Poor people are excluded via apathy not malice
This was around 1995-7, so 9/11 had zero infuence on the origin of this idea, although it likely helped provide justification for it.
That said, I find it mildly interesting that it took at least two decades to even begin to roll out from serious discussions in the corridors of power to actual changes affecting the drivers and voters.
> Congress wanted to pretend in front of the voters and the public that they were making it difficult ...
Then it makes sense
Why do you assume that this debt went to the poor? There is quite a bit of evidence of welfare for the wealthy and large companies.
> the countless duplicative entitlement programs subsidizing food, health care, housing, schooling, etc.
Any figure for this? No mention of the stupidly large military spending or tax breaks?
IOW, the US legislature is responsive to people and especially poor people only 5-20% of the time.
This seems naive to the point of being bizarre. Employers of lower skill and lower margin labor can get it cheaper if their prospective employees are more desperate and thus have less bargaining power. Low wages are the gift that keeps on giving because it keeps your prospective workers from saving enough to weather the risk of negotiating harder, quitting to look for better pay, etc.
If you look at places that have policies that seem to keep the poor down vs places less so, there's at least some clear correlation in terms of who the major employers with more influence in the state are -- those who rely more heavily on cheaper labor with lower profit margins, vs those who are much less exposed to that due to having higher profit margins or less of their costs come from commodity labor.
Just think about what the biggest businesses might be in say, Oklahoma versus New Jersey.
Another way to bring this point home, compare a middle class family in say, Mexico or India, to say, California or New York. Inequality is higher so the cost of basic labor is cheaper, which translates to people with the same middle class job in a place like Mexico or India being able to easily afford a lot more of the sorts of labor intensive services only wealthier people would have in much of the US, like a live in maid/cook, taking a long taxi trip to and from work 5 days a week, etc, stuff that a middle class person in the US would need to ration a lot more even if they do take some ubers here and there and eat out here and then.
Reap all the benefits of the slaves doing their work, avoid any of the downsides of having to actually listen to their needs.
This seems utterly inflammatory, and somewhat divorced from reality. I absolutely understand systems thinking, and specifically can see the argument for posiwid here, but even then... This sort of conspiracy thinking strikes me as profoundly not useful.
Before attributing laws requiring IDs to the evil evil overlords, first ask yourself why 80% of citizens approve of these laws? Is everybody just all working to keep a tiny group of people down? Might it instead be that complex systems have edge cases and people who are already on the margins of society hit these edge cases more? The reason I ask is because we can fix bugs, but obviously we can't fix a global conspiracy, so I'd really like to know which I'm dealing with. If it is a conspiracy this makes it seem like there's nothing I can do to solve the problem.
[0]: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthp...
Voter suppression is a real thing in the United States. It's a strategy often used to hold and retain power by the minority (often richer, privileged) party
See https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...
> Suppression efforts range from the seemingly unobstructive, like strict voter ID laws and cuts to early voting, to mass purges of voter rolls and systemic disenfranchisement. These measures disproportionately impact people of color, students, the elderly, and people with disabilities. And long before election cycles even begin, legislators redraw district lines that determine the weight of your vote.
" The reason I ask is because we can fix bugs "..
These problems can be fixed, but they require effort by all citizens to vote and put pressure to make voting equitable.
Fortunately I live in New Zealand so our democracy is quite healthy, though it could always be better.
Unless the purge is over-enthusiastic, with unrealistically high barriers to re-entry. It’s not a problem for someone who has all the documents and the time to jump through all the hoops (or someone to do it for them), and a sympathetic administration with an office close enough that you can go there without taking a day off. Assuming you have days off at all. It’s quite harder otherwise. The result is a disproportionally large fraction of “undesirables” (poor and living in specific areas) being disenfranchised.
The link you posted indicates that 80% of people think it's reasonable to show ID at a polling station. I think you'd find that's a pretty common opinion on it's face because it's perfectly reasonable to show ID to do things like vote or get social security benefits or register property you own or all those government-y things.
The trouble comes when you hijack that perfectly reasonable expectation by then making ID preferentially difficult to get for certain classes of people. You don't need to trust that this is the case - it's apparent from the statistics. More than 10% of adult US citizens don't have ID. Why not? Because it takes time and money - you need to pay fees, you need to travel, you need underlying documents that can sometimes take hundreds of dollars of fees themselves to generate, etc. Politicians also can 'tune' what counts as ID to preselect the voters they want. TX for example, counts concealed carry cards as ID but does not count student IDs.
In fact, in 2014 the GAO itself found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by at least 2-3 percentage points on average with significantly higher proportions in economically depressed and racially diverse areas, and it's well documented that the people impacted by that lower turnout are overwhelmingly members of specific demographics that tend to vote for specific policies. That's a pretty big incentive to marginalize these people if you don't agree with those policies.
It's undeniable that for many of the most vulnerable and powerless members of society obtaining ID under the current regime is in direct conflict with simple survival, and is unlikely to be a priority. If we want to require ID for voting we should make the process of obtaining that ID require as little economic power as possible - a task that is easily within our grasp.
You can’t do much in life without ID.
This is a common belief that, to me, displays a serious lack of knowledge of the breadth of human experience. It should not be hard to imagine how people who are some combination of very sick, old, lonely, disabled or poor can have their ID expire and then not get a new one for year after year. Yet people seem to constantly proclaim this as unthinkable or nonsensical, as if only their version of a lived life is believable.
For the driver’s licence it was even easier, I just had to upload a photo and a pdf bill as a proof of address on a government web server, and I had it in the mail 3 weeks later.
Voting is a fundamental right. If you are going to require IDs for it, it follows that IDs are a fundamental right, and making them arbitrarily difficult to obtain is capricious, discriminatory and should be considered unconstitutional in a sane democracy.
Also when I was a kid (20 years ago) no ID was required to vote. Actual voter fraud is incredibly, vanishingly rare. But the lie that it is common is used to drum up support for these regressive measures.
https://americanindependent.com/arizona-republican-john-kava...
But as I said, this is not just about IDs. There are a whole host of laws being introduced, typically by republicans, that do definitely have the effect of disenfranchising poor people and people of color, who tend to be the political opponents of the people introducing the laws.
Closing poll places for example. They will suggest closing down polling places in poor neighborhoods, using some extremely thin disguise over their motives. It seems obvious to any person who believes in one person, one vote, that the color of your skin or the amount of money in your bank account is no reason to degrade someone's ability to vote. But we see long lines at polling places, where some people have to stand in line for many hours to vote! An obvious failure of democracy.
And they strike voters off of voter roles, going after people with hispanic names for example, finding a "Rosalind Sanchez" and a "Rosa Sanchez" in some city and deciding, based on that information alone, that this is a "duplicate voter" and disqualifying one voter's vote from being counted.
There is a transparent effort to block people from voting, and voting with ID is used as a talking point to steer the conversation away from the more egregious side of their efforts.
Voting is looking like it’s getting even more convoluted for the next election. In all, I feel less and less like my home country even wants me to come back eventually.
We need people to feel pressured into doing shitty jobs, if the poor get less poor maybe they won't flip burgers for minimum wage.
For that matter, if you are one of the masters of the Universe, why do you even need the poor people who only interact with other poor people? If you were optimizing the world and were actually evil, wouldn't the world look a whole lot different than the uncoordinated mess we have today?
Why do "we" need people to feel pressured to do anything when frankly it's just easier to rule without a giant underclass you have to constantly fear?
It actively feels like everybody is looking for someone to blame for the state of the world when really the world is just the result of a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of different hopes, plans, and dreams, many of which you might possibly disagree with.
It’s not super complicated, it’s just the natural consequence of an elite in power wanting to stay that way. You can see it as some kind of class behaviour. It has been going on since as far back as we can see, e.g. in Ancient Greek and Roman societies. People are being replaced by robots, as soon as it makes financial sense. This itself is really not new, and has caused issues since the start of the industrial revolution (see the various textile labourers strikes over the last 2 or 3 centuries).
> If you were optimizing the world and were actually evil, wouldn't the world look a whole lot different than the uncoordinated mess we have today?
It’s uncoordinated because it isn’t actually a large conspiracy by a couple of evil masters of the world. It’s a result of everyone in a position of power acting it their own self interest over time.
> Why do "we" need people to feel pressured to do anything when frankly it's just easier to rule without a giant underclass you have to constantly fear?
Mechanisation has been a more and more realistic strategy, but this is very recent. You still need people to make stuff. Also, “the underclass” is not going to disappear on its own.
> It actively feels like everybody is looking for someone to blame for the state of the world when really the world is just the result of a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of different hopes, plans, and dreams, many of which you might possibly disagree with.
Exactly. That, and the fact that some people’s hopes and dreams depend on them exploiting other people.
Except that when everyone knows what a poverty trap is, how they form, how to spot them, and what to do about them, and none of that gets done, we start to fall on the opposite side of Hanlon’s razor. It’s not like that scholarship is new or controversial, so why is this still a problem?
Does this clarify things a bit? I'd like to find a better rhetorical method than just swapping out terms, but it really does highlight the point here. Can we conclude that government is trying to kill people just because some people still get struck by lightning? Alternatively, what would the government need to do to prevent anyone from ever getting struck? Now consider all the different ways people can end up poor, and project this infrastructure out to ensuring that that can never, ever happen. Should we have better methods to handle it when it does? Probably! Does the fact that poverty traps exist mean that people explicitly set them up? Probably not!
Curbing people's ability to leverage poverty traps for profit in a capitalist system would reduce how many people get stuck in them.
In general, government legislation can and does directly affect poverty rates as well as who is most likely to be affected.
People will argue about the effectiveness and intent of government actions to ameliorate/impose poverty. Claiming that it is outside of a government's influence is nonsense.
Once you have the job you can use the paycheck as proof of residency.
I can tell its all very well intentioned, I can understand how and why all the rules came to exist, it still has the net result of making the poor, poorer.
That's not what Karl Marx said
This is just bureaucracy expanding and slowly taking over a working nation.
The unproductive members of society slowly winning over the productive ones and setting up rules to justify their comfortable existence.
The same happened in most countries and won't die until the government itself dies (because a government never makes itself smaller) and a new society replaces it.
A utility bill doesn't require proof of residency to get. Neither does a credit card statement. Infact if I were creative I could say I live anywhere and provide false documents of that. It is the legitimate use of this system that is difficult, not illigitimate use.
The system is not designed to be secure or to ensure residency, that's not it's purpose. Its purpose is to create further government control to suppress citizens rights to operate freeley in their own country. Specifically, to target low income individuals. These people creating the policies are not the same people whom are affected by them.
If I am U.S. born I have a right to operate in certain capacities as a citizen. Voting, owning land, and working are all rights unalienable. The fact this is not currently true is proof of the federal fascism we live in.
The USPS could function quite successfully as an ID system and a bank, were they allowed.
It just feels kinda random.
1. Court Houses are not everywhere like Postal offices
2. Court houses are not part of the Executive Branch, where as a Service like the Postal Service or banking would need to be part of the Executive Branch, not Judicial. A Better counter would be DMV or some other government service.
3. Court Houses are not nearly as accessible and are much harder to get in and out of due to their nature. Not consumer friendly
4. Court Houses by the nature have alot of criminals going in and out of them all the time, probably a bad idea to put money services in the same place....
for the record I do not support the idea of USPS being a bank either.
Know why?
I can see people having different opinions of this trend. What is your take on it?
The US federal government has to be too loose about keeping track of citizens specifically to avoid looking too fascist. One of your many American rights is to have no ID at all. Protecting that right for two dozen people makes everything extremely complicated for the rest of us.
It fuck people coming and going. You can’t get an ID if you don’t have a place of residence, and yet you can’t just go about your business without an ID.
Ha, if only. Everyone from FB to the NSA is keeping tabs on individuals in all aspects of life. There is no hiding in the US
Utility bills are the DMV's equivalent of a cheap lock. A smart attacker can pick the lock, and a determined attacker can cut it off. But the majority of thieves are walking around looking for unlocked car doors instead.
Do you really think DMV asks for a copy of a utility bill because it's a good way to suppress your rights? I would think that there are plenty of more effective ways to do so, if that were actually their goal.
The DMV complies with whatever regulations are imposed on them. Those rules are created by legislators whom are entirely disconnected from their constituents and are paid for their votes.
> If it cannot be implemented properly, then it shouldn't be done at all.
Perfectionist fallacy. I can't think of any civic requirements that are perfect. We always compromise on perfection because our civic processes also have to be reasonable.
iirc stealing other people’s mail by tampering with a mailbox is a ~~felony~~ federal crime. If they threw out the mail and you went through their trash it might be different. I anal though.
How is that any different than bringing any other piece of official mail that you receive at your home address?
Or maybe I conspire with someone that doesn't live here but wants to appear to live here (which can obviously also be done with utility bills).
I'm all for making it as easy as possible to vote, I'm analyzing the properties of the piece of mail that the government sends.
The state surely must know how to tax you, and thus they need to know who you are and that you're a resident in the state... It seems the information inevitably must be there already so why try to imitate that with a bunch of random tokens such as bills sent to an address where they could go straight to the source?
Just curious.
You're responsible for filing your own state taxes based on when/how/where you worked.
Most states do require by law that you do this in a very short period of time after moving. (Although yes, it is not uncommon for people to violate this)
I agree, it's quite odd that you never officially register as a resident of the state, but I guess it's part of the US's aversion to "papers please."
My state (CO) semi recently hit a morph of this concern because they had "pioneer" license plates that cost an extra $100 or so and were only available to people who could prove N generations of ancestry in CO. The feds struck that down as .gov services provided being dependent on state origin and therefore against the interstate commerce clause.
That said, Florida can take Rep. Boebert back at any point.
My municipal tax authority and the US State department may have very different standards for validating “residency” and very different reasons for doing so.
You're responsible for filing your own state taxes based on when/how/where you worked.
This seems like having so many knots left untied, considering how much importance one might expect to be placed for a fundamental question such as residency.
The obvious case is that it seems like people could just move into a state and never tell anyone and omit paying taxes. While there must be mechanisms to prevent or curb this, it still probably applies to a non-trivial minority of so-inclined people already? Not an option for people who want to settle, of course, but for certain people, living some months or years anonymously in a particular state might be a viable opportunity.
Do counties / cities / towns also lack similar logging of identity? How can they offer public services to people if they really don't know who the people are, and most importantly, if the people are residents or not? Does everyone just keep showing their utility bills? How do they deal with the various John Smiths moving from place to place -- inevitably to addresses where another John Smith was living before as there will be collisions without an unique identity? Or does the driving license become the de-facto proof of residence once people move it over, and the driving license has a unique number to differentiate between individuals regardless of name and address?
I mean, for the state government there's an inevitable and pragmatic need for uniquely identifying the people who live in the state and if there's no central registry then this need will be approxximated by various mechanisms so that the society can function at all.
Conversely, let's say the government does track down residents who nobody officially knows about. If the state government really doesn't know who lives in that state how could they impose liabilities such as taxes onto people whose identity and location and length of official residence they don't know? If I move in with my friend who lives in another state at which point can I still say "I'm just visiting, no taxes me for, thank you" and if the state were to disagree how would they go about establishing I was a resident after all? How would I prove I'm still actually a resident in the old state (if I were) vs how could they prove I'm no longer a resident in the old state (if I weren't)? What is the mechanism that prevents me from living in two states and claiming always in one that I'm resident in the other state?
I wish, but I don't think each of many departments talk or share individual's personal data between them, unless its collections or something. Like, DMV would not have access to one's tax status or details, and tax one's might not know one's driving license details. I wish the willpower & technology increases to make it happen.
If you wanted to truly authenticate residency or at the very least prove that someone has access to the mailbox, sending them a one-time auth code per mail would be a better idea rather than relying on third-party services where people may use paperless billing for convenience.
Mailing someone a code would be more secure but, to the parents point, would be even more onerous of a process for people to comply with.
Some comments above suggested above that this is an intentionally burdensome process, but to the contrary, bringing in a bill is one of the least burdensome ways to authenticate residency.
My problem with this is how is the recipient supposed to authenticate said bill. Now we're talking about bringing a paper bill vs a printed one (or "faking" a paper bill by creasing/folding the printed one), but the real threat is fraudsters completely making up a fake bill to begin with. Unless the recipient has a relationship with the company that issues the bills, there is no way for them to verify whether the bill is real in the first place, making the whole endeavor pointless and only inconveniencing legitimate users.
The latter is probably where they get the most utility out of these requirements.
"No-one important enough is bothered, so we haven't had to try to fix it" is a far cry from "there [aren't] any better alternatives". We're HN; that's not the hacker ethos.
Fraud is not nearly the problem people think it is...
Of course there is. It's having a central resident registry like is common in most countries other than the US.
If you have a passport... no need for a "real ID" driver license.
If you don't like having to carry that big book around, other solutions include a federal passport card (USD 65) [1]. Same size, so fits in wallet. Bonus is it does not have my address on it, nor does it show what state I live in.
If you're a legal non-citizen, you can use the passport of your home country (which you're required to have in the USA, and should carry with you when you travel anyway).
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...