6 ms·

And of course, the average 'end all benefits' type of person will shout 'these are the exceptions, it's the cheats that we want to stop', newsflash, these ARE t

by NikkiA 2y ago

And of course, the average 'end all benefits' type of person will shout 'these are the exceptions, it's the cheats that we want to stop', newsflash, these ARE the cheats the system claims are the problem, they're not the exception, the cruelty to otherwise normal people is the whole point

therobots927 2y ago
Yep. I’m guessing discussion of politics is against forum rules but I think it’s clear to a lot of us that a significant percentage of US voters are very let’s say… Darwinian about how they think about things (even though, ironically, many of them don’t believe in evolution). Of course this worldview is counterproductive, America would be much better off in the long run if we had a more compassionate approach to everything. People want to charge kids for lunch at school, as if society as a whole wouldn’t be better off if kids were well fed when they’re trying to learn. It’s not just that their worldview is immoral, it’s deeply counterproductive and puts a lot of strain on the social fabric.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  I was curious what a significant percentage might be as it just feels odd at first glance that a large percentage of the US population would rather children go hungry if they can't pay for lunch at school. About the worst stat I could come up with was that 20% opposed extension of universal free breakfast and lunch to all students. Of course that 20% is largely in opposition to the universal part more than wanting the children unable to pay to go hungry. In all it's surprising there is any single digit percentage that would oppose this but it disagrees with what most would expect in terms of numbers to a significant percentage holding this view. Doubly so when the comparison provided is a ~35% viewpoint (percentage varies depending on how you frame and measure the question). Another interesting stat I found along the way was more children were receiving free or reduced lunch than not even prior to the pandemic.
  - therobots927 2y ago
    The percentage is high enough that it’s difficult to enact free lunch programs.
    - jellicle 2y ago
      Can't even enact free free lunch programs: https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-su...
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      It's difficult to enact the programs because people disagree on how they are run. All students or some students? What's the bar on the latter? How is it funded? Should it be a federally organized program or should the states lead how they do their own? Should it come with a mandate of food healthiness, what's that bar if so? Is it a school only supplemental program or should it be a change to a general welfare program (the latter having a whole set of debate how it should be done if its own)? Very low on the list of reasons it's difficult is the percentage of those just plain not interested in the idea. It may seem silly ("we all agree no kid should go hungry at school so why haven't we done it universally") but picking that one reason out of the hat and holding it out as why isn't helping anything.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    From what I can tell a lot of it comes down to whether someone cares more about making sure that everyone who needs help gets it or cares more about making sure that no one who doesn't need help gets it.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      Funding is finite. Someone who doesn't need a benefit and receives it can be taking that benefit away from someone else. If you turn up at a food bank when you don't need to you're taking food out of someone else's mouth.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  There is always that guy, well lots of that guy, that obviously wish the losers would go off and die somewhere so they can enjoy their winnings without having to think about them. And these people hate anything that forces them to rub shoulders with losers. They hate cities, public transit, flying coach. And especially hate sick people. You might have asked who leaves their wife when they get cancer, these guys. When it comes to the resources used by disabled people I think of comments by Nolan Bushnell in a dead tree magazine interview. The interviewer asked him how he deals with unproductive engineers and Nolan says he didn't care about unproductive engineers. Because an unproductive engineer just wastes his salary. What he cared about was negatively productive engineers. And managers especially. What I see is there are a lot of heavily compensated people who destroy value their whole careers. And those people take a far and away bigger share than all the disabled people. Where this tends to be going is a lot of that guy are the above, highly compensated less than worthless people. consider as you're career progressed up. Maybe when you started working most people around you had lower end jobs and were productive. And as you went up the percentage of people actually pulling their weight went down. So yes most people doesn't mind people on disability. But the thin upper strata of that guys sure do.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
What’s your source for this? The purpose of the asset limit is to force middle class people to use up their assets before the public will start paying. Thats an entirely reasonable policy decision.
- mint2 2y ago
  Does an asset limit of 2,000 set in 1980 without any inflation adjustments and a hard cliff benefit removal sound sensible?
  - therobots927 2y ago
    It makes sense if you don’t think about it too much.
  - iteria 2y ago
    Is that where that came from? I used an inflation calculator and honestly, it would be extremely reasonable to say someone can't have more than 8K in savings and get this benefit. I hate that the US government never sets anything to inflation so we always have to play these games for everything with benefits.
    - WWLink 2y ago
      > tly, it would be extremely reasonable to say someone can't have more than 8K in savings Even 8k is really not "middle class" at all. Middle class is "I have 6 months to a year of income saved up in case of emergencies" and that isn't your 401k.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        Socioeconomic class is not defined by assets, but rather by income or if you want to get a little more sophisticated (to cover the case of the young person about to graduate from medical school) potential to earn income. Of course, if you have enough assets, you can derive reliable investment income from those assets, but $8K of assets will not reliably generate enough income to matter when considering what class the person is. In other words, if you have $8K in assets, but zero potential to earn income from your labor, you definitely do not meet the bar for being middle class.

by NikkiA 2y ago

therobots927 2y ago

Yep. I’m guessing discussion of politics is against forum rules but I think it’s clear to a lot of us that a significant percentage of US voters are very let’s say… Darwinian about how they think about things (even though, ironically, many of them don’t believe in evolution). Of course this worldview is counterproductive, America would be much better off in the long run if we had a more compassionate approach to everything. People want to charge kids for lunch at school, as if society as a whole wouldn’t be better off if kids were well fed when they’re trying to learn. It’s not just that their worldview is immoral, it’s deeply counterproductive and puts a lot of strain on the social fabric.

zamadatix 2y ago
I was curious what a significant percentage might be as it just feels odd at first glance that a large percentage of the US population would rather children go hungry if they can't pay for lunch at school. About the worst stat I could come up with was that 20% opposed extension of universal free breakfast and lunch to all students. Of course that 20% is largely in opposition to the universal part more than wanting the children unable to pay to go hungry. In all it's surprising there is any single digit percentage that would oppose this but it disagrees with what most would expect in terms of numbers to a significant percentage holding this view. Doubly so when the comparison provided is a ~35% viewpoint (percentage varies depending on how you frame and measure the question). Another interesting stat I found along the way was more children were receiving free or reduced lunch than not even prior to the pandemic.
- therobots927 2y ago
  The percentage is high enough that it’s difficult to enact free lunch programs.
  - jellicle 2y ago
    Can't even enact free free lunch programs: https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-su...
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    It's difficult to enact the programs because people disagree on how they are run. All students or some students? What's the bar on the latter? How is it funded? Should it be a federally organized program or should the states lead how they do their own? Should it come with a mandate of food healthiness, what's that bar if so? Is it a school only supplemental program or should it be a change to a general welfare program (the latter having a whole set of debate how it should be done if its own)? Very low on the list of reasons it's difficult is the percentage of those just plain not interested in the idea. It may seem silly ("we all agree no kid should go hungry at school so why haven't we done it universally") but picking that one reason out of the hat and holding it out as why isn't helping anything.
- harimau777 2y ago
  From what I can tell a lot of it comes down to whether someone cares more about making sure that everyone who needs help gets it or cares more about making sure that no one who doesn't need help gets it.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    Funding is finite. Someone who doesn't need a benefit and receives it can be taking that benefit away from someone else. If you turn up at a food bank when you don't need to you're taking food out of someone else's mouth.
Gibbon1 2y ago
There is always that guy, well lots of that guy, that obviously wish the losers would go off and die somewhere so they can enjoy their winnings without having to think about them. And these people hate anything that forces them to rub shoulders with losers. They hate cities, public transit, flying coach. And especially hate sick people. You might have asked who leaves their wife when they get cancer, these guys. When it comes to the resources used by disabled people I think of comments by Nolan Bushnell in a dead tree magazine interview. The interviewer asked him how he deals with unproductive engineers and Nolan says he didn't care about unproductive engineers. Because an unproductive engineer just wastes his salary. What he cared about was negatively productive engineers. And managers especially. What I see is there are a lot of heavily compensated people who destroy value their whole careers. And those people take a far and away bigger share than all the disabled people. Where this tends to be going is a lot of that guy are the above, highly compensated less than worthless people. consider as you're career progressed up. Maybe when you started working most people around you had lower end jobs and were productive. And as you went up the percentage of people actually pulling their weight went down. So yes most people doesn't mind people on disability. But the thin upper strata of that guys sure do.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

What’s your source for this? The purpose of the asset limit is to force middle class people to use up their assets before the public will start paying. Thats an entirely reasonable policy decision.

mint2 2y ago
Does an asset limit of 2,000 set in 1980 without any inflation adjustments and a hard cliff benefit removal sound sensible?
- therobots927 2y ago
  It makes sense if you don’t think about it too much.
- iteria 2y ago
  Is that where that came from? I used an inflation calculator and honestly, it would be extremely reasonable to say someone can't have more than 8K in savings and get this benefit. I hate that the US government never sets anything to inflation so we always have to play these games for everything with benefits.
  - WWLink 2y ago
    > tly, it would be extremely reasonable to say someone can't have more than 8K in savings Even 8k is really not "middle class" at all. Middle class is "I have 6 months to a year of income saved up in case of emergencies" and that isn't your 401k.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Socioeconomic class is not defined by assets, but rather by income or if you want to get a little more sophisticated (to cover the case of the young person about to graduate from medical school) potential to earn income. Of course, if you have enough assets, you can derive reliable investment income from those assets, but $8K of assets will not reliably generate enough income to matter when considering what class the person is. In other words, if you have $8K in assets, but zero potential to earn income from your labor, you definitely do not meet the bar for being middle class.