4 ms·

Related to this: I started reading the Dutch author Rutger Bregman who iterates the point that poor people are just that: Poor. What they need is usually not he

Related to this: I started reading the Dutch author Rutger Bregman who iterates the point that poor people are just that: Poor. What they need is usually not help but money. If one believes that this is a well intended effort that, however, is nothing more that a publicity stunt. This appears to be a private initiative, and the only potential harm done here is iterating a point that is wrong (if one puts themselves in the Rousseau camp).

luckylion 4y ago
I'm not sure that's true unless you account for different reasons for poverty. My neighbor is classified as poor, at least judging his official income. He's long-term unemployed by choice because he doesn't like working and has three children he'd have to pay alimony for if he had an income. So he instead does not work, get's ~60% of average net income (part of that isn't in cash, but paying for housing, health insurance etc), has lots of free time, and the state pays the alimony for him. He's poor. Sure, doubling welfare payments would make him have more than the average citizen, but it wouldn't address the reason he's poor: because he doesn't want to work. If he worked, he'd have more money, but the calculation is simple: get 500 Euros + 77sqm flat + utilities + health insurance for 0 hours / year, or get 2500 Euros, pay everything yourself (including alimony) and have 300-400 Euros more a month for 1600 hours / year.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  This is completely aligned with the initial point. Do you think a life coach would benefit him? It is clearly not because he is stupid. He just made some life decisions that you do not agree with.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Pretty much everyone that is poor and isn't a first generation immigrant who has arrived in the last two years is poor because of "some life decisions". And some of them a life coach could help. Some are doing their best and really just need a little bit of help to get on their feet, and giving them that help without much hassle is the best you can do. And others are simply lazy, and giving them more money to be lazy is a waste of money. I'm not saying that some poverty can be sustainably alleviated by cash. But some cannot. Claims about poverty should consider that not all poverty is the same (and most poverty in Western countries (maybe minus the US) is relative, not absolute).
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      I guess the point is that with a robust safety net, people wouldn't have to live in crippling poverty because of "some life decisions". The first-order reason they are in poverty is that they don't have money, so if the safety net is robust enough, that first-order problem can be solved by cash. If you think it would also be helpful to coach them on the second-order problem (decision-making skills), great. But money is the immediate and direct solution to the problem.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        But there really is barely any absolute poverty in the Netherlands (or Germany, or Denmark, or Sweden, or France, or ....), we're mostly talking about relative poverty, that is nobody is starving or can't get healthcare, or is homeless (yes, homelessness exists, but it's primarily a substance abuse/mental health issue) because they're poor, because the government covers all of that, and the few exceptions are e.g. undocumented immigrants who aren't eligible. They're poor because we define poverty as having 60% or 50% of the median net income. You still live in a flat, you still have enough money for food and you don't need to beg to heat your home, but you'll have trouble affording things that average citizens consider normal, like taking trips, eating out, buying gadgets, or saving money. In both absolute and relative poverty, more money helps alleviate it. But giving people enough money to escape abject poverty is something else entirely from enforcing everyone to earn exactly the same so that nobody could have less than the median.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
groceries == money
- madsbuch 4y ago
  I'd love to see you accept your monthly salary paid out in fresh vegetable leafs!

luckylion 4y ago

I'm not sure that's true unless you account for different reasons for poverty. My neighbor is classified as poor, at least judging his official income. He's long-term unemployed by choice because he doesn't like working and has three children he'd have to pay alimony for if he had an income. So he instead does not work, get's ~60% of average net income (part of that isn't in cash, but paying for housing, health insurance etc), has lots of free time, and the state pays the alimony for him. He's poor. Sure, doubling welfare payments would make him have more than the average citizen, but it wouldn't address the reason he's poor: because he doesn't want to work. If he worked, he'd have more money, but the calculation is simple: get 500 Euros + 77sqm flat + utilities + health insurance for 0 hours / year, or get 2500 Euros, pay everything yourself (including alimony) and have 300-400 Euros more a month for 1600 hours / year.

madsbuch 4y ago
This is completely aligned with the initial point. Do you think a life coach would benefit him? It is clearly not because he is stupid. He just made some life decisions that you do not agree with.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Pretty much everyone that is poor and isn't a first generation immigrant who has arrived in the last two years is poor because of "some life decisions". And some of them a life coach could help. Some are doing their best and really just need a little bit of help to get on their feet, and giving them that help without much hassle is the best you can do. And others are simply lazy, and giving them more money to be lazy is a waste of money. I'm not saying that some poverty can be sustainably alleviated by cash. But some cannot. Claims about poverty should consider that not all poverty is the same (and most poverty in Western countries (maybe minus the US) is relative, not absolute).
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I guess the point is that with a robust safety net, people wouldn't have to live in crippling poverty because of "some life decisions". The first-order reason they are in poverty is that they don't have money, so if the safety net is robust enough, that first-order problem can be solved by cash. If you think it would also be helpful to coach them on the second-order problem (decision-making skills), great. But money is the immediate and direct solution to the problem.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      But there really is barely any absolute poverty in the Netherlands (or Germany, or Denmark, or Sweden, or France, or ....), we're mostly talking about relative poverty, that is nobody is starving or can't get healthcare, or is homeless (yes, homelessness exists, but it's primarily a substance abuse/mental health issue) because they're poor, because the government covers all of that, and the few exceptions are e.g. undocumented immigrants who aren't eligible. They're poor because we define poverty as having 60% or 50% of the median net income. You still live in a flat, you still have enough money for food and you don't need to beg to heat your home, but you'll have trouble affording things that average citizens consider normal, like taking trips, eating out, buying gadgets, or saving money. In both absolute and relative poverty, more money helps alleviate it. But giving people enough money to escape abject poverty is something else entirely from enforcing everyone to earn exactly the same so that nobody could have less than the median.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

groceries == money

madsbuch 4y ago
I'd love to see you accept your monthly salary paid out in fresh vegetable leafs!