|
|
|
|
|
|
by i_cannot_hack
1993 days ago
|
|
|
> I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working. How would not having a car affect their ability to get to the job interview? And how would not having a fashionable formal attire affect their ability to do a good impression on the interviewer? How would not having access to entertainment affect their mental health? People probably know more about what they themselves _need_ in their situation than you do. Give them the opportunity to divide resources on their own. And investing in people beyond merely keeping them alive will generally pay dividends and be a good investment in the long run. Vaguely related: Unconditional cash transfers in charity are generally successful and have a strong multiplier effect leading to increased long-term income (must people don't just spend them on alcohol and drugs, as some would believe) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781... |
|
|
No money will go to healthy food, all of it to alcohol, drugs and tobacco, and whatever is left, will go to expensive (but not the kind you can show up in a job interview for) pre-worn-out designer clothing and cellphones that are way above what is needed.
You get these "rich-poor" kids who are unsatisfied that they're merely the top 10% instead of the top 1% without having ever lifted a finger for any of it.
I think part of this dissatisfied complacency (yes, I know how this seems opposites, but really what it is: "My life sucks, I've watched all there is to watch on Netflix and HBO so now I'm just browsing youtube and getting drunk and high most of the day, life is so _HARD_") stems from the lack of real consequence if you "fail", it breeds a special type of mentality that is hereditary, see Norway, Denmark, Sweeden and Finland for examples.