5 ms·

This article seems naive, at best. Time after time, when I've helped family members with cash, it winds up getting wasted horribly and helping them less than i

This article seems naive, at best. Time after time, when I've helped family members with cash, it winds up getting wasted horribly and helping them less than it hurt me to give it to them. When I help them with what they need, their situation improves. And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. Yet the article asks me to abandon reason and experience because there's some "a growing body of evidence" somewhere out there which are not provided by the article.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
> And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. I am sorry, just this statement alone, disqualifies your whole argumentation. It is just a barroom cliche of the rich.
- thedevil 11y ago
  Sometimes cliches are cliches because they're accurate. And who cares if you think my argument should automatically be "disqualified" because it doesn't match your politics.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    > Sometimes cliches are cliches because they're accurate. And sometimes they are cliches, because they match into politics of some people. It is always much better to have an argument, why you do better than others, than to admit, that you are lucky. But I guess, you are the one, who knows which ones are "accurate", because you know best. > And who cares if you think my argument should automatically be "disqualified" because it doesn't match your politics. Right. It is better, that your politics matches the politics of the rich and mighty.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - thedevil 11y ago
      I do help others financially, quite a bit. And actually giving someone money in a way that helps them is a lot different than talking about someone else helping out people. And what's with the childish ad hominem? Do you think you're still in high school?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Frondo 11y ago
  (responding to undo an accidental downvote...)
jack-r-abbit 11y ago
> And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. Sorry, but that is not really logical. Many people are poor simply because they don't earn enough money. There is a difference.
- thedevil 11y ago
  By "as a group" I meant most. Most poor people I know are poor because of their choices or because of the place they live. Neither of which are fixed with cash.
  - pa5tabear 11y ago
    Some poor people are just born into bad situations and stay that way. You can't extrapolate your limited experience onto all of them.
    - thedevil 11y ago
      My experiences are limited but consistent. If you can provide even more evidence pointing consistently the opposite direction, I'd not only be convinced, but I'd be thankful. However, I don't think that's easy to do.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        Sampling bias tends to be consistent. It is likely to be the case that, given a similar starting point, those who tend to make better decisions will tend to do better. Given that it is also likely the case that your friends and family started in a somewhat similar place, this can seem to be the effect that dominates. That is not incompatible with the notion that the bulk of poor people are not there because of a persistent habit of making bad decisions.
      - danielnaab 11y ago
        All the evidence points the opposite direction... in the United States, you are unlikely to escape the economic circumstances that you are born into, especially if you are born into the top or bottom quintile: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-economic-mobility.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-e...
blacksmith_tb 11y ago
Just as logical as saying that if the wheelchair-bound were better at walking, they wouldn't be in wheelchairs. Poor people are often living anxiously one emergency from total bankruptcy, eating cheap, non-nutritious foods, living in uncomfortable or dangerous housing, etc. They'd need to be more than just good with money, they'd need to be brilliant.
- thedevil 11y ago
  "Just as logical as saying that if the wheelchair-bound were better at walking, they wouldn't be in wheelchairs." Yeah, that's a good analogy to show my point. You don't throw someone on a wheelchair on their feet and hope it goes well. Just like you don't give a poor person a wad of money and hope it goes well.
  - blacksmith_tb 11y ago
    No, the analogy was intended to compare a condition (poverty) with another (paralysis), not a tool (money) with another (wheelchair).
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      Actually, lack of money seemed to play the same role as presence of wheelchair in the above...
    - wlievens 11y ago
      Somebody should construct a theorem that states that any metaphor can be used to support any given argument.
- zo1 11y ago
  This doesn't make sense. I pay a quarter (or more) of my total income so that government can take care of these individuals. Food, basic nutrition, basic safety, etc. This should be a solved problem.
  - 11y ago
pa5tabear 11y ago
>>>And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. Give poor people a reward/goal within reach and then see how they do. I know working on long projects can be very draining because weeks can pass by and I'm still very far away from the goal of project completion. Poor people's lives are like that. They have to jump through more hoops and exert much more discipline for their life to get better.
kstenerud 11y ago
The point of basic income is to provide a baseline level of stability. There are many things that lead to poverty, but it is the inherent instability that traps people there. When there is a monthly stipend that someone knows they can rely on no matter what happens (getting sick, losing their job, family emergency), they are suddenly capable of thinking beyond immediate needs. Many people caught in the poverty trap know full well that they're making short term decisions that will do more harm than good in the long run, but often the better decision is beyond your means, either financially, or time-wise (because you're working 3 jobs and still falling behind on your bills and coming home completely drained and exhausted).
- thedevil 11y ago
  I wonder, do you know about countries that have done serious experiments with basic income? It seems interesting although risky.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    There have been a number of experiments with basic income and similar things (I am typing this from a phone, or I would dig up links), but nothing at a national scale anywhere. I would guess the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend among the closest things currently running, though of course it's not nearly as high as BI proponents would want.
pharrington 11y ago
Without counter measures, wealth tends to pool into smaller groups of ownership. If this is a reasonable observation, start reasoning from there. Your family is not representative of macroeconomics.
- thedevil 11y ago
  I don't know about the macroeconomics part. My family is pretty big. Joking aside, the concentration of wealth is a different issue than poverty. They're only distantly related. Also, I'm for progressive taxation schemes.
Glyptodon 11y ago
To a certain extent you have to give it to them to know they'd waste it horribly. One of the things I love about basic income is that if it's set high enough it really removes moral culpability from the rest of society. So even if your relatives can't make good decisions, you've established a moral high ground and can safely refuse and blame them going forward, whereas if you'd never given them money, it'd all be your fault still. The real problem with it is that's it's likely a massive labor subsidy, since basic income likely kills the minimum wage.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

> And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. I am sorry, just this statement alone, disqualifies your whole argumentation. It is just a barroom cliche of the rich.

thedevil 11y ago
Sometimes cliches are cliches because they're accurate. And who cares if you think my argument should automatically be "disqualified" because it doesn't match your politics.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  > Sometimes cliches are cliches because they're accurate. And sometimes they are cliches, because they match into politics of some people. It is always much better to have an argument, why you do better than others, than to admit, that you are lucky. But I guess, you are the one, who knows which ones are "accurate", because you know best. > And who cares if you think my argument should automatically be "disqualified" because it doesn't match your politics. Right. It is better, that your politics matches the politics of the rich and mighty.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - thedevil 11y ago
    I do help others financially, quite a bit. And actually giving someone money in a way that helps them is a lot different than talking about someone else helping out people. And what's with the childish ad hominem? Do you think you're still in high school?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Frondo 11y ago
(responding to undo an accidental downvote...)

jack-r-abbit 11y ago

> And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. Sorry, but that is not really logical. Many people are poor simply because they don't earn enough money. There is a difference.

thedevil 11y ago
By "as a group" I meant most. Most poor people I know are poor because of their choices or because of the place they live. Neither of which are fixed with cash.
- pa5tabear 11y ago
  Some poor people are just born into bad situations and stay that way. You can't extrapolate your limited experience onto all of them.
  - thedevil 11y ago
    My experiences are limited but consistent. If you can provide even more evidence pointing consistently the opposite direction, I'd not only be convinced, but I'd be thankful. However, I don't think that's easy to do.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      Sampling bias tends to be consistent. It is likely to be the case that, given a similar starting point, those who tend to make better decisions will tend to do better. Given that it is also likely the case that your friends and family started in a somewhat similar place, this can seem to be the effect that dominates. That is not incompatible with the notion that the bulk of poor people are not there because of a persistent habit of making bad decisions.
    - danielnaab 11y ago
      All the evidence points the opposite direction... in the United States, you are unlikely to escape the economic circumstances that you are born into, especially if you are born into the top or bottom quintile: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-economic-mobility.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-e...

blacksmith_tb 11y ago

Just as logical as saying that if the wheelchair-bound were better at walking, they wouldn't be in wheelchairs. Poor people are often living anxiously one emergency from total bankruptcy, eating cheap, non-nutritious foods, living in uncomfortable or dangerous housing, etc. They'd need to be more than just good with money, they'd need to be brilliant.

thedevil 11y ago
"Just as logical as saying that if the wheelchair-bound were better at walking, they wouldn't be in wheelchairs." Yeah, that's a good analogy to show my point. You don't throw someone on a wheelchair on their feet and hope it goes well. Just like you don't give a poor person a wad of money and hope it goes well.
- blacksmith_tb 11y ago
  No, the analogy was intended to compare a condition (poverty) with another (paralysis), not a tool (money) with another (wheelchair).
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Actually, lack of money seemed to play the same role as presence of wheelchair in the above...
  - wlievens 11y ago
    Somebody should construct a theorem that states that any metaphor can be used to support any given argument.
zo1 11y ago
This doesn't make sense. I pay a quarter (or more) of my total income so that government can take care of these individuals. Food, basic nutrition, basic safety, etc. This should be a solved problem.
- 11y ago

pa5tabear 11y ago

>>>And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor. Give poor people a reward/goal within reach and then see how they do. I know working on long projects can be very draining because weeks can pass by and I'm still very far away from the goal of project completion. Poor people's lives are like that. They have to jump through more hoops and exert much more discipline for their life to get better.

kstenerud 11y ago

The point of basic income is to provide a baseline level of stability. There are many things that lead to poverty, but it is the inherent instability that traps people there. When there is a monthly stipend that someone knows they can rely on no matter what happens (getting sick, losing their job, family emergency), they are suddenly capable of thinking beyond immediate needs. Many people caught in the poverty trap know full well that they're making short term decisions that will do more harm than good in the long run, but often the better decision is beyond your means, either financially, or time-wise (because you're working 3 jobs and still falling behind on your bills and coming home completely drained and exhausted).

thedevil 11y ago
I wonder, do you know about countries that have done serious experiments with basic income? It seems interesting although risky.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  There have been a number of experiments with basic income and similar things (I am typing this from a phone, or I would dig up links), but nothing at a national scale anywhere. I would guess the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend among the closest things currently running, though of course it's not nearly as high as BI proponents would want.

pharrington 11y ago

Without counter measures, wealth tends to pool into smaller groups of ownership. If this is a reasonable observation, start reasoning from there. Your family is not representative of macroeconomics.

thedevil 11y ago
I don't know about the macroeconomics part. My family is pretty big. Joking aside, the concentration of wealth is a different issue than poverty. They're only distantly related. Also, I'm for progressive taxation schemes.

Glyptodon 11y ago

To a certain extent you have to give it to them to know they'd waste it horribly. One of the things I love about basic income is that if it's set high enough it really removes moral culpability from the rest of society. So even if your relatives can't make good decisions, you've established a moral high ground and can safely refuse and blame them going forward, whereas if you'd never given them money, it'd all be your fault still. The real problem with it is that's it's likely a massive labor subsidy, since basic income likely kills the minimum wage.