Oh hey, also the same thing with environmental issues

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months 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
      ·
      2 months 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
        9
        ·
        2 months 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 (She/They)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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
          ·
          2 months 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 (She/They)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months 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
              ·
              2 months 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 (She/They)@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months 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.

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

                  I never said you shouldn’t do anything else, I only disagreed with you when you suggested that giving them money wouldn’t help and that somehow giving homeless people money would be a driver for inflation, but homeless people eating isn’t a driver for inflation.

                  • Giving destitute people money does help. It helps a lot.
                  • You can take people to a shrink and a physiotherapist and a doctor as much as you like, but if they don’t have food and shelter it’s going to do jack shit for their mental health, their physical health and their disease resistance.

                  Guess what’s cheaper than hiring shrinks and physios and medics? Giving homeless people enough money to get food and shelter. Guess what doesn’t help homeless people solve their problems? Keeping them on the street trying to scrape together enough cash each day to get into shelter for the night.

                  • So yeah, once you’ve given them enough money to let them get themselves back into stable accommodation with enough food to eat they have the time to go looking for employment, so then you support them with that. That’s when you can supply training, but for goodness sake don’t take a homeless person to your employment training before giving them an address.
                  • And yeah, once you’ve given them enough money to allow them to get themselves back into stable accommodation with enough food to eat and some independent employment, sure, enrol them in medicare.
                  • And yeah, once you’ve given them enough money to allow them to get themselves back into stable accommodation with enough food to eat and some independent employment, and you enrolled them in medicare and they’re having a normal life, guess whose mental health improved A LOT in six months?
                  • So sure, yeah, get them a shrink once they have a life, but for goodness’ sake, what kind of an idiot goes to a rough sleeper and says “if we can talk through some of the issues you have with your dad, I’m sure it’ll seem a bit less cold at night here.”?!

                  And can you please permanently get lost with the thinking that says that we NEED abject poverty and starving people and rough sleepers to keep prices low?! Seriously, shut up. It’s not working. It never worked. The USA has some insane levels of inequality and it didn’t keep prices low in the USA. It just doesn’t. False. Crazy talk. Stop it. Wrong. No. Doesn’t help. Never helped. The poorest people having money was NEVER the cause of inflation. Nope, it isn’t, it won’t be. Please don’t come back with that shit again. Stop saying it because it’s really very stupid indeed.