3 ms·

Giving money to the poor merely elevates those who received the money over a new generation of "poor" and does nothing to actually stop the systems that create

Giving money to the poor merely elevates those who received the money over a new generation of "poor" and does nothing to actually stop the systems that create poverty in the first place. If you would like to actually reduce the net amount of "poor people", instead of simply creating a revolving door for individuals, you give money to the middle class. Or, phrased differently: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself and his family while selling the excess for discretionary income :)

mangeletti 11y ago
+1, and if some of that discretionary income is saved, he can lease it out for rent (make loans). This trend can continue for generations until the snowball effect is such that majority of the world's wealth has been accumulated by about .001% of the population; but then, people will start talking about things like transfer payments[1] and basic income, etc. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  I get what you're saying, but you are also ignoring my point about bolstering the middle class. A large and healthy middle class not only precludes unhealthy amounts of poverty (please keep in mind there will always be a "bottom 16%" [aka falling below < -1σ] no matter the level of wealth) but also precludes large concentrations of wealth by the upper class. EDIT: replied before you finished your edit, I see we're actually in agreement. Carry on...
brandonmenc 11y ago
> Giving money to the poor merely elevates those who received the money over a new generation of "poor" and does nothing to actually stop the systems that create poverty in the first place. If "the system" is giving people money to raise them out of poverty, how can it simultaneously be a "system that creates poverty?" Your logic implies that there is enough work to go around, and that's increasingly seeming to be not the case - if there's not enough good paying work, that's not anyone's fault.
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  It's very possible to lift a single person out of poverty at the expense of two or more others. Also remember that poverty merely defines the current state of a person, not their inherent class.
alejohausner 11y ago
A few weeks ago I heard a psychologist on the radio talking about how the social group of people who are just above the poverty line are extremely opposed to welfare systems because it would give the folks who are just beneath them socially a "leapfrog" jump over them. It might help explain why fiscally reactionary Republican candidates have so much support among poorish whites.

mangeletti 11y ago

+1, and if some of that discretionary income is saved, he can lease it out for rent (make loans). This trend can continue for generations until the snowball effect is such that majority of the world's wealth has been accumulated by about .001% of the population; but then, people will start talking about things like transfer payments[1] and basic income, etc. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment

pdeuchler 11y ago
I get what you're saying, but you are also ignoring my point about bolstering the middle class. A large and healthy middle class not only precludes unhealthy amounts of poverty (please keep in mind there will always be a "bottom 16%" [aka falling below < -1σ] no matter the level of wealth) but also precludes large concentrations of wealth by the upper class. EDIT: replied before you finished your edit, I see we're actually in agreement. Carry on...

brandonmenc 11y ago

> Giving money to the poor merely elevates those who received the money over a new generation of "poor" and does nothing to actually stop the systems that create poverty in the first place. If "the system" is giving people money to raise them out of poverty, how can it simultaneously be a "system that creates poverty?" Your logic implies that there is enough work to go around, and that's increasingly seeming to be not the case - if there's not enough good paying work, that's not anyone's fault.

pdeuchler 11y ago
It's very possible to lift a single person out of poverty at the expense of two or more others. Also remember that poverty merely defines the current state of a person, not their inherent class.

alejohausner 11y ago

A few weeks ago I heard a psychologist on the radio talking about how the social group of people who are just above the poverty line are extremely opposed to welfare systems because it would give the folks who are just beneath them socially a "leapfrog" jump over them. It might help explain why fiscally reactionary Republican candidates have so much support among poorish whites.