The primary difference between charity from an individual-to-an-individual and charity from an institution is that the individual donor is more likely to be invested in weaning the receiver off of his dependency whereas the institution's existence (and the paid positions within it) relies in the dependency never being cured.
I was watching this video, "Why I will never do charity work ever again" and the woman lays it out in her own words.
She was a single mom on-the-dole. She took classes. She volunteered so she would have "work experiences" to put on her resume (i.e. C.V.). She joined "boards" to develop connections and to learn how act like a professional and to improve her tiny sliver of the universe.
She gained skills and confidence. She wrote a grant to create a paid position in the food coop she worked in. The grant was approved. She interviewed for that position and she didn't get the job.
The person who was hired by the interviewers was a slob with a defeatist attitude and who had virtually none of the skills the narrator had. The difference is that the narrator who had pulled herself up by her bootstraps told the interviewers that she believed that the food coop could be self-sustaining within three years and could possibly expand without the government aid. The woman who got the job told the interviewers that the food coop would (obviously) shut down the month the funding stopped.
I suspect that Mamdani's government grocery stores are being hatched in the same incubator. They will always require government subsidies to keep their doors open. Employees who point out obvious efficiencies will be shown the door. Most of the NYC votors will applaud.
And that is why not a single penny of government money should EVER be handed out without very strictly defined performance obligations and short timeline AND COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS AND TIMELINE STRICTLY ENFORCED.
ReplyDeleteI would have ended after the word "out".
DeleteI'm working on a whistleblower article about the special-ed industrial complex. A convenient and useful lens for these "social service" organizations is to apply two general laws: Parkinson's Law (the work expands to fill the available time for its completion) and the Shirky Principle (an institution will always seek to preserve the problem it was created to solve). To get the full picture, you can add in Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (An organization starts out with people who are devoted to its mission, then evolves to be run by people who are devoted to the organization itself.) The story above is a perfect example of them.
I have a corollary to Pournelle's Iron Law (Bob's Corollary): In the third phase, the organization becomes controlled by people who are devoted to using it as a vehicle for their own financial and political enrichment.
This, 1000%
DeleteIt is a sad situation.
ReplyDeleteIt exists in many areas of life - not many people are willing to work to eliminate their job.
Here is a common example many people don't think about:
Police and road safety initiatives.
Speeding is the cause of less than 30% of fatal road accidents. It is over 80% (approximately) of enforcement actions.
Every time I've seen a "highway safety blitz", or similar campaign it focuses solely on speeding (and police getting overtime).
The key to understand is that even if they completely eliminated speeding, which they won't, they aren't touching over 70% of the problem so they CAN'T make a meaningful impact on the problem.
As long as they don't address crossing center lines, running stop signs and lights, etc the possible impact on the issue is very limited - and that is the intent.
If they ACTUALLY made an impact, they couldn't justify their budget, and especially increasing it, next year.
A pessimistic Jonathan
There are seven stop lights between me and town. This is the land of crop fields and few homes and one highway.
DeleteI consider four of the lights to exist solely as revenue producers. Meaning there is little to none cross traffic to justify the light rather than a stop sign. Then only rarely.
Five of those lights have a yellow the duration shorter than the time required for a vehicle traveling at the maximum posted speed limit to enter and exit the intersection. It is entirely possible to enter the intersection on a green and the light turn red before exiting.
Two of those lights have a red that lasts for two minutes. It seems at certain hours, usually late night, that the red at those intersections lasts maybe four minutes or longer.
I am not a traffic engineer. The arguement can be made that a controlled intersection with stoplights is safer than an intersection with stop signs only.
But a light tends to lengthen the time a vehicle is at an intersection. My aunt was hit while stopped waiting for a green light. A friend was killed while stopped at a red light.
It's not that it's programmed to fail... it's why everyone is talking about UBI (welfare for everybody).
ReplyDeleteIf you look at MOST government programs, you could easily cut 60% or more across the board, and have a better functioning entity. That never happens. Most government workers are un-employable. Their institution is a make-work program for their useless carcass. The institutions always grow, because the population of un-employable people does. And they reliably vote for more-government, ergo... the cycle is perpetual until it breaks under it's own weight, or is broken.
I'm far from a fanboy, but look at what Musk did at Twatter, with DOGE.
UBI is welfare for the working class, that are incapable of working. It's about blurring social lines of distinction, that's why they work so hard to remove the stigma from sloth.
Javia Milei in Argentina showed that most of government was a hindrance to a functioning state, and Regan's famous quote that the most dangerous words anyone can hear are 'I'm from the government and are here to help'.
ReplyDeleteAll government funding must come with an active sunset clause to force an endpoint.
I have found the young lady's observation to be true, at least locally. The mission becomes sustaining or expanding the bureaucracy, not feeding people or helping them improve. If you say you could solve an issue, you effectively eliminate the jobs of the bureaucrats.You become a threat.
ReplyDeleteI have become very focused and cautious on my charitable donations ERJ, partially for this very reason.
ReplyDeleteAt some level, all bureaucracies exist to justify their existence.
NYC voters may be excited, but those that pay the taxes will eventually not be. Which will lead to its own set of issues.
In my local area we have food co-ops, homeless advocates, the local big churches have become food pantries, and we have lots of homeless who, judging from their tell tail shuffle, may also be future drug rehab customers. It is really amazing how many people gain validation and influence from supporting a growing homeless population. The churches would have no reason for existence without the homeless, oh, wait... There would be the Trans Youth problem. No victims, no virtue-in today's evangelical world...
ReplyDeleteIts 'compassion', they think (believe in their heart and soul) they're doing good. It's partly b/c the church of today has embraced a kinder, gentler version of Christianity (in my humble opinion)....but I'd digress.
DeleteI'd point this as another example of feminism ruining our nation.
For several years I was the head of our church food pantry. The typical 'customer' was the extended family all related to each other. Fine and good, so far.
DeleteBut they would complain there were not enough 'fun food' on the shelves. Certain females would try to appeal to emotion by bringing crying children and complain they were hungry unless they got more snacks.
Charity and complain are two words which should never coexist.
I then more fully understood why few were willing to invest time and energy and money into runniing the pantry.