5 ms·

To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor

8 points by gruseom 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rick888 16y ago
This doesn't sound like anything more than a welfare program. Welfare programs generally don't work, because it leaves most people with little incentive to go out and succeed. It's also interesting that the only way to solve the 'inequality gap' is to take money away from one person and give it to another.
- gruseom 16y ago
  Begging your pardon, that strikes me as a quintessentially ideological response. The author's entire point is that the programs she's writing about are working, that is, people are "going out and succeed[ing]", assuming you consider peasant farmers' children becoming nurses and accountants to be a success. Do we have any evidence that she's incorrect on the facts? I don't mean in general, I mean specifically: in Brazil and Mexico, as the article describes. The interesting thing here is the opportunity to observe and measure, rather than affixing labels ("welfare program") and dismissing based on pre-existing beliefs. The abstract arguments just lead around in circles. Edit: this article was posted a week ago but received no discussion. I posted it again because, whether it's right or wrong, it deserves extensive discussion; plus if it's right, it counts as an interesting new phenomenon. New to me anyway.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Do we have any evidence that she's incorrect on the facts?" There are a few examples of this succeeding in the article. I would also like to know the overall amount of money spent, how much money was taken through taxes, and how many didn't succeed. I'm guessing these stats aren't available. Things aren't always rainbows and unicorns. "The interesting thing here is the opportunity to observe and measure, rather than affixing labels ("welfare program") and dismissing based on pre-existing beliefs. The abstract arguments just lead around in circles." Why can't we call it what it is? When people tell me I can't use labels, it's generally because they want to try to hide the truth about something. When you live long enough (although I am only 30), you realize that most things aren't new...including the ideas in this article. The definition of welfare (taken from dictionary.com): receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need. Pretty much sounds like these programs in Brazil and Mexico.
codex 16y ago
I believe each person should have the opportunity to rise to the limits of their own ability for both practical and moral reasons. If this program works, I am in favor. That said, people aren't equal. Evolution wants diversity in human offspring to ensure survival of the species in the face of an unknown future. Until science can remove this diversity, the poor will always be with us by definition. Even if we could make everyone "equal", there's no good definition of "equal", and a monoculture would very, very bad for our species over the long term.

8 points by gruseom 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

This doesn't sound like anything more than a welfare program. Welfare programs generally don't work, because it leaves most people with little incentive to go out and succeed. It's also interesting that the only way to solve the 'inequality gap' is to take money away from one person and give it to another.

gruseom 16y ago
Begging your pardon, that strikes me as a quintessentially ideological response. The author's entire point is that the programs she's writing about are working, that is, people are "going out and succeed[ing]", assuming you consider peasant farmers' children becoming nurses and accountants to be a success. Do we have any evidence that she's incorrect on the facts? I don't mean in general, I mean specifically: in Brazil and Mexico, as the article describes. The interesting thing here is the opportunity to observe and measure, rather than affixing labels ("welfare program") and dismissing based on pre-existing beliefs. The abstract arguments just lead around in circles. Edit: this article was posted a week ago but received no discussion. I posted it again because, whether it's right or wrong, it deserves extensive discussion; plus if it's right, it counts as an interesting new phenomenon. New to me anyway.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Do we have any evidence that she's incorrect on the facts?" There are a few examples of this succeeding in the article. I would also like to know the overall amount of money spent, how much money was taken through taxes, and how many didn't succeed. I'm guessing these stats aren't available. Things aren't always rainbows and unicorns. "The interesting thing here is the opportunity to observe and measure, rather than affixing labels ("welfare program") and dismissing based on pre-existing beliefs. The abstract arguments just lead around in circles." Why can't we call it what it is? When people tell me I can't use labels, it's generally because they want to try to hide the truth about something. When you live long enough (although I am only 30), you realize that most things aren't new...including the ideas in this article. The definition of welfare (taken from dictionary.com): receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need. Pretty much sounds like these programs in Brazil and Mexico.

codex 16y ago

I believe each person should have the opportunity to rise to the limits of their own ability for both practical and moral reasons. If this program works, I am in favor. That said, people aren't equal. Evolution wants diversity in human offspring to ensure survival of the species in the face of an unknown future. Until science can remove this diversity, the poor will always be with us by definition. Even if we could make everyone "equal", there's no good definition of "equal", and a monoculture would very, very bad for our species over the long term.