5 ms·

And also there are some that live on less money and are quite happy with that. What do we want to do about them? Push some money onto them?

by erikb 11y ago

falcolas 11y ago
When the poverty line is established as the line whether they can buy a basket of food, making sure everyone can purchase that basket of food is tough to call a "bad thing". We're advanced enough on a global scale that people perishing because they could not bring down a deer to feed them through the winter should not even be a thing. Hell, some countries let imported food rot in the warehouse due to politics, yet there exist people who starve because they can not afford food?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/france-supermarket-food-waste-ban http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/france-superm... "On Thursday, France's parliament unanimously approved a new law prohibiting large supermarkets from throwing out unsold food, instead mandating stores donate any surplus groceries to charities or for animal feed use. The law, which aims to reduce waste in a country where people trash up to 30 kilos of food per person annually, is part of a more general energy and environmental bill." Those who helped campaign for this are working globally next.
forkandwait 11y ago
Stupid comments like this are usually made by people who have a lot of money and have never been able to actually test such a hypothesis for themselves. But it makes them feel better about inequality from which they benefit. That's why I downvoted, in case you wonder.
- erikb 11y ago
  Thanks for down voting because you have another opinion (or simply just haven't given it enough thought to understand it yet). But I'm already used to that, so no problem.
  - jklinger410 11y ago
    I think your comment was mostly downvoted due to the fact that it doesn't add to the conversation and lacks basic value as an argument. What were you trying to say? That somehow people who enjoy poverty, however miniscule that population may be, would somehow be adversely affected by having spending power of any kind? As opposed to the damage that is done to all the innumerable people who are impoverished without almost any path out? It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. It doesn't pass even the most basic logic test. Not to mention, it seems to lack any empathy towards others.
    - erikb 11y ago
      I was saying that some people decide to live without money (modern life nomads, they even exist in well known cities like Berlin) and some live in an environment were money is not part of life (thinking of the area around the Amazon river or maybe some steppe villages somewhere in Africa). According to that definition they are considered "poor" but actually they are not considering themselves that way. Now if you go and throw money at them they might not even be able to do anything with that. So, maybe that definition is not a good one. Poverty is not equal to having little money. It is more related to education, having one's basic needs fulfilled and opportunity (to travel, to build a house, etc). Also Money does not come alone. It comes with the corresponding culture. And while at first people are happy about all the new things they can get, in the end they are quite frustrated because their own identity, culture and values are suddenly non existant in their environment. So yeah, increasing one's spending power can indirectly be harmful, even if you don't make anything off it. You are right, that I may have explained that in more detail up front. But I think it's possible to see that in the first comment. It's just that many people start reading a text with a strong opinion in mind before they even start, which leads them to complete wholes in argumentation with assumptions which are very far off. I did at no point say anything about actions that should be taken, like not giving people money who need it. I was simply adding another point of view. > It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. If someone doesn't say that and you consider it a poor argument, why do you assume that was someone's opinion. Is that logical? Is it funny looking back after reading this longer text, how I was actually adding a point of view with empathy for people not considered by this definition of empathy instead of not having some for people who really need more money?
mikeash 11y ago
Who is quite happy with living on so little money that they can't afford enough food to eat?
- erikb 11y ago
  Good point. If you have enough food, because, for instance, you make your own by farming and hunting, then you don't need more money to fight hunger, right? Also if you compare someone who has everything they need and want to someone who simply has a lot of money, is the first person necessarily less happy? What if we define poverty as "lack of food <add other points here like education>" instead of "lack of money"? What if we define poverty differently but still consider giving people money who need money as a good way to help them?

And also there are some that live on less money and are quite happy with that. What do we want to do about them? Push some money onto them?

by erikb 11y ago

And also there are some that live on less money and are quite happy with that. What do we want to do about them? Push some money onto them?

falcolas 11y ago

When the poverty line is established as the line whether they can buy a basket of food, making sure everyone can purchase that basket of food is tough to call a "bad thing". We're advanced enough on a global scale that people perishing because they could not bring down a deer to feed them through the winter should not even be a thing. Hell, some countries let imported food rot in the warehouse due to politics, yet there exist people who starve because they can not afford food?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/france-supermarket-food-waste-ban http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/france-superm... "On Thursday, France's parliament unanimously approved a new law prohibiting large supermarkets from throwing out unsold food, instead mandating stores donate any surplus groceries to charities or for animal feed use. The law, which aims to reduce waste in a country where people trash up to 30 kilos of food per person annually, is part of a more general energy and environmental bill." Those who helped campaign for this are working globally next.

forkandwait 11y ago

Stupid comments like this are usually made by people who have a lot of money and have never been able to actually test such a hypothesis for themselves. But it makes them feel better about inequality from which they benefit. That's why I downvoted, in case you wonder.

erikb 11y ago
Thanks for down voting because you have another opinion (or simply just haven't given it enough thought to understand it yet). But I'm already used to that, so no problem.
- jklinger410 11y ago
  I think your comment was mostly downvoted due to the fact that it doesn't add to the conversation and lacks basic value as an argument. What were you trying to say? That somehow people who enjoy poverty, however miniscule that population may be, would somehow be adversely affected by having spending power of any kind? As opposed to the damage that is done to all the innumerable people who are impoverished without almost any path out? It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. It doesn't pass even the most basic logic test. Not to mention, it seems to lack any empathy towards others.
  - erikb 11y ago
    I was saying that some people decide to live without money (modern life nomads, they even exist in well known cities like Berlin) and some live in an environment were money is not part of life (thinking of the area around the Amazon river or maybe some steppe villages somewhere in Africa). According to that definition they are considered "poor" but actually they are not considering themselves that way. Now if you go and throw money at them they might not even be able to do anything with that. So, maybe that definition is not a good one. Poverty is not equal to having little money. It is more related to education, having one's basic needs fulfilled and opportunity (to travel, to build a house, etc). Also Money does not come alone. It comes with the corresponding culture. And while at first people are happy about all the new things they can get, in the end they are quite frustrated because their own identity, culture and values are suddenly non existant in their environment. So yeah, increasing one's spending power can indirectly be harmful, even if you don't make anything off it. You are right, that I may have explained that in more detail up front. But I think it's possible to see that in the first comment. It's just that many people start reading a text with a strong opinion in mind before they even start, which leads them to complete wholes in argumentation with assumptions which are very far off. I did at no point say anything about actions that should be taken, like not giving people money who need it. I was simply adding another point of view. > It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. If someone doesn't say that and you consider it a poor argument, why do you assume that was someone's opinion. Is that logical? Is it funny looking back after reading this longer text, how I was actually adding a point of view with empathy for people not considered by this definition of empathy instead of not having some for people who really need more money?

mikeash 11y ago

Who is quite happy with living on so little money that they can't afford enough food to eat?

erikb 11y ago
Good point. If you have enough food, because, for instance, you make your own by farming and hunting, then you don't need more money to fight hunger, right? Also if you compare someone who has everything they need and want to someone who simply has a lot of money, is the first person necessarily less happy? What if we define poverty as "lack of food <add other points here like education>" instead of "lack of money"? What if we define poverty differently but still consider giving people money who need money as a good way to help them?