4 ms·

Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries. The source of Atwood's we

Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries. The source of Atwood's wealth (Stack Overflow etc) is global, not American.

rangestransform 9mo ago
Deindustrialization has hollowed out most American cities outside of major cities, and the corresponding anti globalism tantrum contributed to the current political situation. Because of the apportionment of House and Senate seats, these people hold most Americans hostage with their disproportionate voting power, and paying a ransom seems better than the alternative we are living through.
- giraffe_lady 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- hshdhdhj4444 9mo ago
  Nope. Globalism has made America richer than pretty much any nation in the existence of human history. The election of leaders who prioritize the distribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest rather than vice versa has hollowed out rural America. And rural America disproportionately votes for such leaders.
  - js8 9mo ago
    Technically you're not wrong, but without globalization, deindustrialization wouldn't have happened and unions (and strike threats) would probably be strong enough to prevent the poor to rich redistribution. So even if globalization made America richer on average, it also destroyed the fair redistribution mechanism.
Sparkle-san 9mo ago
Why not rural Americans? When helping someone in my community, I don't first stop and analyze whether my time/money could be better allocated to maximize some sort of utilitarian loss function, I help them because they're there, need my help, and I'm able to help.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- evanjrowley 9mo ago
  I don't disagree with you, but there is value in considering how money could be best put to use for the common good. One perspective overlooked here is the purchasing power of non-Americans (i.e., not U.S. citizens). Dollars in developing countries can be worth multiple times what they are in the United States. For example, you could help 5000 rural Vietnamese for every 1000 rural Americans. There is also a higher potential for rural Americans to obtain dollars vs. non-Americans. In utilitarian terms you have the potential to do more good by sending money to rural communities overseas. I'm saying this as someone who loves Appalachia.
  - Sparkle-san 9mo ago
    There's a lot of value in helping out locally as well. I don't have as much lived experience of someone in Vietnam as I do someone in my community. Nor do I understand the language or the culture. There's more overhead in making it happen and there will likely be a lot of things I'll never take into account or understand. On the other hand, I know what it's like living in a HCOL state where many jobs don't pay enough for a family to survive and have struggled in my own past. Could my money have more purchasing power elsewhere? Sure. And they're still people in my community struggling and I have the power to help them and a greater understanding of what they're facing. Community seems to get discounted a lot in the discussion around effective altruism and I think that's unfortunate.
    - evanjrowley 9mo ago
      What I know for sure is, if I could, I would invest my money into clean drinking water infrastructure for both communities. Helping families pay the water company to distribute jugs of filtered drinking water is great, but infrastructure that's not contaminated would be so much better for everyone.
  - bombcar 9mo ago
    We also have the reality that "American charity" has done horrible things to poorer nations - shiploads of free American clothing has decimated African textile industries, boatloads of free American food has destroyed entire nation's ability to feed themselves. The further away you are from the recipient the harder it is to see the second and third order effects. Local and small means they can be noticed, and things modified to change the outcomes.
OGEnthusiast 9mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
ralfd 9mo ago
He writes: > because that’s exactly where my parents and I are from.
- antonymoose 9mo ago
  Not to mention one of his choices is a white-minority county in rural Mississippi. The idea that Jeff Atwood of all people is a raging racist is insanely laughable to anyone that has followed his work over the last 15+ years.
jccooper 9mo ago
Because this is not about charity, but about politics. Specifically demonstration with the intention of advocacy. The advocacy falls down when the demonstration is less applicable.
codinghorror 9mo ago
"Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries." Again, the data goes into an open global repository that DOES help the entire world. We will all learn from it. When our house is currently on fire, I think we should deal with that first. It's also "yes, and". Gates Foundation (among others) is working on other areas of the world and has vastly more money.
bombcar 9mo ago
A direct answer - because if you donate and work with people near you, you have to deal with the people. It doesn't sound like much, but it's the whole linchpin - you have to face the reality and often realize that what you want to do simply can't be done for any number of reasons, and then you have to back up and try a different tactic. If you ship your money across the globe you can sit back and be content that it's working well based on the glossy reports you get; you don't have to actually deal with the people as people; just as statistics.

rangestransform 9mo ago

Deindustrialization has hollowed out most American cities outside of major cities, and the corresponding anti globalism tantrum contributed to the current political situation. Because of the apportionment of House and Senate seats, these people hold most Americans hostage with their disproportionate voting power, and paying a ransom seems better than the alternative we are living through.

giraffe_lady 9mo ago
[flagged]
hshdhdhj4444 9mo ago
Nope. Globalism has made America richer than pretty much any nation in the existence of human history. The election of leaders who prioritize the distribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest rather than vice versa has hollowed out rural America. And rural America disproportionately votes for such leaders.
- js8 9mo ago
  Technically you're not wrong, but without globalization, deindustrialization wouldn't have happened and unions (and strike threats) would probably be strong enough to prevent the poor to rich redistribution. So even if globalization made America richer on average, it also destroyed the fair redistribution mechanism.

Sparkle-san 9mo ago

Why not rural Americans? When helping someone in my community, I don't first stop and analyze whether my time/money could be better allocated to maximize some sort of utilitarian loss function, I help them because they're there, need my help, and I'm able to help.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
evanjrowley 9mo ago
I don't disagree with you, but there is value in considering how money could be best put to use for the common good. One perspective overlooked here is the purchasing power of non-Americans (i.e., not U.S. citizens). Dollars in developing countries can be worth multiple times what they are in the United States. For example, you could help 5000 rural Vietnamese for every 1000 rural Americans. There is also a higher potential for rural Americans to obtain dollars vs. non-Americans. In utilitarian terms you have the potential to do more good by sending money to rural communities overseas. I'm saying this as someone who loves Appalachia.
- Sparkle-san 9mo ago
  There's a lot of value in helping out locally as well. I don't have as much lived experience of someone in Vietnam as I do someone in my community. Nor do I understand the language or the culture. There's more overhead in making it happen and there will likely be a lot of things I'll never take into account or understand. On the other hand, I know what it's like living in a HCOL state where many jobs don't pay enough for a family to survive and have struggled in my own past. Could my money have more purchasing power elsewhere? Sure. And they're still people in my community struggling and I have the power to help them and a greater understanding of what they're facing. Community seems to get discounted a lot in the discussion around effective altruism and I think that's unfortunate.
  - evanjrowley 9mo ago
    What I know for sure is, if I could, I would invest my money into clean drinking water infrastructure for both communities. Helping families pay the water company to distribute jugs of filtered drinking water is great, but infrastructure that's not contaminated would be so much better for everyone.
- bombcar 9mo ago
  We also have the reality that "American charity" has done horrible things to poorer nations - shiploads of free American clothing has decimated African textile industries, boatloads of free American food has destroyed entire nation's ability to feed themselves. The further away you are from the recipient the harder it is to see the second and third order effects. Local and small means they can be noticed, and things modified to change the outcomes.

OGEnthusiast 9mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

ralfd 9mo ago

He writes: > because that’s exactly where my parents and I are from.

antonymoose 9mo ago
Not to mention one of his choices is a white-minority county in rural Mississippi. The idea that Jeff Atwood of all people is a raging racist is insanely laughable to anyone that has followed his work over the last 15+ years.

jccooper 9mo ago

Because this is not about charity, but about politics. Specifically demonstration with the intention of advocacy. The advocacy falls down when the demonstration is less applicable.

codinghorror 9mo ago

"Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries." Again, the data goes into an open global repository that DOES help the entire world. We will all learn from it. When our house is currently on fire, I think we should deal with that first. It's also "yes, and". Gates Foundation (among others) is working on other areas of the world and has vastly more money.

bombcar 9mo ago

A direct answer - because if you donate and work with people near you, you have to deal with the people. It doesn't sound like much, but it's the whole linchpin - you have to face the reality and often realize that what you want to do simply can't be done for any number of reasons, and then you have to back up and try a different tactic. If you ship your money across the globe you can sit back and be content that it's working well based on the glossy reports you get; you don't have to actually deal with the people as people; just as statistics.