it's the only way they can stay afloat financially. Workfare is not a solution. The economy either needs to be reinvented with stable jobs and financial democracy, or essentials - not just cash, but education, health-care, and housing - need to be provided for free, and the cost of economic self-development made so low that anyone with an idea and a hint of a work ethic can try it out without being terrorised by the prospect of absolute economic failure and destruction.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

notacoward 8y ago

> it's important to remember the more complex human psychology Yes, and it's important to remember that it is complex, not reduce it to simplistic formulae. Your theory is pretty much exactly contrary to empirical evidence. When you've earned money through hard work it can create a reward cycle, but it can also create a feeling of completion, of having done enough and having the right to stop. When you haven't earned money it can make you feel like a burden, but that doesn't necessarily lead to defeatism. Feeling indebted can also motivate someone to pay it back or pay it forward. There are plenty of theories leading in all directions. Where does the evidence point? There's plenty of evidence that unconditional cash transfers (the term you should Google for) work just as well as in-kind or strings-attached aid[1][2]. Often better, and easier to administer too. Maybe the problem isn't that poor people lack motivation or work ethics. Maybe that's just an ugly stereotype. What they seem to lack is, obviously, money - or not money itself but the time and security and opportunity that even a little bit of money can provide. One of the most important things money can provide (especially in the absence of universal health care) is better health, including mental health, which is in a sense what the OP addresses. Giving people a small temporary opportunity without addressing these more permanent limiters to their success might be putting the cart before the horse. Preference for such approaches might have more to do with the givers' attitudes and biases than with results. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/we... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/unconditional_cash_transfers_giving_money_to_the_poor_may_be_the_best_tool.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/unco...

cdoxsey 8y ago
I think providing assistance with no strings attached is a good thing. I just don't think its sufficient and a more holistic approach would work better. I also don't think this kind of program can scale though. It needs to be local and involve the community, not a faceless bureaucracy. To your point, you may feel indebted to a friend who helps you with some cash. But no one feels indebted to the federal government.
- notabee 8y ago

Viliam1234 8y ago

> Poverty can also be a trap because the simple solution (just giving someone money to alleviate poverty) isn't the same as earned success. Taking a pill when you are ill is also not the same as doing your own medical research. I just never heard that used as a reason for denying people pills. I can imagine good reasons for not giving poor people money (such as: the money is needed somewhere else), but "then they would not feel what my pet psychological theory says is the optimal state of mind" is not among them. Feeling that you earned money is nice, but it is not the most important feeling in the world. People can feel good about doing stuff they can't easily convert to money. For example, poor people helping each other is in my opinion a good thing, but usually not very profitable. Or taking care of your kids... okay, one could argue that this will bring some profit in the future... yeah, maybe, but you and the kids need to eat something today. (Also, it feels unfair to blame people fully for their inability to make money, when they live in a society where everything is regulated -- such as jobs they could hypothetically do, but they do not have the required education, or cannot pass some other artificial barrier to entry.)