13 ms·

>The findings contradict a common argument in the U.S. that poor parents cannot be trusted to receive cash to use however they want, said Amorim. How utterly d

>The findings contradict a common argument in the U.S. that poor parents cannot be trusted to receive cash to use however they want, said Amorim. How utterly depressing if this truly is a common belief.

ceejayoz 5y ago
It's a common belief deliberately stoked for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
mbg721 5y ago
It's America--everybody thinks everybody else is living their lives the wrong way.
- iammisc 5y ago
  That's because America is defined by its cultural pluralism. When you have cultural pluralism, welfare does not work as well, because you are now taking money from members of one culture and giving it to another, and the cultures may be at odds with each other. For example, i am a conservative Catholic. You can tax me sure, and spend it on welfare for atheists who love abortion (or whatever other group... just making up a culture I have little in common with), but then I, and others like myself, will want to have opinions on how my money is spent. If you didn't take my money, I wouldn't care. A lot of strife over welfare in this country is due to the fact that we hold several cultures that are at odds with each other. For example, the amish don't like war, yet they pay taxes. If you asked the amish, they'd vote against war, but conveniently, they are outnumbered, so their money is co-opted. If the amish believed in protesting, and making a big fuss, this would be a major issue. Luckily for the powers that be, they don't. Ultimately, the more government programs / spending one has in a pluralistic society, the more civic strife there will be. This is unavoidable
  - what_is_orcas 5y ago
    Hey how do you reconcile your beliefs about Jesus with your stance on welfare for non-christians? I'm just curious and I don't know any conservative catholics in real life.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Catholics are called to provide charity even to non-christians, so there is no fundamental reason to only provide for our own community. However, welfare and taxation is not charity and you do not grow in virtue through taxation. Welfare is meant to keep a good society. As catholics we have responsibility to vote (if we live in a democracy) for policies that form a just society (this is the original meaning of social justice before it was co-oped by the woke). There is no fundamental conflict between providing for non-christians here, as they too may fall on hard times. Sorry... were you trying to get at something here?
      - what_is_orcas 5y ago
        No, I am & was just genuinely curious. And I am now curious about your beliefs that conservative politics will lead to a just society.
        iammisc 5y ago
        > And I am now curious about your beliefs that conservative politics will lead to a just society. Of course not. Politics will never lead to a just society. There is no such thing as 'conservative' politics; or at least, such a thing is not advocated for in the United States. This is because most 'conservatives' are united not in any particular vision of the country but rather by what the country should not be. This isn't to say that individual factions don't have clear ideas of how society should be; just that no faction predominates. With that aside, by most meanings of 'conservative', it is used to mean limited government, little welfare, lower government spending, and policies encouraging social conservatism. Yes, I am broadly in support of these things. On its own however, these things will not lead to a just society. You need both conservative politics and a moral society to achieve a just society. Unfortunately, the government cannot create a moral society. That is up to individuals to accomplish. We cannot vote on society being good. Many individuals in the united states view their only obligation to politics and the community is via voting and government. This is the worst take ever imaginable. After one votes, after one protests, after one calls their senator/representative, there is yet more to be done for community. Most people do not ever get to this level. It's not just volunteering to help those who are of a different class than you. No no no... that's the uninteresting part of civic duty. The interesting part is what you do for people like you. Do you spend time making your friends worlds a better place? What about your family? Do you make sure your friends and family aren't falling into destitution? Those things are the intangibles that no amount of voting or politics will ever fix, when a culture is broken. For example, many liberals want universal child care paid for via public money. I don't think this is a good thing because I don't think children should be raised by businesses. They should be raised by their parents (they should be educated by them as well, in the early years at least) and their families. In order to achieve this goal of having more parents stay home with their children, we both need to not have universal child care (should probably severely rethink public schooling too), as well as create a society that understands that parents staying home is the right thing to do, and thus does not do it. The first part is easily governmentally achievable; the second part is not. Although it's true that our current society incentivizes both parents working, there is no fundamental reason they have to (other than most people's desires for more material goods). Many subcultures in America achieve a one-income family (Amish, many evangelicals, many conservative Catholics, etc). As another aside, I give thousands of dollars to direct action charities. I have no problem with this and would like to give more. Yet, I would resent if government took this money and instead used it, preventing me from giving it to those in need. In a lot of countries with more welfare, the people themselves become less charitable, because any social problem they expect someone else to fix. Those who fall behind anyway are looked at as failures. Far from forming community, welfare atomizes society. Thus, I am very suspicious of government welfare. Better for it to come from individuals. Tax breaks to encourage charity are fine, and better, indeed. So no, I don't think conservative politics will achieve anything other than not directly incentivizing people to do bad. Fundamentally, I'm conservative because I want the freedom to do good.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    Given that I am also a conservative Catholic, there are plenty of things to wrestle with here. One is that we're engaged in our own internal culture-war around liturgy, the dwindling priesthood, and what to do about social issues that pit Western society's priorities against long-standing Church doctrine. When the most prominent Catholics in the news aren't acting Catholic, that drives us crazy. But I don't think pluralism is really the problem; Catholics, at least in America in my lifetime, never had any kind of puritanical control. The problem is that there's a new amorphous religion of the state that insists it doesn't exist.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Pluralism is not a problem, because civic disagreement is not a problem. I was responding directly to the parent comment: > It's America--everybody thinks everybody else is living their lives the wrong way. I'm explaining why it is that others think they are living the wrong way. > One is that we're engaged in our own internal culture-war around liturgy, the dwindling priesthood, and what to do about social issues that pit Western society's priorities against long-standing Church doctrine. When the most prominent Catholics in the news aren't acting Catholic, that drives us crazy. Absolutely, and it's because the church in America is splitting into two cultures. On one hand, there are catholics who want to be American, and fit in with secular society. On the other hand, there are those who don't see it as that important. These two groups have different cultures.
beerandt 5y ago
Not universally, but it's hard not judge when you see what some people are buying with their (restricted) benefits card(s), and then what they ring up separately and choose to spend their cash on. I think it depends largely on how much you're exposed to it.
- aisengard 5y ago
  It's pretty easy not to judge people for buying stuff with money that they have. It's called freedom, you know? The root of the problem is with the judger, for thinking that money from the government is somehow less worthy than money from other sources (wages, inheritance, government-subsidized business wages, etc).
  - beerandt 5y ago
    When they skimp on what they buy for their kids so they can buy what name brand junk they want for themselves with the balance, and then spend cash on something like expensive earbuds, or one of the vice-lane purchases, I'm going to judge. Freedom means freedom to make poor decisions, but when that money was given to you by taxpayers and is specifically earmarked to feed your kids, not spending it on your kids makes you a bad person.
    - glogla 5y ago
      Here's an interesting article on it: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-do-poor-people-waste-money-on-luxury-goods https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-do-poor-people-waste-... In short, it talks about how in US poor people are being judged as moral failures. Buying "display items" like expensive handbags makes them look less poor. So it is an investment because when they look less poor, others treat them better. Others being predominantly people with power over them - bureaucrats, managers and so on. (the article also discusses racism) EDIT: and you see this at all levels of wealth too - there's certain expectation of a lawyer arriving in Mercedes or BMW, otherwise some people will think them incompetent, for example.
    - dlp211 5y ago
jonathankoren 5y ago
It is. The poor are often considered lazy, stupid, and paradoxically devious. Case in point: Look at how much control and spying employers place on low wage workers compared to high wage workers. I've always wondered if this belief about poor people is traced back to puritanical Calvinism.
- scollet 5y ago
  It often is used as a proxy for moral failing. I've been homeless and hung out with (separate occasions) homeless folks while occasionally interacting with passerbys. There was always a curtness and subtle discomfort in others' speech and body language. I can't imagine the social/mental effects of their presumption over time. Of course when people find out you have financial security, you are either pandered to or treated as a "normal" person, depending on relative strata.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > Look at how much control and spying employers place on low wage workers compared to high wage workers. Has it occurred to you that this is because low wage employees might actually commit more thefts and such? I mean... I've been on a grand jury, and i've seen the lengths some companies go to prevent theft from what I presume are low wage employees. These systems costs lots of money. If low wage employees were actually not stealing, then why would they expend all this money on these systems? It would seem any actuary would be able to tell you you're throwing money away. And yet, they continue to have the systems. I don't think low wage employees are 'bad'. I'm just pointing out that if the employer behavior is so irrational, then certainly some company would start that wouldn't do that. That every single one does I think indicates that this is a common enough problem.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    Have you considered the time theft of high wage employees going to the restroom, eating snacks in the break room, or having untimed lunches? That’s time that could be spent being productive. Surely the your team would be more productive if the LOCs were tracked per day and they had to get permission to use the restroom, or better yet use a piss jug. Did Jim really go to the doctor, or pick up his kids from school, or did he just go to the bar and get drunk? Better demand that note, and GPS track him.

ceejayoz 5y ago

It's a common belief deliberately stoked for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

mbg721 5y ago

It's America--everybody thinks everybody else is living their lives the wrong way.

iammisc 5y ago
That's because America is defined by its cultural pluralism. When you have cultural pluralism, welfare does not work as well, because you are now taking money from members of one culture and giving it to another, and the cultures may be at odds with each other. For example, i am a conservative Catholic. You can tax me sure, and spend it on welfare for atheists who love abortion (or whatever other group... just making up a culture I have little in common with), but then I, and others like myself, will want to have opinions on how my money is spent. If you didn't take my money, I wouldn't care. A lot of strife over welfare in this country is due to the fact that we hold several cultures that are at odds with each other. For example, the amish don't like war, yet they pay taxes. If you asked the amish, they'd vote against war, but conveniently, they are outnumbered, so their money is co-opted. If the amish believed in protesting, and making a big fuss, this would be a major issue. Luckily for the powers that be, they don't. Ultimately, the more government programs / spending one has in a pluralistic society, the more civic strife there will be. This is unavoidable
- what_is_orcas 5y ago
  Hey how do you reconcile your beliefs about Jesus with your stance on welfare for non-christians? I'm just curious and I don't know any conservative catholics in real life.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Catholics are called to provide charity even to non-christians, so there is no fundamental reason to only provide for our own community. However, welfare and taxation is not charity and you do not grow in virtue through taxation. Welfare is meant to keep a good society. As catholics we have responsibility to vote (if we live in a democracy) for policies that form a just society (this is the original meaning of social justice before it was co-oped by the woke). There is no fundamental conflict between providing for non-christians here, as they too may fall on hard times. Sorry... were you trying to get at something here?
    - what_is_orcas 5y ago
      No, I am & was just genuinely curious. And I am now curious about your beliefs that conservative politics will lead to a just society.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        > And I am now curious about your beliefs that conservative politics will lead to a just society. Of course not. Politics will never lead to a just society. There is no such thing as 'conservative' politics; or at least, such a thing is not advocated for in the United States. This is because most 'conservatives' are united not in any particular vision of the country but rather by what the country should not be. This isn't to say that individual factions don't have clear ideas of how society should be; just that no faction predominates. With that aside, by most meanings of 'conservative', it is used to mean limited government, little welfare, lower government spending, and policies encouraging social conservatism. Yes, I am broadly in support of these things. On its own however, these things will not lead to a just society. You need both conservative politics and a moral society to achieve a just society. Unfortunately, the government cannot create a moral society. That is up to individuals to accomplish. We cannot vote on society being good. Many individuals in the united states view their only obligation to politics and the community is via voting and government. This is the worst take ever imaginable. After one votes, after one protests, after one calls their senator/representative, there is yet more to be done for community. Most people do not ever get to this level. It's not just volunteering to help those who are of a different class than you. No no no... that's the uninteresting part of civic duty. The interesting part is what you do for people like you. Do you spend time making your friends worlds a better place? What about your family? Do you make sure your friends and family aren't falling into destitution? Those things are the intangibles that no amount of voting or politics will ever fix, when a culture is broken. For example, many liberals want universal child care paid for via public money. I don't think this is a good thing because I don't think children should be raised by businesses. They should be raised by their parents (they should be educated by them as well, in the early years at least) and their families. In order to achieve this goal of having more parents stay home with their children, we both need to not have universal child care (should probably severely rethink public schooling too), as well as create a society that understands that parents staying home is the right thing to do, and thus does not do it. The first part is easily governmentally achievable; the second part is not. Although it's true that our current society incentivizes both parents working, there is no fundamental reason they have to (other than most people's desires for more material goods). Many subcultures in America achieve a one-income family (Amish, many evangelicals, many conservative Catholics, etc). As another aside, I give thousands of dollars to direct action charities. I have no problem with this and would like to give more. Yet, I would resent if government took this money and instead used it, preventing me from giving it to those in need. In a lot of countries with more welfare, the people themselves become less charitable, because any social problem they expect someone else to fix. Those who fall behind anyway are looked at as failures. Far from forming community, welfare atomizes society. Thus, I am very suspicious of government welfare. Better for it to come from individuals. Tax breaks to encourage charity are fine, and better, indeed. So no, I don't think conservative politics will achieve anything other than not directly incentivizing people to do bad. Fundamentally, I'm conservative because I want the freedom to do good.
- mbg721 5y ago
  Given that I am also a conservative Catholic, there are plenty of things to wrestle with here. One is that we're engaged in our own internal culture-war around liturgy, the dwindling priesthood, and what to do about social issues that pit Western society's priorities against long-standing Church doctrine. When the most prominent Catholics in the news aren't acting Catholic, that drives us crazy. But I don't think pluralism is really the problem; Catholics, at least in America in my lifetime, never had any kind of puritanical control. The problem is that there's a new amorphous religion of the state that insists it doesn't exist.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Pluralism is not a problem, because civic disagreement is not a problem. I was responding directly to the parent comment: > It's America--everybody thinks everybody else is living their lives the wrong way. I'm explaining why it is that others think they are living the wrong way. > One is that we're engaged in our own internal culture-war around liturgy, the dwindling priesthood, and what to do about social issues that pit Western society's priorities against long-standing Church doctrine. When the most prominent Catholics in the news aren't acting Catholic, that drives us crazy. Absolutely, and it's because the church in America is splitting into two cultures. On one hand, there are catholics who want to be American, and fit in with secular society. On the other hand, there are those who don't see it as that important. These two groups have different cultures.

beerandt 5y ago

Not universally, but it's hard not judge when you see what some people are buying with their (restricted) benefits card(s), and then what they ring up separately and choose to spend their cash on. I think it depends largely on how much you're exposed to it.

aisengard 5y ago
It's pretty easy not to judge people for buying stuff with money that they have. It's called freedom, you know? The root of the problem is with the judger, for thinking that money from the government is somehow less worthy than money from other sources (wages, inheritance, government-subsidized business wages, etc).
- beerandt 5y ago
  When they skimp on what they buy for their kids so they can buy what name brand junk they want for themselves with the balance, and then spend cash on something like expensive earbuds, or one of the vice-lane purchases, I'm going to judge. Freedom means freedom to make poor decisions, but when that money was given to you by taxpayers and is specifically earmarked to feed your kids, not spending it on your kids makes you a bad person.
  - glogla 5y ago
    Here's an interesting article on it: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-do-poor-people-waste-money-on-luxury-goods https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-do-poor-people-waste-... In short, it talks about how in US poor people are being judged as moral failures. Buying "display items" like expensive handbags makes them look less poor. So it is an investment because when they look less poor, others treat them better. Others being predominantly people with power over them - bureaucrats, managers and so on. (the article also discusses racism) EDIT: and you see this at all levels of wealth too - there's certain expectation of a lawyer arriving in Mercedes or BMW, otherwise some people will think them incompetent, for example.
  - dlp211 5y ago

jonathankoren 5y ago

It is. The poor are often considered lazy, stupid, and paradoxically devious. Case in point: Look at how much control and spying employers place on low wage workers compared to high wage workers. I've always wondered if this belief about poor people is traced back to puritanical Calvinism.

scollet 5y ago
It often is used as a proxy for moral failing. I've been homeless and hung out with (separate occasions) homeless folks while occasionally interacting with passerbys. There was always a curtness and subtle discomfort in others' speech and body language. I can't imagine the social/mental effects of their presumption over time. Of course when people find out you have financial security, you are either pandered to or treated as a "normal" person, depending on relative strata.
iammisc 5y ago
> Look at how much control and spying employers place on low wage workers compared to high wage workers. Has it occurred to you that this is because low wage employees might actually commit more thefts and such? I mean... I've been on a grand jury, and i've seen the lengths some companies go to prevent theft from what I presume are low wage employees. These systems costs lots of money. If low wage employees were actually not stealing, then why would they expend all this money on these systems? It would seem any actuary would be able to tell you you're throwing money away. And yet, they continue to have the systems. I don't think low wage employees are 'bad'. I'm just pointing out that if the employer behavior is so irrational, then certainly some company would start that wouldn't do that. That every single one does I think indicates that this is a common enough problem.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  Have you considered the time theft of high wage employees going to the restroom, eating snacks in the break room, or having untimed lunches? That’s time that could be spent being productive. Surely the your team would be more productive if the LOCs were tracked per day and they had to get permission to use the restroom, or better yet use a piss jug. Did Jim really go to the doctor, or pick up his kids from school, or did he just go to the bar and get drunk? Better demand that note, and GPS track him.