Comment by TimTheTinker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TimTheTinker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure.

That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of charities and churches — where many people can (and do) give generously to help others. When run well, those do far more good than even government programs.

I challenge anyone who cares about the poor and wants to make a big difference to give to, volunteer at, or even start one of these nonprofit community programs.

In my city there’s a charity that provides clothes to poor people at massive discounts. They don’t feel like they’re getting a handout, since they’re still paying (less than $1 per item) - hence they don’t lose any sense of dignity or “providing for their family”. It also reduces free-loading since you do have to pay. And store employees take time to help people with all sorts of things - job applications, government forms. If I’m bit mistaken, they also offer counseling, showers, and a cold weather shelter.

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism.

Churches have been notorious for either stipulating that recipients act in a certain church-approved way to get aid, or giving charity in the hope that recipients will convert. Either way, it hardly strikes most people outside that religion as "generous".

It is worth pointing to the Nordic countries, where private charitable endeavours have largely faded away with the rise of the welfare state, and even the local churches are happy to let the state take care of the feeding, clothing and housing business because the state enjoys economy of scale far beyond any church’s ability. In spite of the dwindling of private charity, those countries have less wealth disparity than countries fond of charitable activity. Consequently, some feel that charity is a just an awkward substitute for a functional state, not a good thing in itself.

I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.

> ...they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.

Churches literally aren't able to address "street problems" like violence and mental health problems. Governments are the best place to deal with problems where push actually has come to shove.

There might be some creative way to make sure charity-oriented churches are better supported by social service organizations, police departments, etc., but if that sort of setup exists now, it isn't routine or well publicized.

> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well".

Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up?

The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale.

Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).

> The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale.

Your original comment said:

> When run well, those do far more good than even government programs.

Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.

Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million

Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.

I prefer my country’s social services delivered by professionals, inefficiencies and all, over church volunteers. Inefficiencies are okay, expected even, when operating at scale. Sometimes universal availability and coverage take priority (know what you’re optimizing for).

Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effectively when government provides services.

I really don't know why inefficiency is ok, sorry. If a system is less efficient at scale then engineering approach teaches us to modularize/split it into smaller chunks.

Btw, you used "professional" word as if it's something good in itself. That's far from truth. Professional bureaucrats, and state officials quite often are directly interested in growing inefficiency because it can be exploited to expand budgets, and staff.

Saying you prefer a welfare state provided by "professionals" does not necessary mean bureaucrats. It also includes things like social workers who have undergone rigorous training to better deal with the mentally ill, those suffering from addiction, and vulnerable minorities. A church or charity worker, no matter how well-meaning they might be, does not necessarily have those skills.

I agree it also includes some usefully prepared people, nevertheless no state welfare program exists without bureacrats.

Also, preparedness/trainings are not exclusive feature of gov't system. I know what I'm saying here because I volunteered in private charity (not in US, so American mileage may vary), and I dare to say people who worked there were more competent then relevant state officials, at least target group always preferred them.

It depends what it is. The government is efficient at sending people checks and retail stores like Walmart are efficient places to buy things. It's hard to see how to do much better for supplying people with new stuff.

On the other hand, thrift stores also have an important role for getting used stuff like clothing to people who need it, and charities do some of that.

Then there are various services that charities do, which is a whole different thing and not easily replaced. But some of their funding comes from the government.

I agree that gov't is relatively good at sending checks (except in some economic circumstances, e.g. when the currency it prints is no more in demand - like in Venezuela, or late USSR). However it doesn't necessary make a particular welfare program efficient in general. Maybe recipients are poorly determined (which happens more often with larger programs), or sending checks is not the best idea at all.

You...”doubt it”? I guess the issue is settled, then. I’ll take it that the underlying argument is “government bad, private good”. It doesn’t really contribute anything, but at least we can guess at the reasoning.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments. But you are welcome to present some sarcasm instead, even if very general.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments.

Present an argue against what? “Is not!” doesn’t give a lot to work with. “Doubt it” does a fine job of presenting one’s biases, but it is most certainly not an invitation to stimulating discussion, quite the opposite.

To sum it up.

Starting point: A produces more good then B.

Me: A can produce more good than B, but not necessary more per dollar spent, and I think it's not the case.

--Here was a place to to try to prove it's more per dollar spent--

You: You are biased!

Me: You are invited to present arguments.

You: You are biased!

Furthermore, in all of the situations I've experienced involving these, not only does local government fail where these orgs quietly succeed, I've found that same government trying mightily to hamper the actions of those charities at every turn.

As far as churches, I’ve seen a number of places that 70% of the church’s budget goes to keeping the church afloat.

https://get.tithe.ly/blog/church-wasting-money

That sounds reasonable to me, as long as donations can be specifically earmarked for helping needy people or charity work.

Paying a pastor a median wage (if he’s full time—many have a job besides pastoring), having a building to meet in, and helping needy people in the church adds up quickly. For small and/or rural congregations, that might be most or all of what they can manage.

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well".

It's good that gov't agencies, and programs are so well known to to be run well, don't have problems with inefficiency, and corruption. Oh... wait

When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church.

Why should people who need help have to contend with this?

Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

> When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church.

You might as well say God has an ulterior motive for providing for our needs - that we would come to know and love him. The two statements are analogous.

It’s true, churches that truly love people and believe the Bible will want people to be saved through belief in Jesus. Hell is so bad, nothing could be more unloving than to not care about people’s souls and offer them the gospel.

To be clear, the assumption that non-Christians are going to hell is not because of any moral superiority. All deserve hell, including Christians, because all have sinned. But free forgiveness is offered. It’s like a flag being waved over a well in the desert by a once-thirsty man who has found water. The statement “I’ve found water” or the assumption that we’re all in a desert carries no overtone of personal superiority.

At the same time, if people need help but don’t want to hear anything, fine. That is no reason to turn them away or treat them less favorably in charity/outreach.

I don't think it's an ulterior motive that churches want to help people be more spiritually healthy... it's part of the core function of the organizations.

> Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

It's only a competing agenda if you assume they're wrong. If better spiritual health complements the other efforts, it would be foolish not to promote it.

Your perspective is that proselytizing is undesirable is valid, but it does take quite a bit as granted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com