3 ms·

> 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. Yo

> 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
  To add to your point, I think there would be ways to give more granular, specific assistance instead of just throwing money at people. Buying things like housing, food, and healthcare at scale makes sense for a government to do, as it should be cheaper. (The level of corruption in the current U.S. government might negate that, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's society's responsibility to hold its government to account, or change how elections are done if the system is broken. Democratic elections are the least bad idea for governance that we've come up with.) If the basic essentials can be provided (the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy), then it would probably be better to provide opportunities for community and achievement beyond that point. That could be through funding community programs that can pay people for work to improve their neighborhood or city, or vocational training, or other indirect avenues. Maybe a small amount of direct money, but just to cover gaps in essentials. You also have to pay a significant amount for auditors and social workers to make sure the system is working sanely. Spending money intelligently can save money, just like you wouldn't buy an expensive car and then run it with the cheapest, shittiest oil and never change it. The necessary but not sufficient conditions for someone to succeed are to be: not homeless, not starving, and not sick. After that point, it's up to the person. There will be free riders and slackers. It's impossible to avoid those, so you can only mitigate their impact. That bothers people in a moral sense, but financially it's not crippling at all if you're properly controlling costs and fraud. Just because that bottom percentile of human vice exists should not doom the many people who would be talented, motivated, and contribute to society if they were simply given some basic security.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > just throwing money at people That's an overly emotive phrase that misrepresents what anyone has suggested. > Maybe a small amount of direct money, but just to cover gaps in essentials. You also have to pay a significant amount for auditors and social workers to make sure the system is working sanely. In other words, do exactly what the research shows does not work as well. Attach strings, maintain tight control, etc. Never grant agency to poor people. Pretend that they can't make wise decisions, unlike people who might inherit millions and of course we can trust them to act wisely because meritocracy.

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
To add to your point, I think there would be ways to give more granular, specific assistance instead of just throwing money at people. Buying things like housing, food, and healthcare at scale makes sense for a government to do, as it should be cheaper. (The level of corruption in the current U.S. government might negate that, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's society's responsibility to hold its government to account, or change how elections are done if the system is broken. Democratic elections are the least bad idea for governance that we've come up with.) If the basic essentials can be provided (the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy), then it would probably be better to provide opportunities for community and achievement beyond that point. That could be through funding community programs that can pay people for work to improve their neighborhood or city, or vocational training, or other indirect avenues. Maybe a small amount of direct money, but just to cover gaps in essentials. You also have to pay a significant amount for auditors and social workers to make sure the system is working sanely. Spending money intelligently can save money, just like you wouldn't buy an expensive car and then run it with the cheapest, shittiest oil and never change it. The necessary but not sufficient conditions for someone to succeed are to be: not homeless, not starving, and not sick. After that point, it's up to the person. There will be free riders and slackers. It's impossible to avoid those, so you can only mitigate their impact. That bothers people in a moral sense, but financially it's not crippling at all if you're properly controlling costs and fraud. Just because that bottom percentile of human vice exists should not doom the many people who would be talented, motivated, and contribute to society if they were simply given some basic security.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > just throwing money at people That's an overly emotive phrase that misrepresents what anyone has suggested. > Maybe a small amount of direct money, but just to cover gaps in essentials. You also have to pay a significant amount for auditors and social workers to make sure the system is working sanely. In other words, do exactly what the research shows does not work as well. Attach strings, maintain tight control, etc. Never grant agency to poor people. Pretend that they can't make wise decisions, unlike people who might inherit millions and of course we can trust them to act wisely because meritocracy.