5 ms·

The poor need an environment they can thrive in, not handout from the rich.

asjfkdldlg 5y ago
> The poor need an environment they can thrive in, not handout from the rich. Well, they need someone rich and mighty to create this environment they can thrive in - poor people usually don't hire employees.
- discreteevent 5y ago
  Hiring employees is not the only way to create an environment you can thrive in. There are plenty of examples in all cultures (maybe not the US?) of co-operative arrangements that were successful.
  - lordloki 5y ago
    Without benefactors providing large amounts of capital how would we advance our knowledge and thought? Without some form of inequality of wealth we would never have had the enlightenment, industrial revolution, and health systems that we have today. The poor today are better off in almost every measure than the poor of 300 years ago. Heck, the poor today are better off than the wealthy of 300 years ago. This is all due to large amounts of capital being invested or donated into science and technology. To an extent wealth inequality is a necessary evil. It's certainly exceeded it's beneficial point at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should throw capitalism away, we only need to rein it in some.
    - traverseda 5y ago
      >Without benefactors providing large amounts of capital how would we advance our knowledge and thought? I mean if I didn't have to worry about money I'd probably devote my life to some interesting distributed operating-system problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc I think that the people who are already creating stuff would continue to create stuff, just exactly what they create would change. I'm less worried about who would advance our knowledge and thought and more worried about who would manage the garbage or grow the food.
- krageon 5y ago
  This point of view is called trickle-down economics, which is hilarious mostly because of how sad it is.
nine_k 5y ago
Can one really thrive while being poor? Also, how easy it is to build a good school and hire good teachers if you all are poor? Such are the cases where an infusion of wealth can help. Regarding handouts, ask whether those who receive food at soup kitchens, or free meals for their kids at school, find the practice useless.
- swiftcoder 5y ago
  > Regarding handouts, ask whether those who receive food at soup kitchens, or free meals for their kids at school, find the practice useless. I'm sure if given the option of an intervention that actually addressed the underlying causes of poverty (i.e. socialised housing, UBI, or so forth), they wouldn't choose the gift of soup
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- danybittel 5y ago
  Good and affordable schools are part of what I mean by environment.
atoav 5y ago
The poor need an environment that isn't drained by, milked by and/or owned by the rich. The poor need an environment where those with more wealth cannot influence the outcome of political processes irproportionally. The poor need an environment where the invisible hand of the market is not the fiscal equivalent of a one-way-valve, where the "free" market is praised as long as the employee wont use their work as a bargaining chip.
cercatrova 5y ago
What is wrong with "handouts?"
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Handouts ought not to be needed in a normal world. No one should be reliant on handouts for their basic livelihood in an equitable society.
  - somnic 5y ago
    This is equivalent to saying everyone must work to earn their basic livelihood. Unless you're doing something funky with your definition of "handouts" here such that doesn't include unemployment benefits or other publicly subsidized welfare.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      Unemployment and social safety nets are not handouts. You pay into these systems in good times so that you can take advantage of them in bad times. Would you call receiving a check from your insurance company after you are in an accident a handout? You might by chance get out more than you've put in, but you are still entitled to what you receive. A handout is when someone gives you something you are not entitled to of their own free will. They can stop giving it to you at any time. If you are reliant on handouts, you are at their mercy.
      - nybble41 5y ago
        > but you are still entitled to what you receive That's the difference. With an insurance contract you are entitled to a payout when the conditions are met because the insurance company agreed to that as part of the contract. The only things you are entitled to are yourself, whatever you can homestead with your labor from unclaimed land, and what others voluntarily agree to give you. Insurance payments and every other form of voluntary contract fall into this last category. > A handout is when someone gives you something you are not entitled to of their own free will. They can stop giving it to you at any time. "Social safety nets" are not something you are entitled to. The government grants or denies them of their own free will (albeit using others' money). They can be reduced or revoked at any time, or extra conditions can be imposed for claiming them, and you would have no grounds to sue for compensation over those changes, despite having paid taxes to fund prior payments to others.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
We have to get from here to there somehow, and the solution will most likely require the rich to fund that work.

> The poor need an environment they can thrive in, not handout from the rich. Well, they need someone rich and mighty to create this environment they can thrive in - poor people usually don't hire employees.

discreteevent 5y ago
Hiring employees is not the only way to create an environment you can thrive in. There are plenty of examples in all cultures (maybe not the US?) of co-operative arrangements that were successful.
- lordloki 5y ago
  Without benefactors providing large amounts of capital how would we advance our knowledge and thought? Without some form of inequality of wealth we would never have had the enlightenment, industrial revolution, and health systems that we have today. The poor today are better off in almost every measure than the poor of 300 years ago. Heck, the poor today are better off than the wealthy of 300 years ago. This is all due to large amounts of capital being invested or donated into science and technology. To an extent wealth inequality is a necessary evil. It's certainly exceeded it's beneficial point at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should throw capitalism away, we only need to rein it in some.
  - traverseda 5y ago
    >Without benefactors providing large amounts of capital how would we advance our knowledge and thought? I mean if I didn't have to worry about money I'd probably devote my life to some interesting distributed operating-system problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc I think that the people who are already creating stuff would continue to create stuff, just exactly what they create would change. I'm less worried about who would advance our knowledge and thought and more worried about who would manage the garbage or grow the food.
krageon 5y ago
This point of view is called trickle-down economics, which is hilarious mostly because of how sad it is.

nine_k 5y ago

Can one really thrive while being poor? Also, how easy it is to build a good school and hire good teachers if you all are poor? Such are the cases where an infusion of wealth can help. Regarding handouts, ask whether those who receive food at soup kitchens, or free meals for their kids at school, find the practice useless.

swiftcoder 5y ago
> Regarding handouts, ask whether those who receive food at soup kitchens, or free meals for their kids at school, find the practice useless. I'm sure if given the option of an intervention that actually addressed the underlying causes of poverty (i.e. socialised housing, UBI, or so forth), they wouldn't choose the gift of soup
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
danybittel 5y ago
Good and affordable schools are part of what I mean by environment.

atoav 5y ago

The poor need an environment that isn't drained by, milked by and/or owned by the rich. The poor need an environment where those with more wealth cannot influence the outcome of political processes irproportionally. The poor need an environment where the invisible hand of the market is not the fiscal equivalent of a one-way-valve, where the "free" market is praised as long as the employee wont use their work as a bargaining chip.

cercatrova 5y ago

What is wrong with "handouts?"

tsimionescu 5y ago
Handouts ought not to be needed in a normal world. No one should be reliant on handouts for their basic livelihood in an equitable society.
- somnic 5y ago
  This is equivalent to saying everyone must work to earn their basic livelihood. Unless you're doing something funky with your definition of "handouts" here such that doesn't include unemployment benefits or other publicly subsidized welfare.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Unemployment and social safety nets are not handouts. You pay into these systems in good times so that you can take advantage of them in bad times. Would you call receiving a check from your insurance company after you are in an accident a handout? You might by chance get out more than you've put in, but you are still entitled to what you receive. A handout is when someone gives you something you are not entitled to of their own free will. They can stop giving it to you at any time. If you are reliant on handouts, you are at their mercy.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > but you are still entitled to what you receive That's the difference. With an insurance contract you are entitled to a payout when the conditions are met because the insurance company agreed to that as part of the contract. The only things you are entitled to are yourself, whatever you can homestead with your labor from unclaimed land, and what others voluntarily agree to give you. Insurance payments and every other form of voluntary contract fall into this last category. > A handout is when someone gives you something you are not entitled to of their own free will. They can stop giving it to you at any time. "Social safety nets" are not something you are entitled to. The government grants or denies them of their own free will (albeit using others' money). They can be reduced or revoked at any time, or extra conditions can be imposed for claiming them, and you would have no grounds to sue for compensation over those changes, despite having paid taxes to fund prior payments to others.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

We have to get from here to there somehow, and the solution will most likely require the rich to fund that work.