3 ms·

>> Throwing money at social problems doesn't typically fix them. I don't know where you read this because it simply isn't true. It is, however, commonly used b

>> Throwing money at social problems doesn't typically fix them. I don't know where you read this because it simply isn't true. It is, however, commonly used by conservatives to argue against funding social programs.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
If money alone fixed social problems, white people wouldn't have burned down Black Wall Street. Blacks there had money. It in no way protected them from racism. https://www.colorlines.com/articles/its-been-96-years-white-mobs-destroyed-tulsas-black-wall-street https://www.colorlines.com/articles/its-been-96-years-white-... That in no way is an argument against social programs per se. But I would personally much rather see our housing supply issues remedied rather than see more funds earmarked for "the homeless." If you need to be out in the street before you qualify for help, society is doing something very wrong.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  This is terrible reasoning. Throwing money at social problems doesn't solve all social problems, it can solve the ones targeted.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Additional funding can help move the numbers -- if you have effective programs. Simply looking to raise funds without effective solutions doesn't do much of anything. Most programs intended to "help the homeless" suffer from The Shirky Principle: Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution. Real solutions for this problem space typically address underlying causes, such as affordable housing and access to affordable healthcare, without positioning themselves as homeless programs per se. Programs explicitly designed to "help the homeless" tend to keep homelessness alive by requiring one to be homeless to qualify for assistance. Real solutions address risk factors for homelessness independent of your current housing situation. I had a guy once begin enthusiastically talking at me about his vision for taking over the downtown area of the small town I'm in with homeless services. I advised him I was late to a meeting and walked away. I would like to see the homeless issue in my small town shrink. I have no desire to see the downtown area turn into nothing but homeless services. There are specific gaps in service here that I would like to see closed. I would like to see a mailing address service for the homeless here. A mailing address is critical to job hunting or making money online through a service. You need a mailing address to help get your life back. Most homeless services provide emergency relief, such as free food and free clothing. It's a feed a man a fish approach. It helps a homeless person survive. It doesn't help them resolve their problems so they can stop being homeless. You need some emergency services of that sort, but if it is all you have, it only serves to entrench the problem. Most people talking about "If we could just get x amount of money" don't actually have solutions to offer. I think I do have solutions to offer and money is the least of my worries. It would take some money. But I'm much more concerned with issues like getting buy-in. A new idea is shockingly hard to sell.
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      You're gish galloping with your wall of text. Luckily, nobody's advocating anything that your premises apply to, so it's moot.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >> If money alone fixed social problems Your argument changed from "throwing money at social problems doesn't work" to "money alone doesn't fix social problems". Moving goalposts like this does not constitute a good-faith argument.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - aptwebapps 7y ago
    The original quote was "Throwing money at social problems doesn't typically fix them." and it's really not far off of "money alone doesn't fix social problems". The difference is mostly of tenor.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

If money alone fixed social problems, white people wouldn't have burned down Black Wall Street. Blacks there had money. It in no way protected them from racism. https://www.colorlines.com/articles/its-been-96-years-white-mobs-destroyed-tulsas-black-wall-street https://www.colorlines.com/articles/its-been-96-years-white-... That in no way is an argument against social programs per se. But I would personally much rather see our housing supply issues remedied rather than see more funds earmarked for "the homeless." If you need to be out in the street before you qualify for help, society is doing something very wrong.

guerrilla 7y ago
This is terrible reasoning. Throwing money at social problems doesn't solve all social problems, it can solve the ones targeted.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Additional funding can help move the numbers -- if you have effective programs. Simply looking to raise funds without effective solutions doesn't do much of anything. Most programs intended to "help the homeless" suffer from The Shirky Principle: Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution. Real solutions for this problem space typically address underlying causes, such as affordable housing and access to affordable healthcare, without positioning themselves as homeless programs per se. Programs explicitly designed to "help the homeless" tend to keep homelessness alive by requiring one to be homeless to qualify for assistance. Real solutions address risk factors for homelessness independent of your current housing situation. I had a guy once begin enthusiastically talking at me about his vision for taking over the downtown area of the small town I'm in with homeless services. I advised him I was late to a meeting and walked away. I would like to see the homeless issue in my small town shrink. I have no desire to see the downtown area turn into nothing but homeless services. There are specific gaps in service here that I would like to see closed. I would like to see a mailing address service for the homeless here. A mailing address is critical to job hunting or making money online through a service. You need a mailing address to help get your life back. Most homeless services provide emergency relief, such as free food and free clothing. It's a feed a man a fish approach. It helps a homeless person survive. It doesn't help them resolve their problems so they can stop being homeless. You need some emergency services of that sort, but if it is all you have, it only serves to entrench the problem. Most people talking about "If we could just get x amount of money" don't actually have solutions to offer. I think I do have solutions to offer and money is the least of my worries. It would take some money. But I'm much more concerned with issues like getting buy-in. A new idea is shockingly hard to sell.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    You're gish galloping with your wall of text. Luckily, nobody's advocating anything that your premises apply to, so it's moot.
enraged_camel 7y ago
>> If money alone fixed social problems Your argument changed from "throwing money at social problems doesn't work" to "money alone doesn't fix social problems". Moving goalposts like this does not constitute a good-faith argument.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- aptwebapps 7y ago
  The original quote was "Throwing money at social problems doesn't typically fix them." and it's really not far off of "money alone doesn't fix social problems". The difference is mostly of tenor.