4 ms·

> I'm perfectly happy to give back more If you really feel that way, charitable organizations can effectively distribute donations far more efficiently and eff

> I'm perfectly happy to give back more If you really feel that way, charitable organizations can effectively distribute donations far more efficiently and effectively than any government organization has ever been able to. I suspect that if all of the people who say they feel the same way did just voluntarily donate what they considered their own fair share to charity, the homeless crisis would be mostly solved.

javagram 8y ago
When it comes to stuff like housing, government regulations like zoning can stand in the way. If we had an unfettered market perhaps cheap apartments could be built and given to the homeless by charity. In practice new housing that complies with all zoning codes, labor regulations, etc ends up costing quite a lot. Government certainly has a role to play here even if it is just changing policies to stop driving up costs. Of course governments also have eminent domain power and other powers that private organizations can’t access.
- mempko 8y ago
  Unfettered market? I think the word you were looking for is 'slums'.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    Beats sleeping on the street. If single room occupancy hotels or flophouses hadn’t been zoned out of existence there’d be many fewer homeless in the US.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Yea, verily. I spent nearly 6 years homeless. I'm currently in an SRO. It is like a million times better.
codegoblins 8y ago
Do you have a source? Is that true for all charities, or just some organizations?
mikeash 8y ago
Social Security has been the most effective anti-poverty program in history and it has less than 1% overhead. Can any charity match that?
__jal 8y ago
That's lovely sounding, but false for a couple of reasons. 1) There's a capability gap. Charities can't do a number of things that are needed that local government can. Simple things like permission to operate portable toilets, or working alongside cops for redirection away from jail it possible, are somewhere between multi-month activities outside their core-competencies to impossible for private actors. 2) The vast bulk of private charities segment their 'market' in various ways that leaves gaps. That's fine, but it isn't going to "mostly solve" the issues caused by society-wide economic failures. 3) Because the problems are so varied, coordination reaps substantial benefits. Social workers talking to cleanup crews talking to mental health talking to cops is a dynamic that your local churches are not equipped to take part in. Kneejerk antigovernment bias is a national pastime, I know. I'll even play along when it is valid. But the idea that the Salvation Army is going to spring to the rescue is fantasy.
cortesoft 8y ago
A few quick things - one, what evidence do you have that charities are so much better at distributing resources than governments? Two, many people don't think rich people should be the ones choosing how we help those in need and who should qualify for that help. Popular causes will get more money, and that often times doesn't line up with what is actually needed. Third, you seem to completely ignore the problem of collective action. Saying "why don't you just give your own money and leave everyone else alone" is not a way to accomplish things in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
crooked-v 8y ago
> If you really feel that way, charitable organizations can effectively distribute donations far more efficiently and effectively than any government organization has ever been able to. The hundreds of billions of dollars per year paid out with minimum fuss by Social Security suggest otherwise.

javagram 8y ago

When it comes to stuff like housing, government regulations like zoning can stand in the way. If we had an unfettered market perhaps cheap apartments could be built and given to the homeless by charity. In practice new housing that complies with all zoning codes, labor regulations, etc ends up costing quite a lot. Government certainly has a role to play here even if it is just changing policies to stop driving up costs. Of course governments also have eminent domain power and other powers that private organizations can’t access.

mempko 8y ago
Unfettered market? I think the word you were looking for is 'slums'.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Beats sleeping on the street. If single room occupancy hotels or flophouses hadn’t been zoned out of existence there’d be many fewer homeless in the US.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Yea, verily. I spent nearly 6 years homeless. I'm currently in an SRO. It is like a million times better.

codegoblins 8y ago

Do you have a source? Is that true for all charities, or just some organizations?

mikeash 8y ago

Social Security has been the most effective anti-poverty program in history and it has less than 1% overhead. Can any charity match that?

__jal 8y ago

That's lovely sounding, but false for a couple of reasons. 1) There's a capability gap. Charities can't do a number of things that are needed that local government can. Simple things like permission to operate portable toilets, or working alongside cops for redirection away from jail it possible, are somewhere between multi-month activities outside their core-competencies to impossible for private actors. 2) The vast bulk of private charities segment their 'market' in various ways that leaves gaps. That's fine, but it isn't going to "mostly solve" the issues caused by society-wide economic failures. 3) Because the problems are so varied, coordination reaps substantial benefits. Social workers talking to cleanup crews talking to mental health talking to cops is a dynamic that your local churches are not equipped to take part in. Kneejerk antigovernment bias is a national pastime, I know. I'll even play along when it is valid. But the idea that the Salvation Army is going to spring to the rescue is fantasy.

cortesoft 8y ago

A few quick things - one, what evidence do you have that charities are so much better at distributing resources than governments? Two, many people don't think rich people should be the ones choosing how we help those in need and who should qualify for that help. Popular causes will get more money, and that often times doesn't line up with what is actually needed. Third, you seem to completely ignore the problem of collective action. Saying "why don't you just give your own money and leave everyone else alone" is not a way to accomplish things in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem

crooked-v 8y ago

> If you really feel that way, charitable organizations can effectively distribute donations far more efficiently and effectively than any government organization has ever been able to. The hundreds of billions of dollars per year paid out with minimum fuss by Social Security suggest otherwise.