4 ms·

>The data fights conventional wisdom: Money spent on alcohol and cigarettes either decreases, stays constant or increases in the same proportion as total other

>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).

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).