Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenpoundhammer | Hacker News Reader

I'm a foster parent to 3 kids and have 4 of my own. In my opinion, the primary problem with poverty is that everyone wants to solve it with money. Poverty can't be solved by throwing money at it, children in poverty need a stable environment and loving adults to help them grow and become productive members of society. Adults in poverty often need intensive counseling, psychiatry, substance abuse therapy, and a support network of caring individuals. Poverty in the united states will only be conquered by loving individuals sacrificing their own time and interests to help others.

View on HN

I recall reading about research (So this is third hand information) that one of the most effective ways of solving poverty are simple periodic cash grants. This was specifically about comparing unconditional cash grants to conditional once.

The idea being that this steady supply of money allows one to stabilize. This has 2 direct effects. Firstly, people can feasibly make long term plans. Secondly, the added baseline means much fewer things are 'sudden death'. If your car breaks down, perhaps you can get it fixed soon enough that you don't lose your job. In the same vein, perhaps this money allows you to get a car, making it possible to find work you couldn't get to with the bus.

There are definitely cases where the lack of money in poverty is a symptom, but I'd wager that in the vast majority of cases, lack of money is the root cause.

Whether the humane issues are the cause or symptom of the problem, they need a solution beyond cash, but cash can do a lot of good.

The prime exception are compound cases. I'd say cases where foster care gets involved are exactly those cases. These children need emotional and existential support much more than 'money'. My point is that these cases are exceptional even within the poor class. For the class in general, money could do a lot of good.

This is relevant here: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publica...

MIT Poverty Action Lab. They find that "A multifaceted livelihood program that provided ultra-poor households with a productive asset, training, regular coaching, access to savings, and consumption support led to large and lasting impacts on their standard of living across a diverse set of contexts and implementing partners."

Exiting from poverty is a delicate process, and can be derailed in many ways. These multifaceted programs attempt to overcome the main obstacles, and it seems to work fairly well (at least better than most other interventions.)

What troubles me the most is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence such as the research you describe, a very significant portion of Americans obstinately refuse to consider any and all forms of social aid.

I don't get it. I've tried to listen to their arguments and I just don't get it.

Currently, the would-be recipients of such aid do not participate in the economy and cost the taxpayer billions in unpaid ER visits, policing, jails, property devaluation, etc.

There are exactly two reasons I can think of why someone would oppose helping such people:

1. being extremely sheltered and having no understanding of what it's like to be poor.

2. an "us-vs-them" mentality (black people, immigrants, white trash, etc)

All I can say is that such attitudes truly reveal something about the moral fiber of the individuals who hold them. The older I get, the less respect I have for such persons.

It takes an empirical view, acceptance that simple problems can have complicated solutions, and more faith in research than common sense for these arguments to be convincing.

Lacking any of these, the common sense argument that giving poor people money makes them not want to work has more credence.

All of that disregards the empathy that is required to understand poor people aren't poor by choice.

I don't think it does. There's nothing particularly common sense about "giving poor people money makes them not want to work". "Poor people should get help" is much more common sense, in my opinion, and plenty of people hold that view, as well.

The issue is one of popular belief. People currently believe that everyone is deeply in control of their lives, which necessarily demands that the situation of the poor must be their fault. Similar conclusions flow from high individualism, the idea that nobody can help you but yourself, and that difficult situations make good people. None of these things are common sense, they're counterintuitive, actually, so they require a pre-built framework of thinking to accept.

It's a problem of philosophy, not empiricism. Most people don't care that much about research and, honestly, given the state of psych research right now, they probably shouldn't. But you don't need research to come to the simpler conclusion that a more dangerous environment reduces someone's chances.

It may not be common sense, but it's very much ingrained into the American culture. Some examples:

1. In The Three Little Pigs, the two pigs that built houses out of straw and hay were eaten by the wolf, but the pig that worked hard and built its house out of brick and mortar lived.

2. From 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."

3. In the spring of 1609, John Smith cited the aphorism to the colonists of Jamestown:

> Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries I hope is sufficient to persuade everyone to a present correction of himself, And think not that either my pains nor the adventurers' purses will ever maintain you in idleness and sloth...

> ...the greater part must be more industrious, or starve...

> You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers.

4. The sheer number of Ayn Rand followers in political office [1] when the aim of Ayn Rand's writing is justify why one ought not give a damn about anyone else (much less the poor).

It makes sense for someone in a scarcity economy like John Smith to hold such a viewpoint, because otherwise everyone would starve to death. I lament the fact that even though the US can provide enough housing and food to feed everyone, we do not have the political will to do so. Even though Bertrand Russell was no economist, it seems we have arrived at his most insane dystopia [2] where "half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked" even though we could produce everything anyone ever wanted with a 20-hour work week and everyone working.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-ra...

[2] http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

> The prime exception are compound cases.

If I can give an analogy: you remind me of a story my father (a general practicioner) told me about when he studied. Apparently, he was among the first generation of Dutch GPs where it was taught as a specialisation. Before the seventies, you simply became a "doctor" first (so, a GP), and specialised from there.

With the rise of GP as a specialisation there also was a rise of studies on the practice. And this had the effect of a number of illnesses being recategorised from highly, highly lethal to mostly harmless.

The reason they had been mislabeled was that the only people who used to write about these illnesses were the specialists. However, the specialists only got to see the cases that were too severe to be treated by the GPs. And this selection bias lead to the false impression that these illnesses were all horrible.

Yes, it takes more than just money.

But "intensive counseling, psychiatry, substance abuse therapy" all require money.

And it makes sense for individuals who, for whatever reason, cannot join "a support network of caring individuals" to still help by just throwing money at it.

But it is true that if everyone just throws money into a pile and no one uses that pile to buy anything helpful then nothing gets better.

I probably could have said it better, the point I attempted to make was that without the support network most of that other stuff doesn't help. I have seen many people get clean, get their life back on track, and then a disaster happens like they lose their job or get kicked out because of a break-up and there is no one to help them. This leads them right back to drugs and other destructive behaviors. One of the most important privileges of being wealthy is that you almost always have a built-in safety net whether that's friends or family. If I lost my job and all my wealth today, there are a dozen people that would welcome me into their home. That's something a lot of people have and take for granted.

As someone who grew up poor and currently has a very small social network (parents passed away, very small extended family in this country, few friends, etc), I worry about this all the time. Who will help me if the shit hits the fan? I have a good job, decent money, and all manner of insurance but its still something that haunts me.

One of the things we see when we examine successful people, especially those in startups, is that they're kids who often have mommy and daddy to fall back on. This allows them to take chances, or take months off school to try some project, or spend days and nights networking, or pulling strings on connections their family provides, or a slew of other inherited advantages. Those without this kind of privilege just go to work and try not to make waves because the risk of failure is too scary to consider like losing your home or being blackballed in your career. Its a whole other world when you know very few people have your back and there's no family wealth to cushion your falls. When I deal with people with this high levels of privilege I find it very hard to relate to them. Its like talking to a space alien with endless wealth. My own experience don't remotely match up.

Poverty is several steps below the situation I grew up in. I can't imagine the hopelessness here. Kudos to those who are actively doing something about it.

> Adults in poverty often need intensive counseling, psychiatry, substance abuse therapy, and a support network of caring individuals.

You have assumed poverty in adults is caused by mental health problems and, in general, that is false. What about the rest of the adults, without mental health issues, in poverty? Poverty is caused by lack of gainful employment. There are a great many people able and willing to work but do not have gainful work and that puts them in poverty.

> You have assumed poverty in adults is caused by mental health problems and, in general, that is false.

No, GPs argument is valid if mental health, etc., issues are correlated with poverty and complicate escaping it, even if they don't cause it.

>You have assumed poverty in adults is caused by mental health problems and, in general, that is false.

You are assuming that they meant that mental health problems are the cause, while I interpreted them as a symptom of poverty.

> Poverty can't be solved by throwing money at it, children in poverty need a stable environment and loving adults to help them grow and become productive members of society.

Of course, this is basically the conservative argument with the added provision that the best people for this task are two parents in a stable marriage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com