Wait... all these people paid $15 to begin with? Are you really that poor if you can flip out $15 for any little thing that comes along.
But there's a large distance between that and having enough money to fund every level on Maslow's hierarchy, and there's a larger distance between even that and not noticing a $15 expenditure at all. Maybe they have a budget for things that make life worth living, things other than ramen and a cardboard box, and they spent $15 out of that.
Anyway, my point was that I don't think "lack of money" is a very instructive way of looking at poverty. If these people are so poor yet have $15 for an impulse buy do you think giving them $1000 is going to change their life? Probably not. Education and building better habits would really help them a lot more. They could save $1000 or probably a lot more and really turn their life around.
Oh, hmm.. How about hamburger then? Same story.
$1k would absolutely be a lifechanger. I'd be able to go get my colonoscopy that I desperately need, or be able to at least go to a therapist to help get over my fear of needles in preparation for that.
You bet I'll drop $15 on CAH. I'm not going to deny myself entertainment just because there are other things I need.
Look at it this way: $15 is a one-time expense. Health insurance is $400/mo.
And I'm not even that poor. I'd rather the $1k go to someone who needs it more than me.
Not knowing what is happening to your own body is an extremely scary scenario
It's a "complicated promotion" and in this phase they are redistributing wealth to the poorest of the group who paid -- not to the poorest people in the country. I had originally thought that people were signing up with the hopes of getting a payback -- some kind of horrible poorest person wins the pot kind of game. But this is literally, "Pay us $15 and we will do something crazy with it". So far the other things they have done is bought up land to try to interfere with Trump's wall between the US and Mexico (and built a trebuchet), and set up a "good news only podcast" (and sent out stickers).
Most people in the US have discretionary spending even if they are poor. $15 to participate in crazy stunts to "save America"? Certainly there are people who can not afford that, but I don't think that was ever the point.
Edit: Is $1000 potentially life changing for people who are not in abject poverty. I think point is: yes. They point out that half of Americans do not have any emergency money at all. So you don't even need to be in poverty to be living hand to mouth. Will $1000 realistically change that? Clearly not. But the whole thing is a bit tongue in cheek.
I blame this lack of financial education on our failing high schools and bad parenting. And a stigma against judging others for poor financial choices (I see people in this thread lauding the gifts the charity recipients plan to buy).
Like you, I wish they taught a lot of these skills in high school, but just like the math they teach in high school -- it will be out of reach for a lot of people. Those are the people who need the skills the most. We could stand in judgement over those people, but to what purpose? The solution is far more complex than it appears.
As I get older, though, I am confronted with the spectre of real poverty. What happens when you get ill and you can't afford the treatment? What happens if you live in a country where there is no social net to fall back upon? And as I've watched friends that I grew up with start to suffer from mental illness, what happens when your own brain betrays you?
No amount of skills will save you from these plagues. Unless you are mercifully run over by a number 72 bus while you are in your prime, eventually you too will succumb. When you are beyond your ability; have reached the ends of your wits and don't know what to do; how do you want others to act?
Your comment makes me think we really are worse off than many people are aware of.
You can go to a movie. Are you going to really fault someone for that, or taking their partner to a restaurant, using what little they have, to just try and forget how bad things are for a few hours?!
It's not like they can just stop being poor.
But, when the topic of wealth redistribution comes up I do start to have a lot more questions about what people want to do with the money. After all, it's not their money. They didn't earn it. Somebody else did. I think it's pretty fair to at least have the conversation. I absolutely hate the "helpless poor people" trope and the idea that if they just had more money everything would be better. How often do good and well meaning ideas have horrible and long lasting consequences that were not intended.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/08/23/214210692/the-...
There's actually a mounting volume of convincing evidence that cash grants to poor people are much more effective than random charity programs of equivalent value. Because poor people often know what they need more than some paper pusher in a faraway city.
Although you did say 'very' poor people, this was the thought that popped into my mind.
And what exactly does Zuckerburge do earn the millions he makes every year? Personally, nothing. Everything him and Gates et. al. did was leverage the capital of people they convinced to work for them.
When I worked in an office in Seattle where a 1/bdr was $1800/month, I would watch a janitor come around each day and empty my trash can. I'm sure he made a fraction of what I did, but honestly, I'm sure he did more work .. or at least the same amount. What I do is more difficult, and I was lucky to be raised in a family that had the means to send me to college and I was lucky to pick a career field that earned me that money.
So much of what we have isn't earned. It's more by chance. The major determining factor in your succeeding (school, career, etc.) is determined before you are born. If you're born into poverty, it is very very difficult to get out.
To quote George Carlin, it's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it.
The "wealth distribution" is entirely at CAH's expense. They only surfaced that language because they made a point of communicating to the non-recipients that they wouldn't be receiving anything on top of their original contract (of getting the game for cash, which they totally got).
They "Deserve To Taste Something Other Than Shame", by Ijeoma Oluo: https://theestablishment.co/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-som...
I realize I didn't clarify explicitly. While I'd agree that a one-time $15 gamble would be an irrationally exorbitant expense if it was in place of a family meal, I think we're talking about different things.
Even if "poor people" were <$1000 away from financial ruin, $15 towards a reusable entertainment asset is quite different than $15 towards one-off lottery tickets.