We're not fighting poverty, we're fighting poor people!
Which is a very expensive war, so it might be cheaper to give some of that money to the poor people, so they can spend it more effectively.
Which is a very expensive war, so it might be cheaper to give some of that money to the poor people, so they can spend it more effectively.
This is the thing that bothers me about this conversation more than anything. It's like giving pain killers to someone who has pain—in some cases that may be the only real solution but arguably the vast, VAST majority of the time, there is a basic desire to do the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different outcome.
Giving money to people who aren't willing to change only perpetuates the problem. It's enabling them. Many people who were "formerly poor" will repeat the saying ad nauseam: poverty is a mindset. You can't "fix" poverty with money because money won't change their mind or their hearts.
IME, only small embedded organizations are good at helping folks out of this cycle. Because they are small, they know the area, they know the people, they know the cycle and they actually help people get out of that cycle.
I'll give you a hint, look at wealth distribution graphs
Don’t confuse tough love with no love - many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help.
I, for one, don’t agree that “we’ve seen time and time again” that cash handouts help.
Political progress can be made only through meeting in the middle and negotiation, not by finger-pointing and accusing the opposition of being wrong. There's a reason millions of reasonable adults disagree with you (and who agree with you) - the truth is not clear-cut and complex and presents many seemingly contrary facts.
The attitude that poor people need "tough love" is extremely condescending, so yes, it's difficult to distinguish tough love from no love.
> many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help.
The article argues that this belief is not based on the empirical evidence.
I suspect that this belief is actually the result of a condescending attitude toward poor people rather than the cause of so-called "tough love" policies.
If you make money you’re doing well. That idea can be extended to imply that being poor means you’ve done something wrong.
To me it echoes feudalist ideas like divine rule. The king deserved to be king, otherwise God would not have allowed him to be king. Therefore the king must be good.
In my opinion this way of thinking is formed by looking at existing hierarchies and retroactively defining morality based on those hierarchies. Which then leads to the idea that poor people must be poor because of something they did, how could the hierarchy exist otherwise?
This line of thinking also leads to the opinion that rich people do better, which does not consider that poor people might be doing the best they can under their circumstances, even if it is not the optimal strategy.
What you are alluding to is a "no love" stance (the standard conservative viewpoint). The idea that everyone should be able to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty.
You make it seem like we shouldn't give painkillers to people in pain because some people do stupid things that cause them pain. But the fact of the matter is that giving the money currently spent on poverty (because we do in fact spend a _lot_ of money on poverty) to the poor people directly is more efficient. They, again and again, make more out of a dollar than that dollar would have made if it were spent on, say, food banks. If the case for empathy doesn't work for you (and clearly it doesn't) then surely the case for efficiency of government spending should?
I say that somewhat jokingly, but I think it's basically true. AFAIK welfare/basic income studies have shown that giving people money directly tends to work really well for increasing their life quality long-term, even long after the payments end. I don't know on what basis you think the vast majority of poor people are poor because of a poverty mindset/being financially irresponsible.
Likewise, for people who have chronic pain, if we have the capacity to help ease their pain, we should do that.
The question of what to do with the people who are enabled to avoid the work required to eliminate the source of their pain is a hard one, but I don't think that threatening people with starvation and homelessness is something we should aspire towards.
Having a little help like the child tax credits allows them to get their head of the water and make better decisions for the medium and long term. (like improve their education, take better care of their kids, etc.)
Sounds like survivorship bias. How many chronically poor think that?