5 ms·

> 'Why should they have granite countertops when I don't.' Can you explain what's dumb about a statement like this? > People come to believe they deserve the

> 'Why should they have granite countertops when I don't.' Can you explain what's dumb about a statement like this? > People come to believe they deserve their position in life when so much of it is due to advantages/disadvantages outside their control I read through that entire article. I don't think it's as a cut & dried as they make it out to be. For example, they do not define 'deserved' - do people say they feel they "deserved to win" because they committed to playing well even though they didn't need to, given their advantages? Is it fair to dismiss somebody's high self-esteem just because luck was a necessary component of it - thereby discounting the fact that hard work was also a necessary component? This is no different, to me, from a team winning a sports game and teasing the losers. Maybe the researchers thought of that, maybe they didn't, but the author didn't address it and it's crucial. It also implies a false dichotomy. It seems to imply people become assholes as they become richer. Perhaps we're all naturally assholes and being poor makes us more aware of our dependence on others because the costs of being an asshole and isolating oneself is too high for poor people. It assumes that being "way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person" to always be a good idea but neglects to ask why, when our brains are given the option to be less generous, less charitable, less helpful, our brains take it? > attributing your success and their destitution to factors outside anyone's control is scary and difficult. I don't understand this. I don't deny being fortunate. It's precisely because I'm aware of that, and the role of chance in life, that I don't follow this argument. I live in one of the most unequal societies in the world. Roughly 25-40% unemployment, depending who you ask. The number of 0-4 year olds currently is twice that of the active tax payer base. I already pay ~35% tax, aside from 14% value added tax on products and services. Am I bad because I don't want to share more of my good fortune? I couldn't be where I am without ridiculous amounts of luck - but I also do work hard. Don't I "deserve" a happy and safe life, if I have the opportunity? Why do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? The economics of my society simply don't forecast very well compared to other societies. Am I a bad person because I save money and find ways to escape to countries with greater equality? I think I'm being quite rational, but it feels like the articles I'm reading here are saying I should feel bad for not wanting to help others more. Sometimes I think things are beyond help, and you need to put yourself first.

rmxt 11y ago
It's "dumb" not in the sense that it's a stupid point. I would say that the quoted person merely feels "dumb," as in "small-minded," after the fact. They were first opposed to it on economic grounds, but as the economic realities became apparent (i.e., it's cheaper to "permanently" fix the issue than to "band-aid" it), I would say that they came around to the moral implications of what it means to help people find some comfort in their lives. Granite countertops and the money that they cost can't change the fact that people live with mental illness or have lived on the streets for years. The metaphoric "granite countertops" are a small price to pay to make the town a better place for all to live, homeless and taxpayer alike. I don't think that anyone said that you shouldn't put yourself first. I think the bigger point, and the success story from the article, is that sometimes it's actually economically beneficial (to those who pay taxes) for the government to take the apparently more expensive step of giving homeless more permanent housing solutions. If the tax rate stays the same and the ways that the money can be spent can be improved , e.g. $20k on permanent housing per homeless person rather than $100k per person on the street, why not do it?
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Same reason Mother Theresa build modest homes for the lepers. If you do more others resent it, make noise and the donation chain dries up.
  - mason240 11y ago
    More likely that they built modest homes because they needed less resources, meaning they could build more of them.
- ryanjshaw 11y ago
  Where I live, my taxes go to building people free houses. I have no problem with that and I support the economic argument. Is that really a point of contention for anybody? Perhaps I'm too far removed from the target audience of the article because I still don't understand the granite countertops comment. Where I live there are people waiting for houses for more than 20 years after being promised. I went to help dig trenches once as part of a corporate donation. The stories you hear are heartbreaking. Granite countertops vs normal countertops, in countries with serious inequality is actually a real thing and can mean the difference between somebody waiting another year for a house, and getting one today. The guy's comment was a perfectly valid criticism - shaving 0.1% on a budget may sound like nothing to privileged people, but in a country where 10 million people don't have homes it actually does mean something to 10 thousand people.

rmxt 11y ago

It's "dumb" not in the sense that it's a stupid point. I would say that the quoted person merely feels "dumb," as in "small-minded," after the fact. They were first opposed to it on economic grounds, but as the economic realities became apparent (i.e., it's cheaper to "permanently" fix the issue than to "band-aid" it), I would say that they came around to the moral implications of what it means to help people find some comfort in their lives. Granite countertops and the money that they cost can't change the fact that people live with mental illness or have lived on the streets for years. The metaphoric "granite countertops" are a small price to pay to make the town a better place for all to live, homeless and taxpayer alike. I don't think that anyone said that you shouldn't put yourself first. I think the bigger point, and the success story from the article, is that sometimes it's actually economically beneficial (to those who pay taxes) for the government to take the apparently more expensive step of giving homeless more permanent housing solutions. If the tax rate stays the same and the ways that the money can be spent can be improved , e.g. $20k on permanent housing per homeless person rather than $100k per person on the street, why not do it?

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Same reason Mother Theresa build modest homes for the lepers. If you do more others resent it, make noise and the donation chain dries up.
- mason240 11y ago
  More likely that they built modest homes because they needed less resources, meaning they could build more of them.
ryanjshaw 11y ago
Where I live, my taxes go to building people free houses. I have no problem with that and I support the economic argument. Is that really a point of contention for anybody? Perhaps I'm too far removed from the target audience of the article because I still don't understand the granite countertops comment. Where I live there are people waiting for houses for more than 20 years after being promised. I went to help dig trenches once as part of a corporate donation. The stories you hear are heartbreaking. Granite countertops vs normal countertops, in countries with serious inequality is actually a real thing and can mean the difference between somebody waiting another year for a house, and getting one today. The guy's comment was a perfectly valid criticism - shaving 0.1% on a budget may sound like nothing to privileged people, but in a country where 10 million people don't have homes it actually does mean something to 10 thousand people.