3 ms·
One of the things that boggles my mind is the disparity between the following two scenarios: - when an American wins the lottery: they spend the money, get a t
by cbhl 11y ago
One of the things that boggles my mind is the disparity between the following two scenarios:
- when an American wins the lottery: they spend the money, get a temporary increase in happiness, then it drops back down
- GiveDirectly gives an extremely poor person a few hundred dollars: they spend it on things that improve their earnings and reduce their hunger
How can both of these things happen in the same world?
- sliverstorm 11y agoPerhaps few American lottery winners have been nearly as poor as GiveDirectly recipients? Many of the GiveDirectly recipients I've read about are so poor they spend the money on things like sheet metal roofs for their houses (to replace the thatch) so they don't leak and fall apart in a year. That's a level of poverty much of the American poor don't have to contend with- it's been a hundred years since many Americans had dirt floors, and many more than that since many American houses were thatchtops.
- dragonwriter 11y agoLotteries are sold with images of near magical life transformation, and those who pkay -- and thus win -- are disproportionately people with unrealistic expectations of what lottery winnings will provide, and therefore lotteries select for winners who will blow their winnings. GiveDirectly, and similar cash aid programs, generally do not have that kind of perverse selectivity.