Don’t you think they migh become codependent? I’d lead them in the right direction, give them advice, etc., but not subsidize, unless they are truly out in the streets.
I can see if it’s your little brother or little sister and helping out with some tuition though.
Not everyone has the means or luck to "escape poverty".
I really don't like your implication that it's just "their fault" if they're worse off than you. In a system that is designed to exploit "low skilled" labor.
"Codependent" is a really weird choice of word too.
I have a member as described. Extra money and effort are wasted on them.
Some people do have a good head on their shoulders and just need _some_ help, but not a “subsidy”. Like I said, younger sibling needs some help? Sure. Need some money to tide over rent this one time, ok. No recurring stream though.
There are lots of other reasons to not give someone money besides them being a grifter. There’s not feeding their addiction, not enabling them to continue postponing taking action that will improve themselves or their situation beyond the short term. People can be simultaneously earnest and delusional or fearful.
I felt like this for a long time, until the financial crisis in 2008.
My sister and her family were struggling so badly. Underwater mortgage, lost the house to foreclosure, could barely afford to rent a place. They were discussing having to leave the area (Southern California) moving hours away from grandparents, uncles, aunts and friends, and of course me and my family.
In the end, I bought a house in 2010 specifically for her and her family. I continue to rent it to them at below market rate (They don't cover the morgage payment, but come close), and although we've had a few close calls, they have yet to miss a rent check, and have recovered significantly on their own without further help from me or other family.
There has been zero co-dependence.
Since they pay rent, and take good care of the house, it really has helped them maintain a sense of dignity. I let them treat the house as if it was their own, and they take excellent care of it.
I think this was a better option than just bailing the out. All parties really get something out of it, not to mention the emotional aspect of having close family continue to live close by.
With the current situation in America, there's really no other thing to do.
Yes they might become codependent, but if you look at the situation realistically there's not a lot they can do to change the situation. Being there as a safety net can take a lot of mental pressure off of them.
On the other hand, having family take care each other is a more robust and decentralized system than us all being atomized and being cared for by the state.
> more robust and decentralized system than us all being atomized and being cared for by the state.
Decentralized, sure. Robust? No way. Unless they are wealthy and economically independent, your family are a small number of failures away from not being able to support you. A locally correlated failure ( i.e a plant or industry that employs many of them folds) can knock out the support system. Not to mention that unlike government programs, your family are under no legal obligation to help you.
Here's some robustness for you: our ancestors have been depending on their respective families since humans were a species. Whereas the oldest extant government are only several hundred years old. And many aren't even as old as my grandparents.
> Here's some robustness for you: our ancestors have been depending on their respective families since humans were a species
It's apples-to-oranges to compare a biological definition of robustness at the species level over eons to the definition we use to evaluate the current condition of people in modern societies. They are completely different metrics, operating over different timescales, and measuring totally different phenomena. Your usage measures the survival of humans as a species on biological time scales. The version of robustness that is relevant to the article is the chance of destitution or suffering faced by the typical member of a modern society, given modern society's standards for measuring those.
Wild animal species experience extremely high mortality rates compared to humans, due to a number of factors, including predation, disease, displacement, and environmental changes.
The whole experiment of human "civilization", from animal domestication, to agriculture, to the development of technology and the societal structures needed to support all of those, has been about protecting us from the risks nature poses to our existence.
> Whereas the oldest extant government are only several hundred years old. And many aren't even as old as my grandparents.
Whether it's an extant government is irrelevant. Governments come and go, but their function doesn't remain unfulfilled for long. We know that governments of some kind or another have existed since at least 3000BC, and importantly, that these governments had mechanisms for redistribution of their society's productivity (regardless of the direction of that redistribution).
You'd probably find that ancient humans, just like many animals, formed cooperative groups that weren't limited to family, with children not infrequently cared for by nonfamily. A social safety net is nearly as ancient as life itself and seems to be contributing to the robustness of many lifeforms.
It's not more robust. One bad accident or health bill can ruin the financial stability of an entire family. Diffusing costs across a whole nation is cheaper and more stable than diffusing costs across a handful of people who are related.
I can see if it’s your little brother or little sister and helping out with some tuition though.
Also hand-me-downs are okay.