The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by rayiner on Sunday October 25, 2015 @10:54AM (#10447005)

Look at it this other way: is there something we could afford to provide for the cost of those TVs and iPhones that would ensure a good chance of those people lifting themselves out of poverty? If the answer is yes, then you've discovered a game changer: for a few thousand dollars per person, we could end poverty! The government should just buy those things for people directly and watch the magic happen.

If the answer is no, then it's stupid to complain about poor people buying an iPhone or TV. It's calling for a meaningless gesture of piety. They're not making those purchases in lieu of something that would advance their condition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by mikeash on Sunday October 25, 2015 @12:22PM (#10447283)

What if there is such a thing, but it only works if the people themselves do it, not the government?

For a concrete example, it seems to me that one thing that helps people get out of poverty is having some savings. Being poor is expensive, often because large expenses compound due to financing, late fees, or even just an inability to make bulk purchases. Having a financial cushion can make life a lot cheaper. But there's no way (that I can see, anyway) that the government can provide such a cushion for someone who wants to spend it right away on irrelevant stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by rayiner on Sunday October 25, 2015 @12:29PM (#10447305)

The few thousand dollars you might save not buying a TV or cell phone isn't going to do shit to get you out of poverty. You can't save your way out of being poor a nickle and dime at a time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by mikeash on Sunday October 25, 2015 @12:33PM (#10447324)

It means you can stop wasting money on buying necessities constantly in small quantities, not pay massive interest on credit cards or payday loans because your needs a sudden repair, etc. Will this solve the problem? Surely not for everybody. But a big problem (even if far from the only problem) with getting out of poverty is that it's a trap because it's so expensive to be poor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by Frondo on Sunday October 25, 2015 @02:24PM (#10447769)

Except it doesn't mean that. It means that when you have $300 in the bank instead of buying a cheap TV set, and suddenly your car needs $500 in repairs, you're still going to a payday loan place, except you're on the hook for $200 instead of $500. Still paying the fees, still stuck in the let's-rip-off-the-poor cycle, except you also don't have a tv set.

I know, I know, now you'll say "well you're poor, what do you need a tv set for, you should sit in your dank apartment with just the road noise for entertainment," and that's where the compassion kicks in: these folks are poor, they're not animals, and if TV lets them be less miserable, it's about as cheap a way to do so as is reasonable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by mikeash on Sunday October 25, 2015 @07:09PM (#10448844)

Are you saying that being on the hook for 60% less in interest and fees isn't an improvement? Is a millionaire still stuck in a poverty trap because it's theoretically possible for them to get hit with costs that exceed their savings? What you're describing sounds like a huge improvement, not "still stuck."

Regarding your second paragraph, no, I wouldn't say that. I'm not actually passing any judgment here. I don't think that buying iPhones and fancy TVs is a particularly wise choice for poor people, but I also don't really fault them for it. I'm merely giving an example of something which could help with poverty but which the government can't provide. A decent chunk of poverty comes from poor financial choices, and that's just an observation without implying any judgment towards the affected people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by jazzyk on Sunday October 25, 2015 @05:32PM (#10448522)

Except that sitting all day watching TV is CERTAIN to keep them on welfare for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps buying them books instead would work better? Community colleges are very inexpensive, there are state grants available to the poor. Why not create incentives to learn a skill/trade, perhaps a degree?

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by jazzyk on Monday October 26, 2015 @09:59AM (#10451433)

Instead of down-voting a relevant, on-topic comment, please provide a counter argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by XorNot on Sunday October 25, 2015 @04:49PM (#10448356)

It's 'poor people have refrigerators' in another guise. It is apparently a laudable goal to decay our social infrastructure till large parts of our cities will resemble African poverty.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by zo1 on Sunday October 25, 2015 @06:48PM (#10448787)

TV's are completely different to fridges in this discussion, I'd say. One is pure entertainment, the other has functional uses that help reduce costs, as well as improve health by preventing food from going off.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by XorNot on Monday October 26, 2015 @05:08AM (#10450202)

That's practically irrelevant, and also stunningly blind to how humans actually function. Entertainment is important - its sufficiently important that we've dedicated considerable resources to it throughout the sum of human history, to the point that we ship giant entertainment venues to warzones.

But more to economic point: TVs are cheap. The TVs people complain about are maybe ~$500, and you can do very well if you shop second hand. They are a one-off capital expense which considerably improves your life, and which the lack of sale thereof utterly fails to meaningfully help you not be poor.

Because poverty is a flow problem, and it fails to be defined by whether or not one owns certain conspicuous goods. If we were talking about impoverished people who were nonetheless buying $3000 LCDs on debt every few years, then we might have something to talk about. But since concrete examples are always conspicuously absent when points of this nature are brought up, I'm content to point to the economics: selling your TV wouldn't meaningfully improve your situation, buying a TV doesn't meaningfully degrade it.

It's also worth noting that in a discussion of being unable to climb out of poverty, requiring people to dispose of all their worldly possessions before we help them is a good way to create a poverty trap.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by jazzyk on Monday October 26, 2015 @09:58AM (#10451425)

You are missing the point of welfare: it is supposed to help people get back on their feet, not keep them dependent on taxpayer's money for the rest of their lives. So training/education, not TVs and computer games.

That $500 could perhaps buy supplies to study at a local community college (tuition waivers/scholarships are available).

Poor != stupid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor by oldmanjay on Sunday October 25, 2015 @12:12PM (#10447245)

no, they're just wasting money foolishly and then gawping about like goldfish when they have no money left for things that matter. so maybe it's stupid to complain, but that doesn't make it smart to facilitate.

[ Parent | on HN ]