Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 19:59:24 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   in reply to

   @amerika

   > This is not objective per se, since it does not consider IQ and mental health issues.

   Sure it is... people with high IQ and are poor have a harder time getting out of it than people with a high IQ and not poor.. same as people with health issues. So the statement that a person being poor will have a harder time getting out of it than if that person were not poor is objectively true. There is no situation where being poorer would not be harder to get out of then if you werent poorer.

   > And what if the answer is simply mental health problems and low IQ stemming from biological unfitness?

   If someone is poor due to being mentally incapable of working, or some other health issue then that person would still have a much harder time getting out of their shitty situation than a person who has low IQ but happened to inhereit a trust fund worth a billion, no matter how stupid they may be the person with the money will still have as good a life as possible while the poor low IQ person will almost certainly die.

   > Most people who are poor are poor for a reason.

   As someone who has taken in about a dozen poor people from the streets and invested in them to get them back on their feet I can say this logic is not entierly true. Yes ther eare many people who are poor for a reason, for most those reasons are a lack of oppertunity, lack of access to schooling or good parenting, or traumas experienced from war. There are some people who are poor out of sheer luck.

   Not sure how it changes anything i said just because there is an explainable reason for many people to be poor, reasons that often are out of their control, or if it is in their control they havent had access to the resources to know how to control it (like financial education).

   > Equity tends to mean equality of outcome, to use your phrase, because that way the individual is subsidized.

   Not at all, the people who started using the term Equity in the context of social unfairness specifically coined it as a contrast to equality of outcome. See the meme i posted, which is the meme that started the whole "equity vs equality' conversation. As you can see they very distinctly show that equality and equity are different concepts (though i dont think the meme clearly explains what they are)

   > I think the subsidies accelerate the self-destruction of a society.

   As discussed it would depend ont he subsidies. If you are giving money to someone solely based on their age or race I'd agree. If you are doing it based on poverty then it would depend on how that money is used. If all you do is hand a poor person a sack of cash it wont fix the underlying problem, so i agree that is not a good approach.