Hacker News Reader

Comment by germinalphrase | Hacker News Reader

My wife has worked in the foster care system and in community based mental health counseling. It's amazing to me 1) how little empathy people in the community have for these kids who are very clearly being dealt a crappy hand in life, and 2) how little people realize the ways in which poverty affects a person's views of reality and their ability to effectively navigate the world.

In another HN thread, there was a discussion of how Utah has been far more effective at caring for the homeless and protecting economic mobility than the rest of the country. My take away from that article and discussion was the stark difference in Utah for giving a crap by the community for the less fortunate. It is the willingness of the Utah population to make an active effort to help people in their community on a regular and purely voluntary basis.

Teachers, social workers, and police officers can keep the train on the tracks - but they can't solve problems that aren't specifically related to education, social services, or criminal lawbreaking (despite the fact that everyone expects them to do so).

I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code.

View on HN

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools).

Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of "This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always thinking "It's not my problem".

>"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

We hear a variation of this in FL all the time from retirees. Their children are grown and they've already paid for schools in their previous state!

Ok, thanks for moving here, then.

But they're perfectly content to bankroll their incarceration down the line.

And they will be having their care bills paid in 10 years time by ... the same teenagers going through school now.

What goes around should come around.

I think you correctly identified the symbiotic relationship. If seniors expect their benefits to be fulfilled, they need to invest (jobs, education, etc.) in very people who are paying their entitlement.

Stan Druckenmiller gave a talk about this very subject called "Generational Theft":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc

The chart from that talk showing the reversal of investing in the young vs the old:

http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generat...

If only it were symbiotic. It's parasitic.

My usual answer to that statement is that the quality of the local school system has a direct relation to property values. Consider school taxes as a form of home improvement!

Another answer: you aren't paying for the current kid's education, you are paying back (with interest) the cost of your own education.

Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?

Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education.

A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.

Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.

Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate.

I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.

> Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education.

I don't think the property tax is the issue. It's doing school funding at a sufficiently granular level that's the real issue—poor cities / districts won't have the same sort of tax base, be it collected via income, property, excise, sales, or somehow else, as do rich districts.

What you want is some sort of redistributive system. Really large districts (like entire states or countries) accomplish this as rich areas within the district subsidize less wealthy ones. Grants from higher levels of government, paid for by taxpayers in other parts of the jurisdiction, also accomplish this.

That said, money isn't everything...San Francisco has a tremendously wealthy tax base and an unusually small student population due to the city's demographics, but the schools aren't anything to write home about.

> A progressive percentage of earned income

Highly dense young-urban-professional work-centric neighborhoods low on kids (SF, LA, SJ) would receive more money, suburban, rural and single-industry neighborhoods (towns in San Bernardino, Fresno counties) dominated by families with children would receive less money.

Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. I'm not big on property taxes on general principle but it's a somewhat economical approach to implementing the hyperlocal school board approach that Americans seem to prefer despite the proliferation of bureaucracy it imposes.

>Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere.

OK but what does that have to do with paying back the cost of my own education?

The American Dream is basically get born, go to school, go to work and work hard, get a car, get your own home, and settle down with someone you like and drop a couple of kids. taxing property balances out these costs and benefits in a very approximate indirect way without much accounting.

For me it's not very important that there should be accurate accounting of such things. I just don't lose much sleep over tax money going to education because it keeps a virtuous cycle going. I didn't even grow up in the USA, but what my home country lost in direct tax revenue may be made up over the long run by increased international trade.

I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level, which only results in more bureaucracy and promotes a penny-pinching mentality that is inimical to the undertaking of increasing public goods and economic development.

>I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level

I certainly agree that funding for public education cannot be considered a repayment for some personal debt, which is why I objected to the comment I first replied to.

Think of it like this: your public education was provided not for a fee, but for an equity stake in You, Incorporated.b the more you earn, the more the state gets back, like an investor.

But many people have no public education, and they don't get a break on their property taxes.

Why does my education become retroactively more expensive if I move to a different town?

That only happens if you move to a more expensive town, which could be because of the benefit you got from your education. You could always go somewhere cheaper and poorer and pay less.

Because the US doesn't have a uniform tax rate, due to a federated power structure.

If you don't like it, you don't have to migrate.

Please read the comment I was responding to.

And another answer: Do you really want to live in a society where only the wealthy have any sort of basic education?

While I generally agree that, yes, you're in essence paying back your own education.

But also you're ensuring that your world has a functioning economy so all that money you've saved to look after yourself in your old age is worth something and there are actually things to buy with it.

If your country goes to pot around you because you didn't raise a couple of functional generations to replace you (even if you didn't have kids) you're effectively screwed, an old person in a Mad Max world

That's a pretty usurious interest rate for single people.

Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...

Additional issues arise if we consider the problem from the standpoint of the child rather than the family. Most families can afford to pay for schooling their children, but very few children can afford to pay for schooling themselves. A private system depends, for almost all children, on parents caring enough about the welfare of their children to be willing to pay the cost of their education.
Most parents, in most societies, do care for the welfare of their children. In part this may be explained by altruism, itself explainable on evolutionary grounds, and in part by the desire of parents to have children capable of supporting them in their old age. These incentives are not perfect-there are parents who sacrifice the welfare of their children to their own welfare. But the alternative to allowing parents to make decisions for their children is not, as a general rule, having the decisions made by the children-five year olds lack not only income, but information and political power as well. The alternative to having a child's parents make decisions for him is having other adults-school administrators, politicians, voters-make those decisions. Parents may not always be altruistic towards their children, but a child's parents are, of all adults, the ones most likely to be. The argument against letting the parents make the decision is an even stronger argument against letting anyone else make it instead.

Here again, the empirical evidence is striking. Under circumstances of poverty difficult for most of us to imagine, British parents of the early 19th century managed to send almost all of their children to school-not for as long as our children go to school, but for long enough to acquire at least minimal skills. In this country a century later, immigrant parents routinely sacrificed themselves to promote the education of their children. We have yet to see any similar level of altruism on the part of those who control the government schools-say a teacher strike aimed at lowering teacher wages in order to leave more money to pay for books.

I'm not sure this guy actually lives in the real world. Surely there is a stronger case against public schools than this hogwash?

This reads like the thoughts of a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Perhaps understanding, but I found it perplexing. Maybe it's because I was in more AP / IB classes, but I did not find education "indoctrination" and "uniform" (so I think his second concluding paragraph was bogus).

I am also not sure what "state religion" David is talking about in the third concluding paragraph that I was "indoctrinated" into. I will note that the continuous citation of Britain in the early 19th century is problematic to me, as the education set up back then was usually run by the Church of England and other religious institutions (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp486-500). Not the best example of a free market system here.

I personally am not terribly convinced that a completely private system would work out very well for the under-advantaged in both income and location, particularly the later. This is an issue even in public schools which have no profit motive; how would adding a profit motive help groups that are by definition unprofitable? In America we already have a widening school inequality issue that in part is due to our use of property taxes as funding. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/propert...).

I do think that mixed systems (something like charter schools) can work if quality control and accountability is in place. (EG: You hear pros and cons, but by and large the charter system implemented by New Orleans seems to have worked.) Elsewise, you're likely to see problems that, at worst, might resemble the "diploma mills" you see in the United States.

David Friedman is Milton Friedman's son and while he's a gifted writer, he also sees himself as the torchbearer of an ideological tradition which sometimes leads him into rhetorical excess.

The point of schools isn't to benefit children, it's to instill certain traits that are in the state's best interest for their future citizens to have.

Little of column a little of column b. The state, it's made of people, including those children.

A lot of this stems from the Calvinist strain of religious thought that holds earthly wealth or poverty to be a sign of God's favor (or not). If I find myself in discourse with someone who holds to draconian economic views, I often slip in a few casual questions/references to see what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions).

In my experience, dealing with someone who thinks the divine will is manifested in earthly affairs is better avoided. Or to quote William Burroughs' more colorful version of the same advice: if you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing,* his word ain't worth shit - not with the good Lord telling how to fuck you on the deal.*

Please note that my criticism is directed as a particular subset of religious thought rather than religion in general. Every belief system has the potential to manifest in good and bad ways.

That kind of religious thought is not Calvinist in the least. Here's an actual quote from one of Calvin's sermons on the topic:

"The good things given by God are but a path to lead us to him, a ladder to ascend on high, not a tomb in which to bury ourselves. We should not cling to happiness or greet its passing with a hollow laugh, for it is fleeting. Nor should we exult when men applaud us, as if we had already attained our reward for a virtuous life on earth. No, we are determined to press on through good report and bad. Such is the measured and moderate path pursued by the believer. We do not get drowsy, still less intoxicated, when times are good. And we are always willing to abandon everything if God requires. This is not how it is with unbelievers. Prosperity goes immediately to their heads, fills them to bursting; they are so befuddled that not once do they spare a thought for God or the spiritual life. In time they grow hard, and when misfortune comes they grind their teeth and blaspheme against God."

You seem to know what your are talking about. So let me ask you, if it was not Calvin who was the source of this idea, then which religious leader was?

That's hard to say since that general idea is probably among the most common elements of religions going back as far as we have records of religion, e.g., Mesopotamia, etc. -- curry favor with the gods through some act of devotion or virtue (though the latter works only if they're "good" gods) and they'll owe you and grant you some token in return. On the other hand, cross them and they'll smite you.

There are relatively few strains of religious thought that decouple prosperity from pleasing gods or God, but the Calvinist strain in Christianity is definitely one of them.

The idea of "getting rich" as a sign of gods favor was probably started in modern USA by the Pentecostal and charismatic movements probably around the 50s. It is called prosperity theology and Calvinists have been some of it's most notable opponents. Famous modern Calvinist preachers like Paul Washer and John Piper have made a name for themselves by criticizing prosperity theology.

That said, even prosperity theology, as perverted as it is in my opinion, still sticks to basic Christian tenets like "blessed are the poor" and the importance of charity to the poor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

In the end though, it doesn't matter what Calvin said precisely, but how it was interpreted by calvinists.

Adam Smith wasn't exactly the neo-liberal, free-market trumps all champion either.

Given that Calvin's stated and recorded views run precisely counter to those ideas, it would require some pretty significant mental contortions to characterize anyone with those views as "Calvinist".

That reminds me of the recent statement by the NYT's Dean Baquet that they don't "get religion" [http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504806512/new-york-times-execu...]. It's certainly true that many current ideas and worldviews have been influenced by religious thought, but if one wishes to speak credibly about such things, getting some basic facts correct should be among the prerequisites. Apart from that, one won't effectively address the issue and is likely to come across simply as an anti-religious bigot. For some, that may not be a concern, but given the current environment of "fake news" and "alternative facts", I'd suggest that it's a counterproductive approach.

>Given that Calvin's stated and recorded views run precisely counter to those ideas, it would require some pretty significant mental contortions to characterize anyone with those views as "Calvinist".

So, just like being pro-war, racist, etc, but considering oneself a good Christian?

>but if one wishes to speak credibly about such things, getting some basic facts correct should be among the prerequisites.

"What Calvin wrote" and "what calvinists believe" are two almost orthogonal topics. Even more so "what calvinists practice in real life".

Moreover you won't find many scholars that disagree with regards to whether calvinism had an influence on seeing wealthy as "good", e.g:

http://www.ucdenver.edu/faculty-staff/bgoodric/Pages/Protest...

"Now, it's rather natural, if one is a Calvinist, to be constantly looking for any little indications that God does approve of oneself, that God has predestined one to be redeemed, that one is "of the elect" of God. And how might God give any promising little hints? Well, material success is one way. If one has a successful business, God seems to be smiling on one! And as for those poor destitute farmers who just lost everything they owned due to a drought, well, God is all-powerful, and must have decided that they should suffer. And who are we miserable sinners to disagree, and thwart the plans of God?

Thus, the Calvinist develops a European version of India's infamous caste system. In ancient India, foreign conquerors solidified their conquest by imposing a religion on the populace. According to this religion, there were set classes or castes of people, and anyone born into the poor castes must have done something in a previous life to deserve such punishment. Similarly, the Calvinist attributes prosperity and poverty to the mysterious workings of God. (Notice that in both cases these beliefs serve to legitimize whatever the status quo power is. The wealthy and powerful, whether in ancient India or in post-Renaissance Switzerland or 18th century Scotland, are presented as justifiably wealthy. And the poor or "untouchable" are dismissed as unworthy of any better treatment. These are classic examples of ideology.)

Dickens captured exactly this peculiar combination of self-punishment, self-righteousness, and misanthropy in his character Scrooge. Scrooge isn't a simple hoarder. Scrooge's avarice is a result of his secularized "Calvinist work ethic.""

>what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions).

Yep. Religion shapes a culture, and the impact is there even 2 and 3 centuries after people have "stopped believing", in laws, attitudes, ethics, etc.

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

Because an educated populace is necessary to support their prosperity. Those kids will enter the workforce, provide social stability, demand goods and services, and pay taxes that support other people including retirees.

Actually, I estimate that I do pay a fairly high percentage of my kids' education. My house is among the most highly taxed, and my kids are among the cheapest to educate. In reality, I'm also paying to educate other peoples kids.

But it amuses me to think of a system where I pay 100% of their education, but reap 100% of the economic benefits stemming from that education. One idea is a deal, where you agree to pay 100% of your kids' educational costs, and in return, their future payroll taxes are paid directly to you. It's actually a horrifying idea, but it lets people think about the relative amounts of money that we're talking about: A few thousand dollars per year for 13 years, followed by many more thousands of dollars per year for four decades.

I'd never thought about it like that before; excellent point.

I don't know how "direct" this is, but I generally see my taxes as going to making the strangers I see on the street happier and nicer to be around, because they have fewer problems to deal with.

Maybe this is because my city's main "export" is tourism, so large amounts of everyone's taxes here get spent on parks and cleaning up litter/graffiti and etc., rather than on things that the locals would prioritize. I don't see that as a bad thing: there are a lot of tourists here, and when they're unhappy, they can be awful people. If my city government spends my money to make them happy, then that's a bunch of potential assholes that are instead nice, friendly people! (I can only imagine how much more I would care about this if I worked in hospitality.)

A better way of looking at the results of the tax spending is the money brought in by the tourists (who like to visit nice, clean places) which in turn helps the local economy.

Perhaps one thing to consider is that the person who isn't happy paying for others may not themselves be benefiting from society. Perhaps by a purely financial view they are better off, but that is but one metric of their life. What is going on in their life that makes them prefer every man for himself?

> An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools).

Property tax (and subsequent education funding) is semi-voluntary. One can always downgrade to a smaller/cheaper abode and [somewhat] opt out of the system. This makes even more sense if one is childless.

Let's say two people have a net worth of $1,000,000 each. Person A has a $950,000 house and $50,000 in the bank. Person B has a $200,000 house and $800,000 in the bank. 80% of B's possessions are not subject to property tax.

I think Utah's success is not only due to the willingness of the Utah population, but also to their proactive pragmatic disposition.

And let's be honest here, the Mormon influence is a major factor both in instilling the willingness to do something and in creating a pragmatic, solutions-oriented culture.

I'm not a Mormon, in fact, I'm a staunch atheist, but I can't deny the positive effects some religions seem to have when it comes to encouraging community involvement.

So I think part of the answer to the question of "how do we rebuild community" has to do with religion.

Unfortunately, as an atheist, I'm probably part of the problem here.

I remember thinking how amazing the Mormon culture was as a child growing up for a handful of years in Utah, until our next door neighbor went to Federal Prison for Fraud. Then my Parents explained to me the Mormons had a habit of exploiting social services and manipulation that would put the Gypsies to shame.

"Never invite just one Mormon over, they'll drink your liquor cabinet dry. Invite two, so they watch each other like Hawks, and neither will ever touch a drop."

Cults are a trip man.

Its interesting how in some circles it is totally cool to publicly slander a group like the Mormons. Take what you wrote and substitute "Muslim" or "jew" and people would, in one second, write you off as an ignorant racist.

It's too bad nobody can even tell a joke anymore.

I agree people are often overly sensitive, but Hacker News isn't really a place for jokes and 6stringmerc's comment didn't seem to be an attempt at humor.

It's just telling which jokes are socially acceptable here, and which aren't.

That is largely a matter of history, and not because religious beliefs should never be ridiculed. Jews have necessarily become overly defensive against those who attack their religion, because of the Holocaust, and Muslims have always attacked those who question, oppose, or even just ignore Islam, as a means to reinforce and expand their own religion.

To put that Muslim practice into perspective, look at how Scientology reacts to its critics.

As a religion, LDS relies more heavily on the tithe than on attacking critics. They don't care if you think their religion is nuts, because they have huge, heaping piles of money, and enough local political power in Utah to ensure that government can't be used against them. The tithe creates psychological investment in the religion, which helps prevent its members from questioning it.

I would very much like to have the ability to openly ridicule Judaism and Islam as much as I could openly ridicule LDS, but it just so happens that in practice, Mormons are (as a whole) much nicer and more tolerant people than Jews and Muslims, to the point where I don't fear that they will try to damage or destroy my public reputation, career, or health for no other reason than the expression of my opinions towards their religions.

That large number of people who can publicly slander a religion without retaliation is actually a point in favor of that religion.

And not to discount any progress they've made--but you almost have to take with a grain of salt whenever you hear about some big social progress being made in an area that's nearly 90% ethnically homogenous.

These things are a lot easier to do when you're not simultaneously dealing with cultural disconnects. I'm glad it worked for Utah, and it'd probably work in Canada, Vermont, or Sweden. That doesn't mean it'll work well in Chicago or New York.

I am not sure of the reason but I think some people are more capable of empathy than others and I think people confuse empathy and sympathy.

A lot of the people I meet who are less concerned with these problems do so across the board - unless it directly affects them or they've personally lived through those exact same issues they cannot (or will not?) empathize. It takes direct personal experience to change their minds. I think people who won't/cant empathize have a more simplistic view of the world as well - if you are poor you are lazy, everyone starts relatively similarly and what happens to you is mostly (if not all) related to the effort you've put in because maybe that has been their personal experience. I've been lucky enough to relate to this because I haven't had anything directly holding me back (that I am aware of), so my success or lack of success is more directly attributable to my choices and work ethic than people in worse situations than me but that doesn't prevent me from seeing how circumstances dictate choices and opportunities.

I also think that there is as psychological aspect to this in that a lack of empathy also allows people who are not poor or homeless to feel as though they achieved it. Even if they are lower-middle class average people, they've achieved more than someone who is truly poor or homeless but this is just from personal observation, I think you have the same types of "self-made-person" feelings at every level of the socioeconomic ladder.

The perfect example of not having empathy unless it directly affects you are the endless conservative politicans who don't like rights for gay people until their own kid comes out as gay. It's so frustrating to me, this lack of empathy.

I was thinking the exact same thing but I feel bad about turning everything into a political statement but I do agree. Most of my conservative friends have at least 1 issue they are "liberal" on, because they, a friend, or relative are affected by the issue but it never seems to cause them to re-evaluate their stance on other issues which is always frustrating.

I'm sure there's at least one issue that you lean "conservative" on, yet you've not taken up conservative positions on other issues. Why would your friends behave any differently? From their perspectives, you frustrate them just as much as they frustrate you.

It is entirely possible, but as much as we would like there to be symmetry in all things its not always the case. I'm willing to make concessions on plenty of issues but these days everything seems to be a catch 22 (for example, abortions and access to contraceptives).

The psychology behind empathy is really interesting.

I try to avoid inserting politics into any discussion, but this NYT's article suggests that one's values are a determinant of their capacity to empathize...or more specifically, whether a person has individualizing or binding social values. Where one stands on this correlates to whether they are progressive or conservative in their thinking -- and by extension, in their political views. I guess if it was easy to talk about the socio without the political, there wouldn't be a word that combines the two: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/who-blames...

One of the interesting things that Utah does is called "Housing First." As with most things, there are pros and cons to the program. However, Utah's analysis apparently exaggerated the affect that this program had on homelessness (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solve...). Regardless, what you say is correct and valid. Utah seems to care about addressing multiple issues and not just the appearance of homelessness. I hope other cities, states, and/or municipalities build upon what Utah has done.

I'm not sure what the cons are? If as the Utah govenor says it's cheaper to provide housing than the police/hospital/prison costs it kind of seems pretty con free.

In other parts of the country the housing would cost more, but the perhaps prison, hospitals and policing would cost more in those areas too.

It also doesn't take into account the extra money injected by someone returning to work because they've got a fixed house.

The article you point to rightly points out that the data is over hyped which is a shame. But the article then seems to use this to throw out everything that they've done in Utah.

The author appears to have some kind of fairly strong bias which I think he brings to light with this quote:

> Additional focus should be placed on transitioning people out of expensive supportive housing and into housing of their own or with family members when their well-being improves.

As far as I can see, if the maths stack up then just keep building houses.

Living in Romania for a while gave me a front row seat to some of the most horrible societal problems that I've ever seen. What stood out the most for me is that nobody gives a fuck. Well, almost nobody. And that in a country that is extremely religious. Imagine a guy with two stumps trying to cross the street on shortened crutches and people at the traffic light blowing their horns for him to get out of the way.

Empathy is in short supply, and who cares when you have yours how someone else gets through the day. Very, very frustrating.

The harder it is to get by, the less empathy you're going to have for other people. Because you can't afford it. That sort of behavior is pretty common in poor countries.

That doesn't explain why some poor cultures are the most sharing and caring of others...

Why contribute to a society that doesn't care about you?

It's a feedback loop.

One of the things I learned quickly, living in the Bay Area, is the power of giving a crap. You're completely right! Empathy and sympathy, translated effectively into policy, can and do work wonders. You're not going to get these things where people don't care.

That said, there's a potential wrinkle. Empathy, sympathy, and compassion may be necessary but are not sufficient for effective policy. The idea that empathy compels people to find effective policy is incredibly attractive. Who doesn't want to do good? Who doesn't want to help the helpless, who so clearly deserve aid? Who doesn't want to believe that a blossoming of pure intent will help?

Empathy compels us! Compassion compels us! We are moved to act, and we must!

Yet, it's not enough. More than one pure-hearted program in the past has gone awry. Wasted limited funds or political capital. In some cases, gone so awry as to make things worse.

You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. We need to care!. We should think carefully about if giving a crap is sufficient. If it was, I would anticipate that San Francisco's very expensively given craps would have gotten the homeless off the streets by now.

I think my focus is less program-specific than it is interpersonal, i.e. that I as an individual have a responsibility to take part in my community as a member of that community. This means giving my time, my effort, my compassion - not just throwing some money on the table and saying "someone else fix it".

Awesome! Out of curiosity, what does that look like in terms of action? The idea of an individual taking the individual responsibility as a member of their community to help other members of their community represents a wonderful blooming of pure intent, but is perhaps slightly abstract.

Also, there's maybe a potential issue with how community is defined. How do you define your community? What could happen if others possibly have different definitions?

That is, of course, the problem for this answer. We have abstracted away our reliance on other people so effectively (whether in reality or perception) that most people don't feel the need to give back.

I would feel comfortable considering public service as a requirement of citizenship, to some degree. We don't have military conscription in the United States - but requiring a year of paid public service at age 16-18 would be a reasonable option in my mind.

Great! A solid idea. What do you propose people who are not 16-18 do in their regular lives to take part in helping members of their community that isn't sending money to specialists?

It's of course very possible that your experiences and memories may vary significantly from mine, but my experience as a teenager with public service did not consistently inspire empathy for people others in my community. Teenagers are not generally known for their broad-minded feats of empathy, and I was not an exception.

As an adult, I have retained a general distaste for people who seek to tell me what community I am a member of. This is not because I resent being part of a community. It's generally because being told I am a member of a community I may not consider myself a member of is a precursor to being told I have a moral duty to provide some resource. I do not enjoy having my empathy tugged at people who only seem to see me as a member of their community when I have something they desire and who will not regard me as a member once I have provided such.

> I do not enjoy having my empathy tugged at people who only seem to see me as a member of their community when I have something they desire and who will not regard me as a member once I have provided such.

So you helping others is for your own self-satisfaction, and not to help others? You're looking for someone to convine you to be happy with the decision of helping others. That's what all your comments here read like. :)

I'm not surprised you're from the Bay Area, given that.

I'm happy to help others. I'm not happy to feel used.

I don't enjoy having my empathy tugged at by people who only care about me because they want money from me. This experience does not leave me feeling like I have contributed to my community and helped a person. It leaves me feeling used.

It's fine to say no to requests. I don't like how organized the charitable industry is in the US and the high-pressure tactics used to solicit donations. I prefer to donate anonymously or tell charitable solicitors that the more often and elaborately they contact me the less likely I am to contribute to their cause. Frankly I prefer just getting cash directly into the hands of people in need and don't burden myself with worrying about which cause should have priority over others.

I feel like you're asking me to understand where you live, what your skills are, and how you can leverage your abilities to help people. I obviously can't and it's not always obvious for people to understand how to figure that stuff out on their own. This is part of the problem with service being an inconsequential part of American culture - there's no "social infrastructure" to identify who needs help and set them up with people who can help them (that aren't, explicitly, social services).

I'm less concerned that teenagers are "inspired with empathy" than I am that we as a country have a large group of young people to put to positive social use. A good friend of mine is German. His 'voluntary social year' was to drive an ambulance. I don't care if they are trail building or helping immigrants learn English - having them to engage in social service will help build a culture of service and get some important (but perhaps, unprofitable) work done.

I'd say this: if you feel like this is something you want to do then just start trying some things.

Organizations that work with youth are super familiar with people showing up all jazzed to do something, then dropping out after a few weeks. Just get out there and try some different things. Sure, it's kinda crappy to do that - but if you don't get yourself into a few different rooms with a few different kinds of people then it's going to be hard to find something that works for you.

Second, your presence and effort and compassion will matter more than your wealth. In fact, I don't even know why your wealth should be relevant. Dress down, buy a Casio, downplay your job - whatever. Say "I do boring computer stuff; nothing fancy like Facebook or Google" even if that's true. If you're working with kids they are going to want to know stuff about you, but you should always choose how (and how much) you share.

Finally, I work in a service oriented job and there are a regularly days that I drive home feeling burned out/abused/ignored. People can be ungrateful and greedy, but - that's not the point of doing this kind of work. I do it because I believe it matters and makes the lives of young people better. Find your reason that doesn't rely on gratitude (because you're guaranteed not to always get it).

What I'm asking you to understand is that I may not subscribe to your definition of community. That I might be entirely disinterested in helping what you consider to be my community.

I've spent significant chunks of my life in parts of the US that have the sort of social infrastructure you seek. I have not found them particularly congenial places in which to live.

Ah, then I've misunderstood the intentions of your comments. I honestly just thought you were looking for suggestions on how to get more involved. Apologies for that assumption.

I think you can choose to define your communities any way you'd like. I don't much care where you draw your lines. If you're investing in your (maker space?) community that's amazing and more than most people do.

Find a community you'd like to be a part of and help out there. There is usually no shortage of work around such organization. If no such community exists, maybe start growing one? A Meetup group can be a good starting point.

I helped run an makerspace for some years (unlike most, it is open for anyone to use anytime, not just members). Keeping machines operating, training people on using them, improving the space, sharing knowledge/tips&tricks, nudging people out of lows when they are stuck with projects.

Teach,share,fix,maintain.

I appreciate, applaud, and agree with your sentiment. It's such a good idea that I've been doing so for a number of years now.

I think you're confusing empathy and giving a crap with the appearance thereof. Very few people, in my experience, genuinely give a crap in a way that fully affects their person.

> I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support

In my opinion, this is one of the problems effective religion solves. I'm betting one of the reasons Utah is good at "giving a crap" is because it has a strong religious infrastructure that encourages members to reach out to others in the community. I remember one part of the article even talking about redrawing church boundaries such that people in middle/upper class neighborhoods are mingling/reaching out to people living in trailer park neighborhoods.

I too am tired of the mentality that government programs can solve any problem given enough money. Social workers can only make their clients feel so loved. Having a neighbor reach out to your family without being paid to do so has a tremendous impact on mental health that social workers can't replicate.

Religions of the Christian flavor (probably Muslim, as well, not sure), at least, have means to unite people who are otherwise not aligned together naturally, since Christianity specifically denies the importance of skill and power, which instantly popup as virtues when you remove religion.

The philosophy of Christianity, however flawed and poorly executed and rife with error, is that nobody is special before God, that your money will be lost when you die, that an obviously superior world is possible and available, that no matter what you do you can be forgiven and receive love. That's powerful. And in the face of the world we live in also very, very strange.

Once that was removed, nothing was put in its place, religious or not.

I think part of this is the poor community in Utah is much closer to the overall community in ethnic, country of origin, and religious terms. When the poor community is 'other' it's harder to view them part of the overall community and thus care about their problems.

We're so stuck on left vs right in this country that we lose sight of the issues. If we focused on issues and how to solve them, we'd be so much better off.

My hat is off to Utah for tackling this problem and making progress.

So true, it's always "us" vs "them". When you take out political tribalism, most rational people can accept others positions/beliefs without hate emerging. In the end we're all just people on a rock floating through space trying to make it. Good for the people just trying to help each other out.

One reason people oppose spending more money on homeless is how expensive it already is with poor results; mismanaged, it seems, by half grifters and half bleeding hearts, and no one with a head for effectiveness.

Here's one of Seattle's big problems: http://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/

Here's another Seattle problem: the housing association has a ten year waitlist. The government wanted to change rents so people would be rotated through so more could be helped (since most homeless are just temporary) but the socialist council member got all the people getting a sweet deal together (unlike the others who have to work for a living) to protest and nothing got fixed: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/12/seattle-housing-...

Utah has traditionally had plenty of negatives, but a handful of recent innovations (particularly their direct housing initiative) have put them at the head of the pack. I don't think it's fair to chalk that up to "giving a crap" so much as "trying something new".

Ohio seems to be following a similar trend in recent years, John Kasich seems to actually walk it like he talks it where policy is concerned. I would have been fine if a meteor had landed on Trump and Clinton at the last presidential debate and we ended up with Kasich because nobody wanted to start the election season over.

"I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code."

The obvious, true, academically-established but politically-unacceptable answer is that we need homogeneity.

People give a crap about others in their tribe, who will have their back later, who are working towards the same social goals as them.

People don't give a crap about people of other tribes, who disrespect/hate them and their beliefs, who are working to move the world in an entirely different direction.

Robert Putnam at Harvard did a study around ethnic diversity and social trust/cohesion, hoping to find that diversity helped cohesion. But, he found the opposite - diversity eats away at public trust, far more perniciously than he thought or believed. He delayed publishing for years because this result appalled him so much. But, he's a good scientist, so he did eventually report his findings [1].

So, if you want that genuine sense of community togetherness, you need to:

1. Develop a distinct identity, with a clear definition for who is and who is not in the tribe. People being as they are, you need to develop a feeling of specialness in the in-group, and a sense of otherness towards outsiders. 2. Encourage group-signifying standards, practices, and rituals on members. 3. Do not admit new members who cannot or will not homogenize into those tribal signifiers. 4. Do not permit foreign allegiances among members.

Basically, do what Japan or Korea do now, or what the West used to do in the 50's, and what all pre-modern societies did.

Unfortunately it's hard to admit this, since feel-good wishful thinking about diversity is so pervasive. The idea that "diversity is our strength" is one of the Great Lies of the modern dominant cultural dogma. It's the exact opposite of the truth. Unity (while learning from others) is strength. Diversity is conflict.

And everyone knows this, when it's presented the right way. We all know that it was a great crime when the British and French deliberately drew Middle Eastern country borders to contain several tribes in one country. Iraq is in constant civil war because it was designed to be in constant civil war, by putting together Kurds and Shia and Sunni in one country. The British used diversity as a weapon on the Arabs, and it worked. It's still working. The damage never ends. Meanwhile, Iran is at peace, because it is reasonably homogenous. So is Pakistan, because they persecuted the Hindu population from 15% in 1948 to 0% today.

Diversity is not strength. In the Balkans, in Rwanda, in Chechnya and Syria and Iraq and pre-partition India/Pakisan and modern India and Aceh province and western China and Paris Banlieues and Molenbeek and Malmo and everywhere else, diversity is conflict.

So if you want unity, choose homogeneity.

-----

[1] a starting ref on Putnam's study: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e23...

Other reading: Coming Apart by Charles Murray

I don't give money to panhandlers, I think it encourages bad behavior. But to anyone who asks, I look them in the eye, and say "sorry, not today". I'm surprised how few people do this, it takes less effort than actively ignoring someone.

>"sorry, not today"

How does this not encourage more panhandling (aka "bad behavior")? You're implying that maybe you'll have something for them tomorrow despite the fact that you never will.

Does saying that do anything other than make yourself feel better about not "actively ignoring someone"?

What would be a better thing to say? You don't want to start a conversation or be too rude, but also want to acknowledge them.

Personally, I try to ignore panhandlers to discourage it, but that is kinda like protesting elections by not voting. It feels a bit too much like apathy.

Panhandling is probably bad enough that it discourages itself. There are reasons not to give, but I don't think you reduce panhandling by not giving, so "discouraging" is not a good reason. Hopefully some people will manage to get enough to move to something less bad.

Why would you say that? One person doesn't make much difference, but naturally panhandling follows the law of supply and demand like anything else.

Talk to anyone who works at helping the homeless or impoverished, they will tell you that the vast majority of panhandlers are substance abusers looking for just enough money to get high. They are not doing it to eat (community kitchens are free) and they are not doing it to save up for something less bad.

I would wager that changes a lot by locale. There are plenty of places without such a thing as community kitchen, where if you don't have money at the end of the they you are not going to eat.

And I also don't believe you are doing any favors to poor drug addicts by denying them access to drugs. The whole situation is shit, and there are forms of altruism that are much more effective than giving to panhandlers. But I have much trouble seeing it as "encouraging bad behavior". As I said, it's going to happen regardless.

> What would be a better thing to say?

"Sorry"

Why is it "bad behavior" to ask people for change?

A lot of pandhandlers panhandle not because they enjoy it, but because they believe they have no other choice. And that is often times the case: they don't have the resources (logistical, financial, social or other) or stable enough health (physical or mental) to find and hold onto jobs. And since they've got to eat, they panhandle.

People with your mindset are usually unable to really put themselves in the shoes of a homeless person. Rather, they think, "gosh, if I became homeless tomorrow, I would go get a job somewhere!" because for them, getting a job is relatively easy. They don't understand what chronic homelessness is like.

There's a very common view that panhandlers and the homeless are principally the same population. It's possible that this view might not be completely correct: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/panhandling/endnotes/#endn...

I skimmed through this and haven't seen anything supporting this claim.

Maybe I missed it. Could you elaborate?

The footnote I linked contains several references and full study texts. The short version is that homeless panhandlers are definitely a phenomenon, but the overlap between the two populations is often significantly smaller than might be naively assumed.

Yes, I read the text cited by footnote 26. I don't see where it says that.

Please accept my apologies, I believe I've been unclear. Footnote 26 contains links to several papers that I believe include the salient data. A brief reading of one shows contents such as:

> Begging provided the main source of finance for this group of people with which to purchase drugs. It was not uncommon for them to earn £50 (Approximately $74 US) during a good day. Homelessness was an issue for around 30 percent of the beg- gars within the City Centre who were actu- ally sleeping in the bus station or car park- ing areas. Most of the remainder were technically NFA though, living in squats on the outskirts of the City Centre or tem- porarily with "friends," but likely to spend some time sleeping rough occasionally. One was living in a hostel and one had a permanent address.

Ah, no worries. I see where the misunderstanding was :)

I've added a few of the links to Pocket -- my reading list for next week is complete! :)

It really depends on the individual. but over time it's pretty easy to sort the grifters from the truly needy.

> since they've got to eat, they panhandle

They don't spend the money on food.

Can you link me to the study?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com