

To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor - gruseom
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/to-beat-back-poverty-pay-the-poor

======
codex
I believe each person should have the opportunity to rise to the limits of
their own ability for both practical and moral reasons. If this program works,
I am in favor.

That said, people aren't equal. Evolution wants diversity in human offspring
to ensure survival of the species in the face of an unknown future. Until
science can remove this diversity, the poor will always be with us by
definition. Even if we could make everyone "equal", there's no good definition
of "equal", and a monoculture would very, very bad for our species over the
long term.

------
rick888
This doesn't sound like anything more than a welfare program. Welfare programs
generally don't work, because it leaves most people with little incentive to
go out and succeed.

It's also interesting that the only way to solve the 'inequality gap' is to
take money away from one person and give it to another.

~~~
gruseom
Begging your pardon, that strikes me as a quintessentially ideological
response. The author's entire point is that the programs she's writing about
_are_ working, that is, people are "going out and succeed[ing]", assuming you
consider peasant farmers' children becoming nurses and accountants to be a
success.

Do we have any evidence that she's incorrect on the facts? I don't mean in
general, I mean specifically: in Brazil and Mexico, as the article describes.

The interesting thing here is the opportunity to observe and measure, rather
than affixing labels ("welfare program") and dismissing based on pre-existing
beliefs. The abstract arguments just lead around in circles.

Edit: this article was posted a week ago but received no discussion. I posted
it again because, whether it's right or wrong, it deserves extensive
discussion; plus if it's right, it counts as an interesting new phenomenon.
New to me anyway.

~~~
rick888
"Do we have any evidence that she's incorrect on the facts?"

There are a few examples of this succeeding in the article. I would also like
to know the overall amount of money spent, how much money was taken through
taxes, and how many didn't succeed. I'm guessing these stats aren't available.
Things aren't always rainbows and unicorns.

"The interesting thing here is the opportunity to observe and measure, rather
than affixing labels ("welfare program") and dismissing based on pre-existing
beliefs. The abstract arguments just lead around in circles."

Why can't we call it what it is? When people tell me I can't use labels, it's
generally because they want to try to hide the truth about something. When you
live long enough (although I am only 30), you realize that most things aren't
new...including the ideas in this article.

The definition of welfare (taken from dictionary.com): receiving financial aid
from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and
need.

Pretty much sounds like these programs in Brazil and Mexico.

