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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well done for going for something better.
The cause of most inflation is corporate greed, not excessive wealth amongst poor people!
Research seems to show that a lot of people just need a small step up to get back on track.
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.
No, it’s presenting as the “primary” solution, which it is.
So start by throwing money at the problem, then see what’s left.
The meme literally says,
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).
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?
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,
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?
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.
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.
What will be left will be mentally ill and addicts which can further be helped by throwing money at support instead of punishing them.
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.
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, 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.
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.