Remix.run Logo
drekipus 3 days ago

I usually get downvoted on any of my commentary on poverty or welfare, despite my lived and continued experience in it, but I'll punt again.

My family, from grandparents downwards (siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, across 3 family lines) have all relied on government handouts for a majority of their lives, and had their character destroyed by the system. All rely on a meager amount of welfare to stay alive, not healthy, not productive. Just kicking along and in alcohol and drugs just to feel something. Most have died of some form of cancer from their vices.

I joke (with a semi serious tone) that my drug-induced psychosis was the best thing for me because it broke me out of the system (tied in with a move interstate) - I lost all my old friends, family was quasi-cautious of me, and I was in a new town and had to completely rebuild myself. I had a mental health nurse nurture me "back on my feet" within 6 months and it was the first time I was actually on my feet since birth.

Governments and society, in the large part, think "something is better than nothing" - but I think it's actually the opposite. Maintaining a status quo is what makes people "comfortable in misery" and not have any way out. Most can't even get a job, because the job (which might be temporary) knocks out the welfare (which is permanent, as long as they don't get a job).

I would love to see modelling or examples on my theory of the way out of this mess: reinvest the welfare system as mental health services, only give welfare to those who are in the mental health service. Incentivise for how many people transition out of the welfare system. keep it at the same dollar amount, just reallocate that money to the people who really need it.

Some cases are almost too tragic to mention and there's no positive outcome; others have "learned" behavior and can come out of it with some help (or sometimes just some positive messaging)

I also largely blame a lot of societal/government programming. I call it "poverty programming" -- the idea that people cannot do ANYTHING without help. You absolutely will not make it on your own, you NEED support you NEED this label, medication, service, benefit.

I strive to message the opposite: you can do it, release the chains. the world is not that scary. embrace the chaos, there is a lovely world out there ready to be explored.

ehnto 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I appreciate your willingness to keep trying to communicate your experiences. It's obviously a huge spectrum of possible lived experiences and incredibly hard to legislate in a way that does the best for everyone. Do you think having a trained case worker evaluate each person's circumstances and coming up with a pathway to success makes some sense?

I think it totally could for people in just the right position and timing, but I also feel like for many it would be advice and help that could end up unreceived.

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
mmooss 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How would that be implemented on an individual basis? Force drug-induced psychosis (obviously not)? Just kick people off of support? That will have obvious, very bad downsides. And then we'll have a bigger problem with homelessness (which will get the same response).

While I don't downplay your experience; do you know of research that talks about it? The idea that people need incentives is an old one - Bill Clinton's welfare reform talked about 'a hand up, not a hand out', etc. I also remember research, though I don't know how current, that most people in welfare programs are there temporarily - they are in and out, not there on a long-term basis.

What about people who aren't going to make it on their own? Do we just let them die? A similar problem is people addicted to drugs: There is no reliable solution; rehab only works for some, not always permanently, and forcing people into it is almost certain failure (besides being a serious violation of their freedom).

There is research and experience saying 'housing first' - providing housing, which provides stability and much better access to services - helps significantly, but that may be focused on people lacking shelter.

P.S. I hope you drop the whining about downvoting. It's against guidelines and is tactical victimhood.

drekipus 3 days ago | parent [-]

I guess it really is too broad of a sector to think of any clear cut solutions. I'll tap out, but my main shtick is the poverty programming but. I think k that perpetuates.

I would agree with housing first. Definitely something that goes a long way. But it's also not clear cut (IE: too many recovering drug addicts in the same neighbourhood will bring each other down..)

While some people might only be on welfare temporarily, others are long term. And removing it drops the "floor" for everyone at once. Having seen death and evil that happens in poor.. families, societies, etc.. I don't mind the idea of letting certain elements die.

I'll keep the tactical victim hood, it's the only way I get positive responses that takes me on good faith. Otherwise I'm just a "corporate bootlicker who doesn't know anything" or "privileged male(?) with typical survivorship bias"-- I gotta get that out of the way first, this is my learned behaviour. I'm counter-programmed. Hate the game not the player.

mmooss 3 days ago | parent [-]

> I don't mind the idea of letting certain elements die.

> takes me on good faith

The first overwhelmingly rules out the second. It just makes you a psychopath (if true, which I doubt) or very much not in good faith.

Maybe some people would be ok with letting you or me die - would that be ok? Would it be clever and cool to post on HN?

You don't need to play the victim to identify yourself. One thing victims do, however, is have no compassion for others because - they're a victim!

drekipus 2 days ago | parent [-]

Ego death is necessary. I think that is perhaps that is the essence.

(the rest of it is projection and labelling so I'll try not to respond)