4 ms·

"Poor people spend cash grants well" As in they buy things they need? What else are they gonna do, not eat and die? If you are really poor you basically have n

by proc0 6y ago

"Poor people spend cash grants well" As in they buy things they need? What else are they gonna do, not eat and die? If you are really poor you basically have no choice to only buy what you need. The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. The problem is psychological, and "grants" just patronize poor people from the start, preventing them form seeing themselves as their own primary benefactor.

_Microft 6y ago
> The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source. I keep saying it: Germany is a great real-life study to support this. We have those "slightly better situations". And we have plenty of people being stuck in it. It's not because there's some law or some stigma stopping them, we even have good programs and subsidies that will continue to pay your benefits for up to two years while you're getting your business off the ground, you can get cash subsidies on top to invest in your business (up to 5k Euros), and you will also get vouchers for consulting and services, and your health insurance will be paid by the government. Yet it does not happen in large numbers. It's frustrating, and I agree, it seems plausible that it should, but it doesn't. Sure, you may say "that's just Germany, Germans are weird", but I believe you should make an argument why it wouldn't be the same elsewhere under similar circumstances. And I'm somewhat sure that other European countries have similar programs and are seeing similar results, so you may want to make sure that Germany is the outlier.
  - viklove 6y ago
    Germany isn't a great example to use when talking about what's best for the United States. For one, Germany is 96% white and doesn't face the same issues the US faces with diversity and cultural variation. When the population is homogenous, it's much easier to agree on and implement solutions.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      Not sure why you bring up the new goalpost of "what's best for the USA" but "Americans are too special for general human behavior to apply" is some rarely used FUD from the 1800s.
      - viklove 6y ago
        Oh right, my mistake, I forgot that one-size-fits-all solutions are the norm when it comes to economic and political solutions to complex problems. Yes, carry on.
        Supermancho 6y ago
        > I forgot that one-size-fits-all solutions are the norm when it comes to economic and political solutions to complex problems That's a strawman you made up.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Sure, sure, that may well be. My point is that it does not work in Germany, even with a much more homogeneous and stable population that leans collectivist. I don't see a compelling reason why it would work in the US with a population that leans individualist, with much more pronounced social classes, much larger differences in education between those classes and stronger income inequality. Basically: if you can't get the well-behaved children to do what you ask of them, what makes you think the rowdy kids will do when you ask them?
- proc0 6y ago
  Sure, I don't really want to spend time finding sources. It's meant as a comment, and I would point to history but for every example there is going to be some rebuttal of why in that instance it didn't work. To me it's quite clear, not just from an individual psychological perspective, but also from a system level perspective, when you reward the masses for suffering, you will get more suffering, and more centralized authority that can be corrupted.
lopmotr 6y ago
You're probably thinking of poor people in developed countries. They're already surrounded by opportunities and don't take them, so giving them money probably won't change that. But in poor countries, there must be a lot more people who are poor because there are no opportunities. For them, giving them access to those opportunities seems to work well.

by proc0 6y ago

_Microft 6y ago

> The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source.

luckylion 6y ago
> This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source. I keep saying it: Germany is a great real-life study to support this. We have those "slightly better situations". And we have plenty of people being stuck in it. It's not because there's some law or some stigma stopping them, we even have good programs and subsidies that will continue to pay your benefits for up to two years while you're getting your business off the ground, you can get cash subsidies on top to invest in your business (up to 5k Euros), and you will also get vouchers for consulting and services, and your health insurance will be paid by the government. Yet it does not happen in large numbers. It's frustrating, and I agree, it seems plausible that it should, but it doesn't. Sure, you may say "that's just Germany, Germans are weird", but I believe you should make an argument why it wouldn't be the same elsewhere under similar circumstances. And I'm somewhat sure that other European countries have similar programs and are seeing similar results, so you may want to make sure that Germany is the outlier.
- viklove 6y ago
  Germany isn't a great example to use when talking about what's best for the United States. For one, Germany is 96% white and doesn't face the same issues the US faces with diversity and cultural variation. When the population is homogenous, it's much easier to agree on and implement solutions.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    Not sure why you bring up the new goalpost of "what's best for the USA" but "Americans are too special for general human behavior to apply" is some rarely used FUD from the 1800s.
    - viklove 6y ago
      Oh right, my mistake, I forgot that one-size-fits-all solutions are the norm when it comes to economic and political solutions to complex problems. Yes, carry on.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        > I forgot that one-size-fits-all solutions are the norm when it comes to economic and political solutions to complex problems That's a strawman you made up.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Sure, sure, that may well be. My point is that it does not work in Germany, even with a much more homogeneous and stable population that leans collectivist. I don't see a compelling reason why it would work in the US with a population that leans individualist, with much more pronounced social classes, much larger differences in education between those classes and stronger income inequality. Basically: if you can't get the well-behaved children to do what you ask of them, what makes you think the rowdy kids will do when you ask them?
proc0 6y ago
Sure, I don't really want to spend time finding sources. It's meant as a comment, and I would point to history but for every example there is going to be some rebuttal of why in that instance it didn't work. To me it's quite clear, not just from an individual psychological perspective, but also from a system level perspective, when you reward the masses for suffering, you will get more suffering, and more centralized authority that can be corrupted.

lopmotr 6y ago

You're probably thinking of poor people in developed countries. They're already surrounded by opportunities and don't take them, so giving them money probably won't change that. But in poor countries, there must be a lot more people who are poor because there are no opportunities. For them, giving them access to those opportunities seems to work well.