30 ms·

Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are

Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are differences between the subcultures, and those differences almost certainly extend to how they treat money. Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated. If you're a poor black person (or latino, or Cherokee, or whatever), and you're living in a land that's dominated by a group that's not like you, you are less likely to respect that money than if a) that money came from a source that was yours, and b) you knew that if that source believed that you were disrespecting that money, they would cut it off. Both stipulations apply here. Giving a small band of Cherokee profits from one of their own casinos =/= giving poor blacks and latinos federal assistance. They aren't even close. Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical that free money for the majority of the poor is actually a good idea. Anything else, as I said in another thread, is half-measures.

mchusma 13y ago
Here is a study that shows giving poor rural Indians a stipend. Positive results: http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income
rauljara 13y ago
You left out poor white people in your discussion. While white people do have a lower rate of poverty than blacks or latinos, they actually make up a very large majority (68.5% as of 2009) of the people living under the poverty line in the United States. [1] "... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here." "Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical... " I'm all in favor of repeating the experiment in whatever populations, ideally the general one on a large enough sample size to tease out demographic information. I don't want to seem like I'm implying something here, so I will instead say overtly that I find the way you've singled out certain populations for skepticism with regards to whether they should be helped disturbing. [1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/poverty.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditu...
- prawn 13y ago
  Poor white people were left out of that comment because the writer's point was about minorities with access to a payment that didn't feel like "theirs". A poor white person receiving welfare from a largely white government/authority might not be a good comparison.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  Forgive me for offending your politically correct sensibilities, but it seems that I'm going to have to be even more blunt: if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comprised predominately of minorities and cross your fingers that it is a success. It doesn't matter whether those below the poverty line are 65% or 5% white - it's the minorities that they're concerned with. That's just the political reality of the situation. And while we're on the subject of statistics, I may as well go ahead and ask about yours: where did you get that figure from? Because I found something much different: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_weal... According to this, only about 25% of people living in poverty were white, and that includes the somewhat dubious category 'white, not hispanic.' (It's near the bottom, Table B) That also includes white retirees, which inflates the figure as you're taking the number of retirees from a large category and sticking them into a smaller category, which means they will be over-represented in the smaller category. And that's not even mentioning the rate of poverty or welfare participation, which is where the common perception that blacks and latinos abuse the welfare system comes from in the first place. It's much higher than it is or other races. When you dig into the data, it usually turns out that stereotypes exist for a reason, and this appears to be no exception.
  - thyrsus 13y ago
    I don't believe those who have contempt for the poor have any less contempt for science, and social science in particular.
  - 13y ago
mcherm 13y ago
> Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. [...] Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would [...] I can't be sure what you intended to say here, but the message it sounds to me like you are implying sounds quite racist to me. I DO care about poor Cherokee -- and poor humans in general. I have little reason to believe that any particular racial group would behave differently. You seem to be implying that blacks or latinos have a "different subculture" particularly in how they "treat money". I have no idea why you would believe this and unless there is good evidence to support it I would speculate it is probably just prejudice. I say that because, historically, essentially every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue. You also seem to be suggesting that there's a psychological difference between money received as federal assistance and money received from "one of their own casinos" because of considering it "theirs". That's an interesting claim. If true, then perhaps it suggests that a stipend program, if one were to be set up, would best be presented as if it were an earned entitlement or payout -- rather like we do with Social Security.
- nahname 13y ago
  >every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue. You should re-phrase that to point at racist claims. There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/
  - peteretep 13y ago
    > There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example. Or, you know, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour and hair straightness.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcherm 13y ago
gruseom 13y ago
the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  Do you know what the Swedes didn't have a problem with a decade ago? Welfare abuse. All of a sudden, they have a problem with it now. Do you know who are the ones abusing the system? Hint: it's not the Swedes. Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems. If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period. If you can get over yourself for a second, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why.
  - warmblood 13y ago
    I got over myself... is it prejudice? Because I'm pretty sure it's prejudicial interpretation of whatever data or anecdote you're making vague reference to.
  - splitrocket 13y ago
    So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in the heterogeneous society of modern civilization. Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
    - notdrunkatall 13y ago
      You have my position wrong. You people suck at this.
kabouseng 13y ago
As an alternative example to what happens when you give the poor a stipend, have a look at the government grant system employed in South Africa, and the absolute misuse and abuse that system is under. I believe the South African example is a closer approximation to what a society would look like with a basic guaranteed income.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Do you have some links to sources?
  - kabouseng 13y ago
    I'll have to go search for some, I've only got my own experience :D. Give me a day or two, I don't mind getting some for you.
  - kabouseng 13y ago
    Ok I'm back. Just googling "South African grants misuse" will give you plenty of sources. I wont link the top results, but your more than welcome to look for yourself. The system is rife with corruption and abuse. Also of note is that about 2 - 3 million tax payers carry the burden of upwards of 12 million grant receivers. An unsustainable system collapsing under its own weight.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      +1 for actually coming back, even if not with exact links. I must say that I find it hard to get a good picture from the links in a simple Google search, and your numbers seem weird. South Africa has a population of 50+ million, how do you end up saying that there are only 2-3 million tax payers? That makes no sense, given that typically everybody pays taxes, directly or indirectly.
      - kabouseng 13y ago
        My apologies then. Here are the links I had a skim through: http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/05/25/social-grants-abuse-exposed http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/05/25/social-grants... http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=4121 http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=4121 http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/young-moms-abuse-grant-system-1.1571680#.UuCa-RTFL-s http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/young-moms-abuse-gran... Please note the variance in the sources (even communist party :D ), so not really a biased picture. Everyone knows the grant system is being abused on a massive scale. Also the amount of people on the grant system exploded from 80 000 people receiving grants in 1998 until today's 12 000 000 people. And South Africa is not exactly a rich country... As for my taxpayer statement, you only pay taxes if you earn above a certain amount. But it is a sliding scale system, so about 2 300 000 people are responsible for 93% of all the collected taxes, supporting 12 000 000 people. Not sustainable. An in depth explanation: http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-tax/less-taxpayers-than-sars-reports-solidarity http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-tax/less-taxpayers-than-s...
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
That is an overly precious view of money. Do poor Cherokee with starving kids care where the money comes from? If they do care, does it change anything? Do we leave kids suffer because some rich folks care about what they're thinking? The fact is, the 1st attempt worked stupendously well at alleviating a critical problem. Further study will likely cause real delay and suffering, and is an excuse for inaction indefinitely.

mchusma 13y ago

Here is a study that shows giving poor rural Indians a stipend. Positive results: http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income

rauljara 13y ago

You left out poor white people in your discussion. While white people do have a lower rate of poverty than blacks or latinos, they actually make up a very large majority (68.5% as of 2009) of the people living under the poverty line in the United States. [1] "... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here." "Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical... " I'm all in favor of repeating the experiment in whatever populations, ideally the general one on a large enough sample size to tease out demographic information. I don't want to seem like I'm implying something here, so I will instead say overtly that I find the way you've singled out certain populations for skepticism with regards to whether they should be helped disturbing. [1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/poverty.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditu...

prawn 13y ago
Poor white people were left out of that comment because the writer's point was about minorities with access to a payment that didn't feel like "theirs". A poor white person receiving welfare from a largely white government/authority might not be a good comparison.
notdrunkatall 13y ago
Forgive me for offending your politically correct sensibilities, but it seems that I'm going to have to be even more blunt: if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comprised predominately of minorities and cross your fingers that it is a success. It doesn't matter whether those below the poverty line are 65% or 5% white - it's the minorities that they're concerned with. That's just the political reality of the situation. And while we're on the subject of statistics, I may as well go ahead and ask about yours: where did you get that figure from? Because I found something much different: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_weal... According to this, only about 25% of people living in poverty were white, and that includes the somewhat dubious category 'white, not hispanic.' (It's near the bottom, Table B) That also includes white retirees, which inflates the figure as you're taking the number of retirees from a large category and sticking them into a smaller category, which means they will be over-represented in the smaller category. And that's not even mentioning the rate of poverty or welfare participation, which is where the common perception that blacks and latinos abuse the welfare system comes from in the first place. It's much higher than it is or other races. When you dig into the data, it usually turns out that stereotypes exist for a reason, and this appears to be no exception.
- thyrsus 13y ago
  I don't believe those who have contempt for the poor have any less contempt for science, and social science in particular.
- 13y ago

mcherm 13y ago

> Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. [...] Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would [...] I can't be sure what you intended to say here, but the message it sounds to me like you are implying sounds quite racist to me. I DO care about poor Cherokee -- and poor humans in general. I have little reason to believe that any particular racial group would behave differently. You seem to be implying that blacks or latinos have a "different subculture" particularly in how they "treat money". I have no idea why you would believe this and unless there is good evidence to support it I would speculate it is probably just prejudice. I say that because, historically, essentially every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue. You also seem to be suggesting that there's a psychological difference between money received as federal assistance and money received from "one of their own casinos" because of considering it "theirs". That's an interesting claim. If true, then perhaps it suggests that a stipend program, if one were to be set up, would best be presented as if it were an earned entitlement or payout -- rather like we do with Social Security.

nahname 13y ago
>every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue. You should re-phrase that to point at racist claims. There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/
- peteretep 13y ago
  > There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example. Or, you know, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour and hair straightness.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mcherm 13y ago

gruseom 13y ago

the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.

notdrunkatall 13y ago
Do you know what the Swedes didn't have a problem with a decade ago? Welfare abuse. All of a sudden, they have a problem with it now. Do you know who are the ones abusing the system? Hint: it's not the Swedes. Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems. If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period. If you can get over yourself for a second, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why.
- warmblood 13y ago
  I got over myself... is it prejudice? Because I'm pretty sure it's prejudicial interpretation of whatever data or anecdote you're making vague reference to.
- splitrocket 13y ago
  So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in the heterogeneous society of modern civilization. Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
  - notdrunkatall 13y ago
    You have my position wrong. You people suck at this.

kabouseng 13y ago

As an alternative example to what happens when you give the poor a stipend, have a look at the government grant system employed in South Africa, and the absolute misuse and abuse that system is under. I believe the South African example is a closer approximation to what a society would look like with a basic guaranteed income.

nhaehnle 13y ago
Do you have some links to sources?
- kabouseng 13y ago
  I'll have to go search for some, I've only got my own experience :D. Give me a day or two, I don't mind getting some for you.
- kabouseng 13y ago
  Ok I'm back. Just googling "South African grants misuse" will give you plenty of sources. I wont link the top results, but your more than welcome to look for yourself. The system is rife with corruption and abuse. Also of note is that about 2 - 3 million tax payers carry the burden of upwards of 12 million grant receivers. An unsustainable system collapsing under its own weight.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    +1 for actually coming back, even if not with exact links. I must say that I find it hard to get a good picture from the links in a simple Google search, and your numbers seem weird. South Africa has a population of 50+ million, how do you end up saying that there are only 2-3 million tax payers? That makes no sense, given that typically everybody pays taxes, directly or indirectly.
    - kabouseng 13y ago
      My apologies then. Here are the links I had a skim through: http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/05/25/social-grants-abuse-exposed http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/05/25/social-grants... http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=4121 http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=4121 http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/young-moms-abuse-grant-system-1.1571680#.UuCa-RTFL-s http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/young-moms-abuse-gran... Please note the variance in the sources (even communist party :D ), so not really a biased picture. Everyone knows the grant system is being abused on a massive scale. Also the amount of people on the grant system exploded from 80 000 people receiving grants in 1998 until today's 12 000 000 people. And South Africa is not exactly a rich country... As for my taxpayer statement, you only pay taxes if you earn above a certain amount. But it is a sliding scale system, so about 2 300 000 people are responsible for 93% of all the collected taxes, supporting 12 000 000 people. Not sustainable. An in depth explanation: http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-tax/less-taxpayers-than-sars-reports-solidarity http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-tax/less-taxpayers-than-s...

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

That is an overly precious view of money. Do poor Cherokee with starving kids care where the money comes from? If they do care, does it change anything? Do we leave kids suffer because some rich folks care about what they're thinking? The fact is, the 1st attempt worked stupendously well at alleviating a critical problem. Further study will likely cause real delay and suffering, and is an excuse for inaction indefinitely.