Misguided compassion
ta
income folks in order to encourage health and fitness within that
group of people . . . a worthy goal, considering the overall potential
benefits, not just to those individuals, but to the community as a
whole. Unfortunately, I don't think it accomplishes that goal -- or at
the very least, it also has some negative, unintended consequences.
Giving things away to people often encourages the welfare mentality,
fosters dependence, creates expectations on the part of the recipients
for such treatment in the future, and ultimately engenders behaviour
that is both bad for society and for the individual in that it doesn't
lead to a greater sense of self-reliance.
(of course, you have to supply folks with the basic necessities of
survival who are otherwise incapable of supplying them for themselves
-- that includes food, shelter, and basic human health care. Fitness
club memberships, on the other hand, are a luxury.)
Better alternatives:
1. Provide community-sponsored health education for low income folks
that provides bona fide health education, not the food pyramid
nonsense propagated by the corporate/government cooperative.
2. Provide discounted/free health club memberships for those
individuals who participate/assist in the health education program, or
who log a certain minimum number of hours in some other volunteer
community service.
3. Only allow welfare money to be spent on healthy food (no soda,
cigarettes, liquor, candy and such).
4. Provide incentives for children who walk to school, such as
discounts on healthy treats or fitness club memberships.
5. Provide incentives for children who complete a weekly exercise log,
signed off by an adult.
6. Ban soda and candy machines from all elementary, middle, and high
schools.
7. Prohibit junk food companies from advertising within x number of
miles from all public schools, parks, and playgrounds.
8. Provide free, weekly potluck dinners in the community centers,
consisting of locally grown, organic food products, and distribute
free copies of recipes.
9. Provide tax incentives for individuals who purchase organic foods
(hey, even Walmart is selling organic food these days).
10. Tax all products containing "high fructose corn syrup" (hey, we
already have "sin taxes" on cigarettes, and diabetes no doubt kills
many more people than cigarettes).
11. Other things that I can't think of right now.
Dan Clore
> 10. Tax all products containing "high fructose corn syrup" (hey, we
> already have "sin taxes" on cigarettes, and diabetes no doubt kills
> many more people than cigarettes).
Or at least end the subsidies for its production.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
ta
> ta wrote:
> > 10. Tax all products containing "high fructose corn syrup" (hey, we
> > already have "sin taxes" on cigarettes, and diabetes no doubt kills
> > many more people than cigarettes).
>
> Or at least end the subsidies for its production.
That too.
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
bigfl...@gmail.com
How about banning the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars
spent each week on brainwashing people into self destructive
behaviour!
One of the ironies of our society ( I live in Aus and have made a
career our of health clubs since 1976), is the feedom to be self
creative or self destructive.
It doesnt matter a hoot, what incentives the community offers. Those
with the motivation will use the Y (in Aus and the UK payment is
required), or any other facility available, and the self discipline
developed is the most valuable attribute to the society as a whole,
even if only a source of inspiration to others.
Each one who does, heightens the mean!
The only way a society can enforce such activities, is by making
people pay if they dont participate, not unlike car insurance schemes.
Very "big brotherish" but I have predicted for decades that the
greatest threat to both the economy and stability of the society, is
the burgening cost of preventable illness.
I was involved in Aus with Keiser Permanente for a short time in the
eighties, where they were trying a system to encourage their members
to stay fit, and thus reduce the level of claims, and to also reduce
the premiums, but I lost touch. They offered a meal replacement
product available only on docs prescription only for the clinically
obese, where they also signed up for an exercise regime, and
psychological councelling.
Last I heard, you could buy it of the supermarket shelf. It was called
'Optifast' over here, and Modifast in the Us from memory. They most
probably made more money out of the sale of that, compared with their
first ideal, but Im only guessing.
There are monitors that can be worn by the partcipent today, to prove
their activity level, but aqain, a bit big brotherish.
BOfL
*Anarcissie*
> The local YMCA apparently offers free or discounted memberships to low
> income folks in order to encourage health and fitness within that
> group of people . . . a worthy goal, considering the overall potential
> benefits, not just to those individuals, but to the community as a
> whole. Unfortunately, I don't think it accomplishes that goal -- or at
> the very least, it also has some negative, unintended consequences.
>
> Giving things away to people often encourages the welfare mentality,
> fosters dependence, creates expectations on the part of the recipients
> for such treatment in the future, and ultimately engenders behaviour
> that is both bad for society and for the individual in that it doesn't
> lead to a greater sense of self-reliance.
That is very theoretical. What is the actual, material
outcome of the YMCA's policy? Do you observe people
becoming more dependent on its free or low-cost
memberships, and if so, what is the concrete effect
of this dependence?
John Jones
> The local YMCA apparently offers free or discounted memberships to low
> income folks in order to encourage health and fitness within that
> group of people . . . a worthy goal, considering the overall potential
> benefits, not just to those individuals, but to the community as a
> whole. Unfortunately, I don't think it accomplishes that goal -- or at
> the very least, it also has some negative, unintended consequences.
>
> Giving things away to people often encourages the welfare mentality,
It's not giving things away. It's giving things at their correct market
value.
ta
> On Nov 24, 3:22 pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The local YMCA apparently offers free or discounted memberships to low
> > income folks in order to encourage health and fitness within that
> > group of people . . . a worthy goal, considering the overall potential
> > benefits, not just to those individuals, but to the community as a
> > whole. Unfortunately, I don't think it accomplishes that goal -- or at
> > the very least, it also has some negative, unintended consequences.
>
> > Giving things away to people often encourages the welfare mentality,
> > fosters dependence, creates expectations on the part of the recipients
> > for such treatment in the future, and ultimately engenders behaviour
> > that is both bad for society and for the individual in that it doesn't
> > lead to a greater sense of self-reliance.
>
> That is very theoretical. What is the actual, material
> outcome of the YMCA's policy? Do you observe people
> becoming more dependent on its free or low-cost
> memberships, and if so, what is the concrete effect
> of this dependence?
Well, no, but we can make observations about welfare programs in
general and draw reasonable conclusions about similar programs. We can
also draw reasonable conclusions based on our understanding of human
behaviour.
In a corrupt and unfair economic system, and in a culture rampt with
mental illness, I think it's a necessary evil to subsidize life's
basic necessities for those who are incapable of providing them for
themselves. I don't consider a fitness club membership one of life's
necessities, however.
Some business implement a "pay what you can afford" model. Call me old-
fashioned, but I believe that if I can't pay for it, then I can't
afford it. That's why I don't drive a BMW . . . or hell, a Honda.
If BMW is going to offer me a new 8-series sedan for 10K, shouldn't I
expect the same treatment from Toll Brothers?
*Anarcissie*
I asked for the specifics because I'm having
trouble visualizing the problem. If you distribute
a necessity, say, food, to rational beings they are
likely to stop looking for food and will eventually
become dependent on the free food distribution,
unless they apprehend that it may be terminated,
in which case it will be rational for them to
preserve their hunting, scavenging and trading
skills with regard to food.
In the case of a luxury, however, like time in the
Y's gym, there is little to become dependent on.
There is also probably little marginal cost to the
Y, because they would not make such an offer
if they didn't have unused space and equipment.
The offer may actually be a loss-leader sort of
sales strategy: some of the poor will eventually
emerge from poverty and then, if they have
enjoyed the Y's facilities, will become paying
customers.
ta
Ok, then perhaps "dependence" is the wrong word. But you are setting
up expectations (false ones, imo) for similar treatment in the future
in other walks of life. After all, if the Y is going to give me free
gym memberships (that is, I'm going to get something for nothing),
then why shouldn't the ice cream store? Or the tanning salon?
And so by conditioning folks to get something for nothing, I believe
that there is at least some tradeoff for the short-term (or perhaps
even long-term) benefits of the health club membership. My proposed
alternatives are intended to gain the short-term benefits without
getting the potential long-term negative effects.
> There is also probably little marginal cost to the
> Y, because they would not make such an offer
> if they didn't have unused space and equipment.
> The offer may actually be a loss-leader sort of
> sales strategy: some of the poor will eventually
> emerge from poverty and then, if they have
> enjoyed the Y's facilities, will become paying
> customers.
Ok, so there are two issues:
1. Whether the program is actually driven by compassion or something
else (increased profits). Certainly businesses who operate on a "pay
what you can afford" model are doing so because at the very least, it
does not hurt them financially, as in the case of the Y. Their doors
are going to be open regardless of how many people show up, and so
allowing more people in does not incur a loss. Plus it's good PR. And
at best, as you point out, it may result in increased profits down the
road. (and of course, they may not get that limited business at all
without such concessions). For example, I don't think the movie
theaters who offer discount movie tickets to low income folks are
generally driven by compassion. The YMCA?
2. Whether the behaviour, regardless of motive, actually results in
the publicly expressed goal of helping the less fortunate. On this
point, I defer to my stated position above.