Hacker News Reader

Comment by loourr | Hacker News Reader

Because the rich are contributing and it's a question of the degree to which they're contributing.

Scroungers are just taking and draining the system even if it's a "smaller" amount.

At least in the US, the rich tend to be the biggest beneficiaries of government hand-outs, to an even greater degree than people on the dole. It's just not as visible, so not as easy for the public to vilify. Not sure if it's similar in the UK, but I suspect it might be so--the UK seems like US-lite when it comes to governance.

I was going to downvote you, but actually — even though I completely disagree with the premise — it makes perfect sense as an explanation.

This raises the question of the importance of the consumer in our economy. Scroungers still spend money, and often spend most of the money they get, which puts money in the pockets of companies, which they then spend on payroll and other things. If the money they get is being put back into the system, then how is it draining?

Almost by definition, these people can't manage their resources as efficiently as the wealthy.

There is nothing to manage at least from the perspective of monetary assets, things would disappear too fast for you have a chance to 'manage' them; also it's the opposite, the poor are very efficient with the limited resources they have -- you kinda have to be wouldn't you? Lest you end up from just being poor to being a corpse. Below a certain breakpoint money only functions as a means of consumption. With what they are bringing in they will never be able to save enough to make any investments that will have a net positive in their lives and a negative shock will very quickly wipe out whatever progress they make. From their perspective it is actually logical to buy lottery tickets and gamble since the price of admission is low enough for them to afford; the calculus for them is shifted in a way that is different from your experiences. When you have an abundance of resources you are in a completely different position since you don't need to be concerned with survival anymore -- also you get many chances since your eggs won't end up in the same basket. It's not impossible but the chances that somebody who is poor can execute the process for a legitimate means of making money outside whatever formal arrangement they are in as opposed to brewing meth (which can be considered a 'side project' depending on your frame of mind) is unlikely given the context they find themselves in. The prior statements also hinge upon the unlikely event that someone can escape the cess pit of proletariat culture in the first place. It's structured to be this way, the range of choices somebody can make at the bottom of the socio economic ladder is much more restricted -- why do you think there are such stringent drug and prostitution laws in certain places? It's to reduce the actions that poor people can take outside the game that a relatively small group collectively decided we need to play -- when you reduce people's agency enough you can get them to do absolutely anything through a 'legit' channel: like taking a bullet to the head in some far off country, doing back breaking work in a kitchen, or something else that is equally unpleasant. A certain fraction of the population needs to be meat for the grinder to do it's job.

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com