Re:Uber will charge significantly more per trip as new Seatt...
by michaelt on Thursday December 31, 2020 @07:26AM
(#25592026)
> Subsidizing low skill workers so that they are able to get work and acquire skills and experience is a good thing. Why must you say it with such a negative tone?
Let's say you and I are rich charitable types, and we each decide to spend $1000 helping a poor high school graduate get a good start in life. We narrow down our options for spending the money to three plans.
We could pay for them to go to school. If we want, we could insist they choose a cost-effective, good quality course and keep their grades up.
We could give them unconditional cash. That might be really efficient, as often the poor know what the poor need better than the rich do. And if they spend it all on partying or computer game lootboxes, so be it.
Or we could pay them to mow the mayor's lawn. The mayor thinks this is a great plan and that they're going to learn a lot.
Is the third option the cleverest use of our money? Or is that the the stupidest option, with the mayor taking us for fools?
Let's say you and I are rich charitable types, and we each decide to spend $1000 helping a poor high school graduate get a good start in life. We narrow down our options for spending the money to three plans.
We could pay for them to go to school. If we want, we could insist they choose a cost-effective, good quality course and keep their grades up.
We could give them unconditional cash. That might be really efficient, as often the poor know what the poor need better than the rich do. And if they spend it all on partying or computer game lootboxes, so be it.
Or we could pay them to mow the mayor's lawn. The mayor thinks this is a great plan and that they're going to learn a lot.
Is the third option the cleverest use of our money? Or is that the the stupidest option, with the mayor taking us for fools?