Edit 3: one last edit that I’m putting at the top because I’m not sure if people are only reading part of what I’ve written, jumping to conclusions and then putting words into my mouth; or if I’ve just been very bad at conveying what I’m trying to say.
Firstly: I’m arguing from an American perspective, something I failed to specify.
Secondly: money is great, however, many people need more than money. By all means, give them money, but make sure they have other resources in case they need it. If nothing else, there are a lot of people in homelessness or poverty with serious mental health needs. Money isn’t going to help if they can’t afford healthcare.
Thirdly: I also failed to give examples of what I meant by, do something else too. I meant, cap rent, build public housing, ensure that people have access to food even when CEOs are renting out pineapples, etc.
Finally: the US runs on greed. Prices in the US are outstripping wages dramatically because CEOs realized they could charge more. I think the reason why giving money works in studies is because CEOs don’t know who’s getting the handouts; if they did, they’d absolutely try to fleece them for the assistance money. That’s why doing it universally, so that CEOs know that a lot of people are getting additional money, without any other form of assistance, will just lead to people being priced out of life again.
Not sure how much I’ll contribute or respond after this. I’m feeling kinda discouraged due to how many people are putting words in my mouth (it may be a misunderstanding, but it’s still demoralizing).
Oh my god, I’m using fish as a metaphor for money, and teaching someone to fish as a metaphor for ensuring their ability to provide for themselves. That’s what the metaphor is about. Ensuring people’s ability to provide for themselves. Is that really what y’all are confused about? If you see me referring to “fish” then I’m talking about money, not food.
I’m not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.
And you know what, maybe they just are that way, maybe they’re just cursed to always be a dependent on someone. However, if that’s the case then they’re going to need way more help than just fish. In the meantime though, maybe treat them like human beings that are down on their luck but otherwise capable of supporting themselves. Yeah, make sure they have food, a roof over their head, water, toilets and so on, but don’t stop there. That’s why I’m saying this, there may be people who see your post and think that just throwing money at the problem will make it go away. It’ll help, but it’s not gonna fix it 100%.
Edit: I’m not sure why it’s controversial to say that people need more help than just money. Personally? If I was homeless or in poverty, I’d want more than just money. Like, I’m not saying to not give people who are homeless or in poverty money, but what I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t stop there.
Edit 2: I don’t understand why people are so confused here. I’m not saying it won’t work for some people, but there are people that it won’t work for. To repeat something I said further along, in my experience, there are people who take these things literally. In my experience, there are people who would look at this meme, say, “sounds good, let’s do that” and then get mad when it doesn’t work for everyone.
I’m not saying that money won’t help a lot of people; it would. It’s just that there are people who will take this literally and believe it’s the only thing you have to do.
Thing is, the research into direct cash transfusions and other straight basic income has shown that poor people generally have a very good idea of what they specifically need to do to get out of poverty, be that a gym membership to shower, good clothes, a bike or car, an apartment, someplace to keep documents and medications where they won’t be thrown out by cops, getting a GED after their parents threw them out for being gay, a preschool because their minimum wage job won’t let them keep a baby around the building, or other prerequisite to getting a job / a job that pays well enough for an apartment, they just don’t have the money to actually do any of it.
A person have a good community kitchen they can go to and get free food, and as such food stamps are worthless to them, but they can’t spend that same pittance on something that would actually help them get out of poverty like clothes and a gym membership or saving up for a small car where they can store their stuff and get to jobs, all because a government commite of people and lobbyists who have never lived outside of a gated community have decided what each poor persons budget should look like and coincidentally they all look the same.
People know how to learn to catch fish, they just can’t do it without the right tools, or because they have to be back standing in line at the shelter by 3PM each day.
I’m not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.
I think the reason you’ve taken so much flak is that money isn’t fish. Money can be converted into tools. Yes, of course you’re right that some people won’t use the money in a way which will end their homelessness, and may benefit from ‘other programs’. But the meme was specifically about people objecting to the idea of giving poor people money so that they can solve their own problems. Rolling out ‘other programs’ is great, but the ‘other programs’ will be much more effective if they’re not clogged with people that can solve their own problems with a bit of cash.
Right… But they gotta be able to afford to continually afford those tools. Rich people try to suck at much money out of people as possible. The moment they hear that poor people are receiving money is the moment they smell blood in the water. They’ll just hike up prices in response. That’s why I’m not convinced that throwing money at poor people will work.
It’s not their fault.
They didn’t do anything wrong.
It’s the rich people who are the problem.
Get rid of the rich people or their ability to price people out of life and boom! Now the money you give poor people will remain effective. Otherwise they might be able to buy tools today, but the money might not be enough to buy tools again tomorrow.
We can choose to either provide for those who lack food, housing, and other things, or we can choose not to. We often choose not to despite having both sufficient food and shelter.
We can also choose to pursue the goal of making the poor independent.
But if we choose to leave people unprovided for, that is just what we have chosen. There is no way around that.
Making the poor independent is a separate project, in the same vein as making people stop being violent, or unhealthy, or depressed, or sick. An eternal pursuit , with a curious caveat. Because in the case of the poor, if the population of dependent poor die off while the newly improved Independent population remains, it would be a success. No more dependants is the goal, quite literally. It is treated more like ridding ourselves of leeches.
Because contribution is demanded, no matter how banale, cynical, useless, performative or downright harmful. Marketing, manipulation, waste and serving up garbage is all much better than the insufficiently productive poor. Learn to weld, only to make giant steel flower beds to decorate an apartment building, supply the ridiculous demand. Supplying something is the point, regardless of how necessary the demand is.
There’s also the matter that we’ve chosen very explicitly to disallow the poor any power to simply leave the city and establish their of towns of rejects with the materials that exist in nature, as harvesting huge quantities of wood and clay without permissions – unlikely to be obtained – is expressly illegal. Apparently we have to, to protect the environment from people. But it’s not civilization’s responsibility to rectify that injustice, is it? It can just disallow you your shelter and leave it at that. Civilization does not have to compensate a man for the option it has taken away from him.
Edit 3: one last edit that I’m putting at the top because I’m not sure if people are only reading part of what I’ve written, jumping to conclusions and then putting words into my mouth; or if I’ve just been very bad at conveying what I’m trying to say.
Firstly: I’m arguing from an American perspective, something I failed to specify.
Secondly: money is great, however, many people need more than money. By all means, give them money, but make sure they have other resources in case they need it. If nothing else, there are a lot of people in homelessness or poverty with serious mental health needs. Money isn’t going to help if they can’t afford healthcare.
Thirdly: I also failed to give examples of what I meant by, do something else too. I meant, cap rent, build public housing, ensure that people have access to food even when CEOs are renting out pineapples, etc.
Finally: the US runs on greed. Prices in the US are outstripping wages dramatically because CEOs realized they could charge more. I think the reason why giving money works in studies is because CEOs don’t know who’s getting the handouts; if they did, they’d absolutely try to fleece them for the assistance money. That’s why doing it universally, so that CEOs know that a lot of people are getting additional money, without any other form of assistance, will just lead to people being priced out of life again.
Not sure how much I’ll contribute or respond after this. I’m feeling kinda discouraged due to how many people are putting words in my mouth (it may be a misunderstanding, but it’s still demoralizing).
Oh my god, I’m using fish as a metaphor for money, and teaching someone to fish as a metaphor for ensuring their ability to provide for themselves. That’s what the metaphor is about. Ensuring people’s ability to provide for themselves. Is that really what y’all are confused about? If you see me referring to “fish” then I’m talking about money, not food.
I’m not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.
And you know what, maybe they just are that way, maybe they’re just cursed to always be a dependent on someone. However, if that’s the case then they’re going to need way more help than just fish. In the meantime though, maybe treat them like human beings that are down on their luck but otherwise capable of supporting themselves. Yeah, make sure they have food, a roof over their head, water, toilets and so on, but don’t stop there. That’s why I’m saying this, there may be people who see your post and think that just throwing money at the problem will make it go away. It’ll help, but it’s not gonna fix it 100%.
Edit: I’m not sure why it’s controversial to say that people need more help than just money. Personally? If I was homeless or in poverty, I’d want more than just money. Like, I’m not saying to not give people who are homeless or in poverty money, but what I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t stop there.
Edit 2: I don’t understand why people are so confused here. I’m not saying it won’t work for some people, but there are people that it won’t work for. To repeat something I said further along, in my experience, there are people who take these things literally. In my experience, there are people who would look at this meme, say, “sounds good, let’s do that” and then get mad when it doesn’t work for everyone.
I’m not saying that money won’t help a lot of people; it would. It’s just that there are people who will take this literally and believe it’s the only thing you have to do.
Thing is, the research into direct cash transfusions and other straight basic income has shown that poor people generally have a very good idea of what they specifically need to do to get out of poverty, be that a gym membership to shower, good clothes, a bike or car, an apartment, someplace to keep documents and medications where they won’t be thrown out by cops, getting a GED after their parents threw them out for being gay, a preschool because their minimum wage job won’t let them keep a baby around the building, or other prerequisite to getting a job / a job that pays well enough for an apartment, they just don’t have the money to actually do any of it.
A person have a good community kitchen they can go to and get free food, and as such food stamps are worthless to them, but they can’t spend that same pittance on something that would actually help them get out of poverty like clothes and a gym membership or saving up for a small car where they can store their stuff and get to jobs, all because a government commite of people and lobbyists who have never lived outside of a gated community have decided what each poor persons budget should look like and coincidentally they all look the same.
People know how to learn to catch fish, they just can’t do it without the right tools, or because they have to be back standing in line at the shelter by 3PM each day.
I think the reason you’ve taken so much flak is that money isn’t fish. Money can be converted into tools. Yes, of course you’re right that some people won’t use the money in a way which will end their homelessness, and may benefit from ‘other programs’. But the meme was specifically about people objecting to the idea of giving poor people money so that they can solve their own problems. Rolling out ‘other programs’ is great, but the ‘other programs’ will be much more effective if they’re not clogged with people that can solve their own problems with a bit of cash.
Right… But they gotta be able to afford to continually afford those tools. Rich people try to suck at much money out of people as possible. The moment they hear that poor people are receiving money is the moment they smell blood in the water. They’ll just hike up prices in response. That’s why I’m not convinced that throwing money at poor people will work.
It’s not their fault.
They didn’t do anything wrong.
It’s the rich people who are the problem.
Get rid of the rich people or their ability to price people out of life and boom! Now the money you give poor people will remain effective. Otherwise they might be able to buy tools today, but the money might not be enough to buy tools again tomorrow.
We can choose to either provide for those who lack food, housing, and other things, or we can choose not to. We often choose not to despite having both sufficient food and shelter.
We can also choose to pursue the goal of making the poor independent.
But if we choose to leave people unprovided for, that is just what we have chosen. There is no way around that.
Making the poor independent is a separate project, in the same vein as making people stop being violent, or unhealthy, or depressed, or sick. An eternal pursuit , with a curious caveat. Because in the case of the poor, if the population of dependent poor die off while the newly improved Independent population remains, it would be a success. No more dependants is the goal, quite literally. It is treated more like ridding ourselves of leeches.
Because contribution is demanded, no matter how banale, cynical, useless, performative or downright harmful. Marketing, manipulation, waste and serving up garbage is all much better than the insufficiently productive poor. Learn to weld, only to make giant steel flower beds to decorate an apartment building, supply the ridiculous demand. Supplying something is the point, regardless of how necessary the demand is.
There’s also the matter that we’ve chosen very explicitly to disallow the poor any power to simply leave the city and establish their of towns of rejects with the materials that exist in nature, as harvesting huge quantities of wood and clay without permissions – unlikely to be obtained – is expressly illegal. Apparently we have to, to protect the environment from people. But it’s not civilization’s responsibility to rectify that injustice, is it? It can just disallow you your shelter and leave it at that. Civilization does not have to compensate a man for the option it has taken away from him.