[HN Gopher] It doesn't cost much to improve someone's life
___________________________________________________________________
It doesn't cost much to improve someone's life
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 27 points
Date : 2025-03-11 16:43 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (ourworldindata.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ourworldindata.org)
| JohnFen wrote:
| I've temporarily dialed back on my charitable contributions. I
| believe that the US is at the front end of an unprecedented
| economic and political disaster, so I need to use the resources
| available to me to protect myself and my loved ones as best as I
| can.
|
| Once I have that arranged, I can think about giving again.
| hasperdi wrote:
| What about improving our own lives. I live in a first world
| country, work as a dev with decent earning. But finding things
| are expensive these days
| jfengel wrote:
| Things have indeed gotten more expensive. But is it crimping
| your style? Do you eat enough $7/doz eggs and drink enough
| $11/gal milk to make a difference?
|
| There are quite a few Americans for whom it is, and I'd also
| like to see more aid given to Americans who need it.
| Unfortunately, I don't see any effort towards that. Any savings
| from canceling foreign aid appears to be directed into tax cuts
| -- sadly, not something that benefits those who can't afford
| eggs.
| yapyap wrote:
| statistically people reading articles these days are often well
| off enough that improving their own lives won't mean much in
| terms of "sleeping under a bridge vs under a roof" or "eating
| or not eating", whereas for others that might be the case.
|
| Also nobody said you can't improve your own life at the same
| time.
|
| Also you helping other people doesn't have to be necessarily
| monetarily.
| kulahan wrote:
| If you work as a dev in a first world country, it's hard to
| imagine you're truly struggling in any real sense (monetarily
| speaking I mean) unless you're in your first couple years I
| suppose.
|
| Still, if it somehow is the case, then this message isn't
| directed at you. It's just a little hard to imagine _most_
| developers can't handle giving up a thousand bucks a year or
| whatever, which could literally save lives in some cases.
| slwvx wrote:
| Though it wasn't directly mentioned in the article, the relevant
| context is that the Trump administration is in the process of
| cutting foreign aid by the US; see the link below for a few
| details.
|
| Looks to me like the OWID article is saying that the aid from the
| US is a good investment.
|
| [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/how-trump-s-
| di...
| jerlam wrote:
| The foreign aid provided by the US does not live in a void;
| China has been doing well in providing financial aid and loans
| across the world recently.
| kulahan wrote:
| This is not inherently a good thing, unless you believe that
| Chinese values are worth spreading over American ones.
|
| This is not to say that is or isn't the case, just that it's
| an effective end-result of letting them have massive
| influence globally.
|
| Additionally, many of China's deals are meant to bring
| nations into serious debt, rather than to truly lift them up.
| Again, this may also be the case with the US, so the question
| is who you would rather be your creditor.
| krapp wrote:
| China doesn't spread "Chinese values" any more than America
| spreads "American values." America is an imperialist
| capitalist hegemon that exploits and oppresses other
| nations through debt, subterfuge or violence, and as China
| (which is very capitalistic, despite it's "communist"
| veneer) expands into the power vacuum created by America's
| vacating its superpower status, it will inevitably become
| the same, probably in competition with a newly revived and
| militarized EU.
|
| So in the end, it doesn't matter whether America fucks you
| or China fucks you, or Europe fucks you, either way you're
| fucked.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| > I'm extremely happy for my taxes to be spent this way. I can't
| think of anything I'd rather contribute to.
|
| Sorry, but this is exactly the wrong answer. The correct answer
| is that a life's value is what the market determines. If there is
| not a market for something, ie: not available for purchase, the
| thing does not technically _have_ a value. If money was better
| spent elsewhere, for example for a better return, we can expect
| that people would rationally decide the optimal choice in
| aggregate.
|
| Before we get into the difference between use value and exchange
| value, know that those ideas are presented in Chapter 1 of Das
| Kapital. We would have to accept a whole series of consequences
| which would result in validating class conflict and I don't think
| anyone wants to go there.
| yummypaint wrote:
| So you are pro-salvery then?
| egypturnash wrote:
| You expect _humans_ to be _rational_? Hah, that 's a laugh.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-14 23:01 UTC)