Oh hey, also the same thing with environmental issues

  • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 month ago

      Most people who are homeless were a paycheck or two away from homelessness.

      It’s easier for the housed to become homeless, than for the homeless to become housed. It’s systemic, and a good chunk of it is employers mistreating employees.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Okay, and? Again, some people are gonna need more than just money. Furthermore, money doesn’t help the fact that they’re being overcharged for rent, food, healthcare, whatever. Give them money and the prices will just go up. You have to address the cause too.

        • davidagain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          The cause is doofuses saying crap like “don’t raise the minimum wage, it’s inflationary” so that the corporations get away with hunger wages. Countries with significantly higher minimum wages famously don’t have significantly more expensive burgers.

          • Xenny@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I can tell you for a fact I’m working for a burger place right now they haven’t raised the wages in 3 years but they’ve raised the prices three times since then. I’m about to not be working here anymore

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 month ago

              Well done for going for something better.

              The cause of most inflation is corporate greed, not excessive wealth amongst poor people!

          • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            That’s because they go the extra mile and do things like cap rent and shit. If you want to solve poverty, that’s the kind of thing you have to do. The US is run on greed, which is why prices are rising faster than inflation, but wages aren’t even keeping up with inflation.

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              So what on earth made you think that giving money to poor people would be the cause of inflation?! I’ll tell you what, it’s corporations spending a lot of money and time buying politicians who will parrot their line that raising the minimum wage will make inflation get out of control, whereas the main thing they’re worried about is not making quite such astronomical profits. MW has barely changed in the USA over decades but has risen much more elsewhere. If the theory were right, USA would have been largely free of inflation and the rest of western democracies would be far worse, but I’m fact inflation is bad everywhere. Why? Corporate greed. Poor regulation. International tax avoidance.

              • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                US dollars make up nearly 60% of the world’s reserve currency. I could be mistaken here, but my understanding is that means a significant chunk of the world is using the USD as a significant part of their currency standard (#2 is the euro with just under 20%). As such, if I understand correctly that means that if the US dollar undergoes inflation, then the rest of the world will experience at least some inflation as well.

                MW has barely changed in the USA over decades but has risen much more elsewhere. If the theory were right, USA would have been largely free of inflation…

                This is only true if you look at federal minimum wage. Wages aren’t keeping up with inflation, but most US cities have an official or unofficial minimum wage of $15/hr. I think that shift happened about 10yrs ago, and afaik nothing’s changed since then.

                Why? Corporate greed. Poor regulation. International tax avoidance.

                Exactly. They knew they could charge more, and so they did. That’s what inflation is. Everyone realized they could charge more, so they did. The dollar decreased in value because prices went up across the board.

                Inflation.

                • davidagain@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Seriously? You went from giving some homeless people enough money to get accommodation and food to a global inflation crisis?

                  I mean ,that’s some really absurd fear mongering right there.

                  You’ve got to be a Republican if you can swallow or invent nonsense like that. No, global inflation crises are caused by corporate reactions to war and stock market scares, not by charity projects.

                  Who the f*** ever heard of the global RedCross inflation crisis of 1987?! There wasn’t one!
                  The World Food Programme guacamole price hike of 2014?! There wasn’t one!
                  The International Rescue Committee credit crunch of 2018? There wasn’t one!
                  The The World Health Organization cancer treatment rising expense scandal of 2023? There wasn’t one!

                  Why didn’t these things happen?

                  Because giving people in dire straights enough to get them back on their feet IS NOT a cause of any kind of inflation. Stop making out that your crazy catastrophe theories are even slightly plausible,

                  Charitable crisis solving is safe. It’s unequivocally good for the economy. Keeping people on the streets and hence out of work is bad for the economy. Alleviating abject poverty is unequivocally GOOD.

                  • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    I give up. You’re not reading what I’m saying. I’m actually pretty far left, further left than it seems you or most of the people here are considering how they object to the idea that people should receive whatever assistance they need, not just have money thrown in their face and told to fuck off

                    Edit: sigh one last try. I think you’re fucking with me, and if so then you’re doing a really good job, so congrats. Well done, you got me pretty good.

                    Seriously? You went from giving some homeless people enough money to get accommodation and food to a global inflation crisis?

                    Actually yes. It sounds unhinged, but when you’re talking about rich people, they’ll do whatever to get richer. Rich people will unironically bring the economy to the brink of collapse if it means they’ll get richer. Where have you been the past, oh I dunno, all of human civilization?

                    It’s not poor people’s fault.

                    It’s nothing they’ve done.

                    It’s all rich people.

                    Get rid of the rich people. Now you won’t have to keep increasing the money you give poor people. Otherwise someone might be able to afford tools today but be unable to buy new ones tomorrow.

    • ericbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Research seems to show that a lot of people just need a small step up to get back on track.

      So you basically just did the meme.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        What about the people that don’t? That’s what I’m saying. Yes, it’ll help significantly, but the meme is presenting it as if it’s the only solution.

        • ericbomb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, it’s presenting as the “primary” solution, which it is.

          So start by throwing money at the problem, then see what’s left.

          • flerp@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            What will be left will be mentally ill and addicts which can further be helped by throwing money at support instead of punishing them.

          • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The meme literally says,

            “How do we solve poverty”

            Research: give poor people money

            “Maybe with cheap canned food?”

            Research: no, just give them money

            “I have old clothes I hate now. I bet giving them away would help!”

            Research: No…

            “Budget lessons!”

            Research: fuck you guys.

            It literally says, “no, just give them money.”

            The reason why I’m hung up on this is because the meme is trying to be informative and funny at the same time but imo it misses the mark because it oversimplifies the issue. It’s literally saying that you just give money to poor people and poverty goes away; but that’s not how that works. It may help reduce poverty, but capitalists will just raise prices again and now you’re back at square one.

            Edit: expanded a sentence (in bold).

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              So it’s best to leave the money where it is then?!? WTF? You think that corporations raise prices in order to prevent homeless people from buying their products? What kind of crazy logic is that?

              • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                No. What I’m saying is to do more than that. Why is this so fucking hard for people to understand? I feel like I’m going crazy.

                In my experience, people take these things literally.

                In my experience, there are people who unironically would read this and think, “oh, all we gotta do is give money and then it’ll be fixed” and then get mad when it didn’t work for everyone.

                What am I missing here?

                Edit: also,

                You think that corporations raise prices in order to prevent homeless people from buying their products? What kind of crazy logic is that?

                No. But they’re going to hear the words, “[homeless will have] more money to spend [for necessities]” and then start salivating because they’re greedy as fuck. Haven’t we established that greed is the reason why prices keep getting raised?

                • davidagain@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  You’re missing that you yourself argued that giving poor people money would push prices up and wouldn’t solve the problem, but charities are increasingly finding that no strings money is the most effective and fastest and surprisingly, cheapest way of getting people out of destitution and into accommodation, employment and reconnection with family.

                  So please stop saying that giving people money is somehow an ineffective way of dealing with extreme poverty. You’re incorrect. It’s very effective indeed.

                  • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Firstly, I forgot that a lot of countries don’t have the same level of greed as the US, but I’m arguing from an American perspective. Giving out money may legitimately work in other countries, but I think American executives are too greedy for something to work like that in the US at an official capacity without additional intervention. Secondly, I’m not trying to say that. I’m saying to do more than that because I believe that companies in the US are too greedy to allow it to “just work”.

                    Money is great, but do more than that.

                    Money is great, but do more than that.

                    Money is great, but do more than that.

                    Like, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

                    Money is great, but do more than that.

                    Money is great, but do more than that.

                    Money is great, but do more than that.

                    Prices are increasing faster than inflation but wages have stagnated, yet you’re saying that more money won’t lead to people once again being priced out of life. That runs contrary to what is already going on.

                    You need to do things like cap rent, build public housing, make sure they can afford food even when CEOs are renting out pineapples, make sure they have transportation, make sure they have somewhere to live, and so on.

                    The US specifically runs on greed. If CEOs hear that everyone’s going to be getting more money, then they’re going to start charging more money because that’s how the US works. Just giving out money may work for other countries, but the US is fucked as hell. Charities giving out money doesn’t equate to everyone in need getting money which is why prices don’t increase, companies don’t know who to fleece; but if CEOs could find out who was getting the charity money, they’d absolutely try to charge them more. If everyone is getting money, then the CEOs will just fuck people over again to afford a new yacht.

                    And even then. Even then there will be people in very poor mental health who desperately need attention but they cannot afford mental health services. These people will not be able to function with money alone. These people need serious help. Money alone will not help these people.

                    The message I’m trying to convey is that you should have other things available to them if they need it; but you seem to be saying to just throw money at them and tell them to fuck off.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.