Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Kate on

I realize this is outside the scope of academic research, but I feel like the real question here is, "So what if they do?" If you give a poor family $100 and they spend $20 of it on booze, (a) they still spend $80 on other stuff, most of which probably seems more morally upstanding to judgmental non-poor people, and (b) I bet the non-poor people would ALSO have spent $20 on booze had they held onto the $100, that's just considered more acceptable. If we pay aid workers a salary, we don't begrudge them a night out with friends, funded by their salaries, but if their clients try to do the same, they're wasteful drunks. Why are poor people only allowed to be considered virtuous if they eschew every source of pleasure that costs money? It's crazy.