Hacker News Reader

Comment by TimTheTinker | Hacker News Reader

> 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).

View on HN

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com