3 ms·

abduhl is correct. Those who are not poor within a community should be prepared to help others in their community. As someone who is a director of engineering

abduhl is correct. Those who are not poor within a community should be prepared to help others in their community. As someone who is a director of engineering at a tech company in one of richest zip codes in the country, what have you done to prepare to help both yourself and others within your community that are more vulnerable such as the poor, elderly and infirm? Or will you be another helpless victim adding to the burden that FEMA responders will have to attend to? If you are not prepared yourself when you have the financial means and technical capacity to do so, you're taking away resources from those that actually need that support in the event of a disaster.

ohazi 6y ago
You're missing or ignoring a long history of extreme poverty in the American South, and deliberate policy decisions to under-invest in those communities in order to maintain the status quo. Nobody in this thread is proposing that FEMA help idiots in their multi-million dollar Florida oceanfront mansions that regularly get decimated by hurricanes. Those people can and regularly do bail out and return to their other homes in California or Nevada at the first sign of trouble. Your stated position is not based on reality -- most rich people do very little to help their communities. But even ignoring this fact -- random towns along the Mississippi coast don't have a lot of lawyers or doctors or directors of engineering with overflowing bags of money to graciously spend on their community, even if such philanthropy was common (which, again -- it isn't). Everyone in those communities is poor, and struggles to get by during good times. That's what FEMA is supposed to be for. And under-investment in FEMA's hurricane preparedness is yet another deliberate policy decision to throw these poorer communities under the bus, in favor of the wealthier communities where terrorists seeking visibility are expected to focus their efforts.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > deliberate policy decisions to under-invest in those communities You're missing or ignoring the fact that government is funded by economic activity. The government invests in protecting the revenues streams that allows it to continue to operate with surplus and those communities that don't provide much if any revenue benefit disproportionately relative to how much they contribute to funding the government they rely on for help. What you're proposing is to divert dollars from activity that creates the very surplus that affords the government the budget to help those that can't help themselves. Pretty much all countries cannot provide even a fraction of the support the US is able to provide to its disadvantaged communities. This is largely due to the fact that our government makes the smart decision to protect its cash cows. We have so much surplus that we're actually able to provide to many disadvantaged and advantaged communities beyond our own borders. We can of course debate the particulars of how much goes to protect the cash cows and how much goes to the communities less capable of contributing, but what's not up for debate is that the optimal solution we should both be solving for is the one that creates the greatest surplus. Many of these poorer communities are often better prepared than the cities where well off people are. During Katrina, much of the support rendered came from people outside the city that are self-reliant. They even had a name for these people, the Cajun Navy and they did far more to help the poor people in New Orleans than the rich people in New Orleans. So I ask you again, as someone who is a director of engineering at a tech company in one of richest zip codes in the country, what have you done to prepare to help both yourself and others within your community that are more vulnerable such as the poor, elderly and infirm? Or will you be another helpless victim adding to the burden that FEMA responders will have to attend to?
  - ohazi 6y ago
    It's not a zero sum game. When governments invest in their poor communities, they get the following, in order: 1) Stability At a minimum, a community needs to receive enough investment that it doesn't get destroyed at regular intervals. Or if disasters occasionally happen, this level of investment should help bring about a speedy recovery. This is the level at which FEMA is supposed to operate. Terry Pratchett's Boots parable fits into this category nicely. [1] 2) Opportunity Beyond that, you can invest by paying to deliberately bring opportunities to a community that wouldn't normally be available. This can include education, public works projects, financial incentives for companies to operate in poorer areas where they otherwise wouldn't, etc. If you pay to educate people, they'll be able to do higher quality work for an employer (presumably bringing more value to the employer than unskilled labor), and those people will be able to receive better wages for their work in order to save, support their families, and spend at other businesses in their community (supporting those businesses). If you improve public infrastructure, you make it easier for people to get to work, and make it easier for companies to access members of the community in order to sell their services. If you provide incentives for companies to move in, they can provide both education / training and better paying jobs, which allows community members to begin to prosper and can eventually encourage other businesses to move in on their own in order to tap some of the newly created talent, or sell to a community with newly disposable income. 3) Prosperity Go through (2) enough times, and it will eventually become self-sustaining. The community will be able to grow and produce new economic opportunities on its own. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich-were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-r... --- Since apparently your dig was at me personally, I'll give you the honest answer that I guess you thought I'd find too shameful to share, but really just highlights the point I was making earlier. I am prepared to take care of myself and my family in the event of the disasters that we expect in California, including earthquakes and the fires that are currently surrounding my city. I have resources that I can provide to my family, and I have family in other areas that can provide resources for me, should the need arise. I don't expect to rely on FEMA personally. But who do you consider to be part of my community? Is it close friends that I work with or went to school with and know well? Or is it the working poor a few blocks closer to the freeway? Because while I'm more than happy to provide similar levels of support to my close friends -- they're all rich techies like me, who also have their own resources. What have I done for the working poor? Other than tipping well back when restaurants were still a thing, I've done jack shit for them, and 99% of the rich techies living here have similarly done squat. The levels of philanthropy that you expect the poor to rely on are completely delusional, and that's why we need FEMA. People will look after themselves, and will help close allies where support is expected to yield long-term benefits, but beyond that, we're all monsters, and will leave our neighbors to drown without a second thought. Governments and larger scale philanthropies with the capacity and resources for meta-thinking and longer-term investment are the only organizations that are capable of responding in a sustainable way.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Your stated position is not based on reality -- most rich people do very little to help their communities. I'm pretty sure that is their stated position, actually.

ohazi 6y ago

You're missing or ignoring a long history of extreme poverty in the American South, and deliberate policy decisions to under-invest in those communities in order to maintain the status quo. Nobody in this thread is proposing that FEMA help idiots in their multi-million dollar Florida oceanfront mansions that regularly get decimated by hurricanes. Those people can and regularly do bail out and return to their other homes in California or Nevada at the first sign of trouble. Your stated position is not based on reality -- most rich people do very little to help their communities. But even ignoring this fact -- random towns along the Mississippi coast don't have a lot of lawyers or doctors or directors of engineering with overflowing bags of money to graciously spend on their community, even if such philanthropy was common (which, again -- it isn't). Everyone in those communities is poor, and struggles to get by during good times. That's what FEMA is supposed to be for. And under-investment in FEMA's hurricane preparedness is yet another deliberate policy decision to throw these poorer communities under the bus, in favor of the wealthier communities where terrorists seeking visibility are expected to focus their efforts.

malandrew 6y ago
> deliberate policy decisions to under-invest in those communities You're missing or ignoring the fact that government is funded by economic activity. The government invests in protecting the revenues streams that allows it to continue to operate with surplus and those communities that don't provide much if any revenue benefit disproportionately relative to how much they contribute to funding the government they rely on for help. What you're proposing is to divert dollars from activity that creates the very surplus that affords the government the budget to help those that can't help themselves. Pretty much all countries cannot provide even a fraction of the support the US is able to provide to its disadvantaged communities. This is largely due to the fact that our government makes the smart decision to protect its cash cows. We have so much surplus that we're actually able to provide to many disadvantaged and advantaged communities beyond our own borders. We can of course debate the particulars of how much goes to protect the cash cows and how much goes to the communities less capable of contributing, but what's not up for debate is that the optimal solution we should both be solving for is the one that creates the greatest surplus. Many of these poorer communities are often better prepared than the cities where well off people are. During Katrina, much of the support rendered came from people outside the city that are self-reliant. They even had a name for these people, the Cajun Navy and they did far more to help the poor people in New Orleans than the rich people in New Orleans. So I ask you again, as someone who is a director of engineering at a tech company in one of richest zip codes in the country, what have you done to prepare to help both yourself and others within your community that are more vulnerable such as the poor, elderly and infirm? Or will you be another helpless victim adding to the burden that FEMA responders will have to attend to?
- ohazi 6y ago
  It's not a zero sum game. When governments invest in their poor communities, they get the following, in order: 1) Stability At a minimum, a community needs to receive enough investment that it doesn't get destroyed at regular intervals. Or if disasters occasionally happen, this level of investment should help bring about a speedy recovery. This is the level at which FEMA is supposed to operate. Terry Pratchett's Boots parable fits into this category nicely. [1] 2) Opportunity Beyond that, you can invest by paying to deliberately bring opportunities to a community that wouldn't normally be available. This can include education, public works projects, financial incentives for companies to operate in poorer areas where they otherwise wouldn't, etc. If you pay to educate people, they'll be able to do higher quality work for an employer (presumably bringing more value to the employer than unskilled labor), and those people will be able to receive better wages for their work in order to save, support their families, and spend at other businesses in their community (supporting those businesses). If you improve public infrastructure, you make it easier for people to get to work, and make it easier for companies to access members of the community in order to sell their services. If you provide incentives for companies to move in, they can provide both education / training and better paying jobs, which allows community members to begin to prosper and can eventually encourage other businesses to move in on their own in order to tap some of the newly created talent, or sell to a community with newly disposable income. 3) Prosperity Go through (2) enough times, and it will eventually become self-sustaining. The community will be able to grow and produce new economic opportunities on its own. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich-were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-r... --- Since apparently your dig was at me personally, I'll give you the honest answer that I guess you thought I'd find too shameful to share, but really just highlights the point I was making earlier. I am prepared to take care of myself and my family in the event of the disasters that we expect in California, including earthquakes and the fires that are currently surrounding my city. I have resources that I can provide to my family, and I have family in other areas that can provide resources for me, should the need arise. I don't expect to rely on FEMA personally. But who do you consider to be part of my community? Is it close friends that I work with or went to school with and know well? Or is it the working poor a few blocks closer to the freeway? Because while I'm more than happy to provide similar levels of support to my close friends -- they're all rich techies like me, who also have their own resources. What have I done for the working poor? Other than tipping well back when restaurants were still a thing, I've done jack shit for them, and 99% of the rich techies living here have similarly done squat. The levels of philanthropy that you expect the poor to rely on are completely delusional, and that's why we need FEMA. People will look after themselves, and will help close allies where support is expected to yield long-term benefits, but beyond that, we're all monsters, and will leave our neighbors to drown without a second thought. Governments and larger scale philanthropies with the capacity and resources for meta-thinking and longer-term investment are the only organizations that are capable of responding in a sustainable way.
a1369209993 6y ago
> Your stated position is not based on reality -- most rich people do very little to help their communities. I'm pretty sure that is their stated position, actually.