5 ms·

The problem is that it's a lot easier to misuse/abuse money than abuse, say, water or food. For example, a nonnegligible number of poor people end up using the

The problem is that it's a lot easier to misuse/abuse money than abuse, say, water or food. For example, a nonnegligible number of poor people end up using the little money they make on drinking or gambling as soon as they possibly can, while staying just as poor as before afterward. You could say it's OK if it's money they earned themselves, but I think it makes sense for everyone to think twice about letting charities donate money directly when those in need end up misusing/abusing it. Giving food/water/other necessities instead of money prevents this, while at the same time giving poor people a chance to worry about finding a job, etc. without having to constantly worry about where to find water, etc.

minikites 14y ago
>The data fights conventional wisdom: Money spent on alcohol and cigarettes either decreases, stays constant or increases in the same proportion as total other expenses (approximately 2% to 3%). The article contradicts your assumption.
- pc86 14y ago
  The article is also referring to the poor in third world countries living on less per day than either of us would spend on a pack - or a stick - of gum. Raise someone's income from $237 a year to $500 a year and I'm not surprised there isn't a marked increase in "sin" consumption, because they're still living on peanuts even by those standards.. Raising someone's income from $15,000 to $20,000 is not the same thing and it's a much bigger assumption.
  - minikites 14y ago
    That's true, but I think it's just as dangerous of an assumption to assume that poorer people would waste money given to them. It portrays poorer people as seperate from society and it makes it easier to mistreat them. When Florida proposed drug testing welfare recipients, it was noted that welfare recipients actually had a lower rate of drug use than the general public. Part of the rhetoric used to deny social services to people feeds into the easy assumption that poor people are not like us and that they are poor because they deserve it.
    - pc86 14y ago
      Edit: Anyone who wants to have a real discussion is welcome to respond instead of just downvoting because I said something you don't like. Grow up. I don't think anything I said could be construed to mean that poor people are "lesser," "other," or anything else. It's probably a safe bet that regardless of socioeconomic status, the more money you have, the more likely you are to spend money on "dumb stuff," whether that means a pack of cigarettes, a 40 or at the casino. Using the Florida example, is it relevant what the proportion of drug users was compared to the general public? The argument was whether or not welfare funds were being used to purchase drugs. If memory serves it wasn't even about saving money (because it cost more to administer the program than it saved), it was about making sure those who society is holding up aren't simultaneously breaking that society's laws.
      - minikites 14y ago
        But everyone benefits in some way from different parts of society, that's what a society is. Should we drug test people who drive their kids to a public school in a subsidized hybrid car on public roads? Why the focus on welfare recipients?
    - wfunction 14y ago
      > it's just as dangerous of an assumption to assume that poorer people would waste money given to them I wasn't saying all poor people do this (only some do), and I wasn't saying they behave differently from rich people! I was just saying that when you're running a charity, you think twice before donating money directly, because _some_ poor people end up abusing it -- and it's a lot harder to abuse food and shelter than it is to use money. For all I know, I think poor people would probably make better judgment calls than rich people, but that's orthogonal to what I'm saying (re-read the above if that doesn't make sense).
logn 14y ago
Routinely handing out water/food/necessities also inhibits innovation in local people starting businesses and efficient services to provide that for themselves. You could give someone water, or give someone a few thousand dollars to build a well. Even if you go in and build a well for them, it discourages someone starting their own self-sustaining enterprise or organization to do that on their own, locally. Let's revise this old cliche: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Give him money to start a fishing school, feed the village forever. Give him money to do whatever he wants, and he might start an institution more beneficial than a fishing school.
jimbokun 14y ago
The article explicitly says they studied this and found it wasn't true: "The data fights conventional wisdom: Money spent on alcohol and cigarettes either decreases, stays constant or increases in the same proportion as total other expenses (approximately 2% to 3%)." Where is your data contradicting their findings?
- wfunction 14y ago
  Note that the sentence you quoted is rather quite vague (it almost seems deliberately phrased that way) as it says nothing other than "the money spent on alcohol and cigarettes is upper-bounded by the proportion of other total expense". Well, it could certainly be worse, yes, but that doesn't make it great. It's kind of like saying "up to 90% off" in a store... a 10% price cut would certainly qualify under that description, so the description is pretty useless. Also, note that alcohol and cigarettes are only 2 of many such examples. My data is all the laws that exist (and are still constantly changing) to prevent some poor people from misusing the welfare money they get. Quite obviously, they wouldn't be there if this wasn't an actual problem. See, for example, the second page of this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/07/26/who-gets-to-make-spending-decisions-for-the-poor/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/07/26/who-...), where it says: > In Massachusetts – and my own state of Pennsylvania – proposals are being floated to ban [...] There's a reason those proposals are there, and no, it's not that lawmakers are bored.

minikites 14y ago

>The data fights conventional wisdom: Money spent on alcohol and cigarettes either decreases, stays constant or increases in the same proportion as total other expenses (approximately 2% to 3%). The article contradicts your assumption.

pc86 14y ago
The article is also referring to the poor in third world countries living on less per day than either of us would spend on a pack - or a stick - of gum. Raise someone's income from $237 a year to $500 a year and I'm not surprised there isn't a marked increase in "sin" consumption, because they're still living on peanuts even by those standards.. Raising someone's income from $15,000 to $20,000 is not the same thing and it's a much bigger assumption.
- minikites 14y ago
  That's true, but I think it's just as dangerous of an assumption to assume that poorer people would waste money given to them. It portrays poorer people as seperate from society and it makes it easier to mistreat them. When Florida proposed drug testing welfare recipients, it was noted that welfare recipients actually had a lower rate of drug use than the general public. Part of the rhetoric used to deny social services to people feeds into the easy assumption that poor people are not like us and that they are poor because they deserve it.
  - pc86 14y ago
    Edit: Anyone who wants to have a real discussion is welcome to respond instead of just downvoting because I said something you don't like. Grow up. I don't think anything I said could be construed to mean that poor people are "lesser," "other," or anything else. It's probably a safe bet that regardless of socioeconomic status, the more money you have, the more likely you are to spend money on "dumb stuff," whether that means a pack of cigarettes, a 40 or at the casino. Using the Florida example, is it relevant what the proportion of drug users was compared to the general public? The argument was whether or not welfare funds were being used to purchase drugs. If memory serves it wasn't even about saving money (because it cost more to administer the program than it saved), it was about making sure those who society is holding up aren't simultaneously breaking that society's laws.
    - minikites 14y ago
      But everyone benefits in some way from different parts of society, that's what a society is. Should we drug test people who drive their kids to a public school in a subsidized hybrid car on public roads? Why the focus on welfare recipients?
  - wfunction 14y ago
    > it's just as dangerous of an assumption to assume that poorer people would waste money given to them I wasn't saying all poor people do this (only some do), and I wasn't saying they behave differently from rich people! I was just saying that when you're running a charity, you think twice before donating money directly, because _some_ poor people end up abusing it -- and it's a lot harder to abuse food and shelter than it is to use money. For all I know, I think poor people would probably make better judgment calls than rich people, but that's orthogonal to what I'm saying (re-read the above if that doesn't make sense).

logn 14y ago

Routinely handing out water/food/necessities also inhibits innovation in local people starting businesses and efficient services to provide that for themselves. You could give someone water, or give someone a few thousand dollars to build a well. Even if you go in and build a well for them, it discourages someone starting their own self-sustaining enterprise or organization to do that on their own, locally. Let's revise this old cliche: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Give him money to start a fishing school, feed the village forever. Give him money to do whatever he wants, and he might start an institution more beneficial than a fishing school.

jimbokun 14y ago

The article explicitly says they studied this and found it wasn't true: "The data fights conventional wisdom: Money spent on alcohol and cigarettes either decreases, stays constant or increases in the same proportion as total other expenses (approximately 2% to 3%)." Where is your data contradicting their findings?

wfunction 14y ago
Note that the sentence you quoted is rather quite vague (it almost seems deliberately phrased that way) as it says nothing other than "the money spent on alcohol and cigarettes is upper-bounded by the proportion of other total expense". Well, it could certainly be worse, yes, but that doesn't make it great. It's kind of like saying "up to 90% off" in a store... a 10% price cut would certainly qualify under that description, so the description is pretty useless. Also, note that alcohol and cigarettes are only 2 of many such examples. My data is all the laws that exist (and are still constantly changing) to prevent some poor people from misusing the welfare money they get. Quite obviously, they wouldn't be there if this wasn't an actual problem. See, for example, the second page of this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/07/26/who-gets-to-make-spending-decisions-for-the-poor/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/07/26/who-...), where it says: > In Massachusetts – and my own state of Pennsylvania – proposals are being floated to ban [...] There's a reason those proposals are there, and no, it's not that lawmakers are bored.