So in the ideal world everyone around you is doing the same thing as the card. If that is true, then when something goes wrong there will be plenty of safeguards already in place.
It takes a special kind of hubris to social welfare benefits believing you will never need them.
> So in the ideal world everyone around you is doing the same thing as the card.
That still doesn't constitute financial advice, unless your choice to follow the card somehow influences others to follow the same card, which is unlikely at any measurable level.
I think it is representative of the political volatility of many commenters here that they have chosen to interpret the last line as referring strictly to government programs. The world used is social, which could easily apply to, say, Masonic lodges, labor unions, or even (quite liberally) employer-funded disability insurance.
Not true. Those who are wealthy and happy give to charity, and not for greedy reasons or boastful vanity. Many charities provide a very valuable social safety net, and by carefully choosing what charity you give to, you can pick the ones that are the most efficient, the most effective, and the least wasteful. And no, paying taxes don't count ... you don't have a choice, there, and you can't personally ensure the money is spent to maximum effect.
That's not true. We are social creatures. If the people start behaving a certain way that exerts a very powerful influence on those around them to adopt that behavior. (Unfortunately, this phenomenon holds for negative behaviors as well as positive ones.)
Sounds like political advice more than financial advice.
In a similar vein, I would advise people to support charities that help the less fortunate like food banks, but I wouldn't consider that financial advice.
You are right it does seem more political then financial. Advising people to support charities would be financial advice, wouldn't it? I think its pretty good advice something like "Attempt to give 1% of your income to a good cause for when things go wrong"
Social insurance is a misnomer in this context. I was referring to short- and long-term disability insurance, which will cover you for many disaster scenarios.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. The alternative is to have people panhandling on the streets. That's not pleasant -- on either side of the transaction. I'd rather live in a country where it wasn't necessary.
It's not a no-brainer to me. My brain desires more data on the economic efficacy of specific social programs, because even the broad implication that social programs reduce the number of people panhandling on the streets is not obvious to me.
The card said "support social programs." It didn't say to support any particular kind of social program. Of course you want to go find one that is more effective than doing nothing. But that people should support some sort of (effective) social program so that individuals (and their families) don't have to bear the full burden of bad fortune, or even bad decision making, seems like a clear win for everyone.
> the broad implication that social programs reduce the number of people panhandling on the streets is not obvious to me
I spent two years hanging out with pandhandlers, so I can tell you form first hand experience: there are a few people who choose that lifetyle, but the vast majority of them would give it up in an instant if they had a better alternative.
I think it's too broad, because the economic efficacy of social programs probably varies wildly, especially when we're talking about government social programs.
> economic efficacy of social programs probably varies wildly, especially when we're talking about government social programs.
As opposed to literally everyone having to figure this out on their own? Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.
>they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.
There are data that suggest otherwise: Walmart, not FEMA was the best at doling out aid during Katrina; on the other side of the political spectrum, the same could be arguably be said for OWS during Sandy. On the other hand, if you're going to argue that the government is consistently bad at doling out aid, you may be right, but I don't know how good the government is at providing welfare or social services. I presume it's not exceptionally good, or else private food banks, homeless shelters, and charities wouldn't have to exist.
> There are data that suggest otherwise: Walmart, not FEMA was the best at doling out aid during Katrina
This isn't what I was saying at all: I was merely saying that consistency is the wrong angle to complain about. Efficiency is a separate discussion but the one thing a large government program will be is consistent – for better or worse.
> Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.
What I'll say is that I think this is a ludicrous assumption to make, for the same reason that it would be ludicrous to assume that government food distribution or automobile production would be more consistent than pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.
