This is a good idea (that is, as you say, probably being implemented somewhere already), but I would contest that the root cause of poverty is really inability to get a decent-paying job, because that translates to "inability to prove your worth to the people who control access to the resources you need to survive". The root cause of poverty is allowing a tiny fraction of the populace to control the resources that everybody else needs, and thus to be the judges of who is or isn't worthy of receiving them.

Translated into the fishing metaphor: the problem isn't people not knowing how to fish, the problem is people having to trade most of the fish they catch to the owners of the river in order to be allowed to fish in it. The solution is to allow people free access to the river.

There are non-profits that teach people "how to fish"; some of them work in the US (or other developed countries), and some of them work in the third world. Most of them are doing good, honest work.

The problem that these programs face, even the most excellent ones, is that many, many millions of people live in societies that are at least somewhat dysfunctional, and no amount of programming can overcome people's disadvantages on a piecemeal basis. What some countries need, frankly, is a thoroughgoing revolution to remake themselves, but... that's a very risky strategy. Look at Haiti: there's a country fucked over by crooks for decades. The US has played a role in keeping things fucked up there. The problems in Haiti are way beyond mere fishing lessons.

Education has been seen as this quasi-holy savior that solves nearly all problems in society.

Yet the fishing metaphor shows how naive the idea of education would be, if we would take it literally. The basic problem with the metaphor is that with it people sideline the true issue of a functioning economy with markets taking care of the supply and demand of labor. Charity isn't doing that. Charity is basically equivalent to central planning or an income transfer. Charity isn't at all even similar to a government program (of free education etc), a charity has to sell itself as a benign endeavor that people will give money to it and that people will feel happy afterwards.

So would it really make those otherwise starving to be fed if you teach them to fish? How do you teach them to fish? Do you teach them to angle? Do you give them a fishing rod and sent them wandering in the direction of a lake or the sea? This is what in figure of speech the worst aid programs are. Or do you make them fishermen capable of competing in the global market? So would your charity's objective be to teach them to operate a modern factory-at-sea fishing vessel and perhaps give them that vessel and send them to sail the seven seas to exploit those limited global fish reserves? Or would it more sustainable to teach them how to operate a fish farm? And how sustainable would a massive amount of fish farms be?

The classic idea of teaching Fishing - case 1:


The reality of Fishing. Really? This is the answer? - case 2:


Charities won't get money if they would help Third World countries with the slogan: "We'll transform the workforce of these poor countries to highly educated kick-ass competitive professionals so that global corporations will flock to move their factories to these countries from the US!"

With that slogan a charity won't get much money...at least in the US.


Better to make those BMW's in Africa!

Of course, there maybe very good reasons why teaching the poor job-skills will fail to produce the desired results but I just feel that...


If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime
— Anonymous — TheMadFool

You are American, are you, @TheMadFool?

Education has been seen as this quasi-holy savior that solves nearly all problems in society. — ssu

Agreed. Case in point: in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a chronic unemployment situation. Gov's idea to solve it? In Canada? To teach people good and better job hunting skills, interview skills.

This was the stupidest thing they could think of. Sure, people would be better educated in the arts of getting a job, but everyone would be. But everyone was better educated, so nobody would be advantages. Worse yet, for the 10 jobs there were 10,000 better skilled people to apply, which meant only 10 got the job, much like it would have happened before, before the education took place.

The solution is to allow people free access to the river. — Pfhorrest

Finally the libtard stratum of society would gain full employment. What with the predicted water shortages, the "cry me a river, Liberal" would be no longer a derogatory put-down, but a real, urgent and perhaps desparate plea.

For the record, I'm a Canadian, and anyone, even the extreme far right voter here, is left of the lefternmost voter in the USA as far as political ideals are concerned.

How your education policy is implemented is important.

It doesn't matter so much if the education system doesn't actively interact and get information on what the private sector needs. And creating a well functioning education system is very, very expensive. Basically you have to have that growing economy to support and sustain a great educational system.

Leaving it to charity won't work in my view. This is serious investment what we are talking about.

i agree with this for the most part. In the area i live if you can't get a security clearance, it can be very hard to get a job unless you are trained as a mechanic.

Agreed. Case in point: in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a chronic unemployment situation. Gov's idea to solve it? In Canada? To teach people good and better job hunting skills, interview skills.

This was the stupidest thing they could think of. Sure, people would be better educated in the arts of getting a job, but everyone would be. But everyone was better educated, so nobody would be advantages — god must be atheist

I think ssu addressed your concern. One reason I didn't say "education is the solution" is because it's rather non-specific and also takes a lot of time to bear fruit which, to complicate matters, isn't guaranteed.

I was thinking more along the lines of vocational training which has a smaller, thus appropriate, time-frame and can be tailored to the employment market. It would be, as you said, stupid to train 10,000 for 10 jobs but such "solutions" reflect an understanding of the roots of poverty - a lack of any perceptible skills for gainful employment. So, it's simply a question of adapting the core idea of job-skills training to the existing realities of the job market.

If the above can't be done then the only reason for that is that the economic system doesn't have the capacity to create as many jobs as required. This reminds me of Trump. He was at one time bragging about how many jobs his administration created for Americans and although he made a big deal about it, I'm guessing it did little to reduce the poverty rate in America.

One key determinant in this imbalance between jobs available and job-seeking people is mechanization. Machines are more efficient and cheaper than a human workforce: to find employment in such an environment is nearly impossible. Also, machines seem to occupy the employment sector that requires the least of skills, their only advantage being their efficiency and cost. This ultimately means that humans can find employment in areas where machines haven't entered the scene and such jobs require a level of training and skill that is both beyond the reach of many and also highly competitive.

Mechanization is probably just one of the factors leading to poverty. Whatever other factors may be involved, it brings to relief the major role of unemployment in poverty.

This is a good idea (that is, as you say, probably being implemented somewhere already), but I would contest that the root cause of poverty is really inability to get a decent-paying job, because that translates to "inability to prove your worth to the people who control access to the resources you need to survive — Pfhorrest

I see. While I agree that there's something immoral, if that's what you mean, about the arrangement of having to make yourself deserving of survival in the eyes of those who "control access to the resources" just so that they can then give you what you need. However, the notion of deservedness is also reflexive in that we impose this condition of taking only that which we deserve on ourselves. I don't know the exact rationale behind it but the alternative is theft.

The problem that these programs face, even the most excellent ones, is that many, many millions of people live in societies that are at least somewhat dysfunctional, and no amount of programming can overcome people's disadvantages on a piecemeal basis. — Bitter Crank

How are such societies dysfunctional? Personally speaking there seems to be a malady hidden from view in the economic system which itself may have origins elsewhere. I mentioned machines and how they replace humans in the workforce as a contributory factor to poverty. Machines seem to transcend any and all differences - they're literally omnipresent in all economic systems. The Americans use machines, the Russians use machines and the Chinese use machines. No race, no creed, no religion is averse to the use of machines. While they started off as friends, making work easier, they've turned into foes - replacing us instead of assisting us.

Charities won't get money if they would help Third World countries with the slogan: "We'll transform the workforce of these poor countries to highly educated kick-ass competitive professionals so that global corporations will flock to move their factories to these countries from the US!" — ssu

That's a poor view of charities and again reflects a deep flaw in the economic system that prevents us from giving real assistance to the poor and allows us actions that keep the poor poor.

I don't know the exact rationale behind it but the alternative is theft. — TheMadFool

If I understand what you're implying correctly, I would say that whoever it is that privatized the "river" (in the fishing metaphor) is the one guilty of theft, and that the solution to the problem is to correct that theft and return the "river" back to public property as it originally was.

How are such societies dysfunctional? — TheMadFool

They are dysfunctional because they have been fucked over too many times. People left to their own devices generally settle down to live ordinary lives more or less peacefully together. Until, that is, they are invaded, colonized, obliterated, subjugated, and so forth, Or until they start invading, colonizing, obliterating, subjugating, and so on. Nothing new here -- it's been going on for a long time--millennia.

But the thing is, it's very hard to fix the damage. Take Haiti: there is a country that has been multi-fucked-over. At times they have been in pretty good shape, but then some larger nation would screw them up again. Take your average banana republic: fucked over by the church, the military, international agribusiness (Chiquita banana et al), the US State Department, etc. Take Iraq: run by a dictator, subjected to a pretty bad war (USA, USA, USA ...), then some more war, ISIS, internecine terrorism, and so on.

Normally, the best fucked up societies can hope for is maybe a century or so of being left alone and they gradually put themselves back together.

It's like a plant: You can transplant a healthy specimen and it will do fine if you take care of it. But if you run over it, keep pulling it up every week, let it dry out or rot in a swamp, it will be dead before long.

One key determinant in this imbalance between jobs available and job-seeking people is mechanization. Machines are more efficient and cheaper than a human workforce: to find employment in such an environment is nearly impossible. Also, machines seem to occupy the employment sector that requires the least of skills, their only advantage being their efficiency and cost. This ultimately means that humans can find employment in areas where machines haven't entered the scene and such jobs require a level of training and skill that is both beyond the reach of many and also highly competitive. — TheMadFool

Do note that mechanization is a phenomenon that has been with us since the industrial revolution. Industry, but also agriculture has transformed dramatically with machines doing the work. This has created huge transformations in the workforce and in our societies, yet it hasn't created roaming hordes of poor people.

This is because new generations acquire then new jobs: your parents might have been farmers or factory workers, yet your may not be in the same job at all. What can happen is that many people lose their jobs and especially rural areas can die, yes. But people can change their work and acquire new skills. And there is the simple law of supply and demand: if everybody would lose their because of automation and AI taking over everything, the aggregate demand side of the system would dramatically fall meaning that the economy would go bust and nobody would make investments in any machinery. People often forget that there are two sides to the market.

That's a poor view of charities and again reflects a deep flaw in the economic system that prevents us from giving real assistance to the poor and allows us actions that keep the poor poor. — TheMadFool

And unemployed doesn't need alms, he or she needs a job.

There is a role for charity and charity can be effective and important, but it isn't the key to prosperity, unfortunately.

If I understand what you're implying correctly, I would say that whoever it is that privatized the "river" (in the fishing metaphor) is the one guilty of theft, and that the solution to the problem is to correct that theft and return the "river" back to public property as it originally was. — Pfhorrest

Your solution is very seductive but will it work? If one looks to history for evidence, good ideas tend to effortlessly gain a foothold and then propagate, as effortlessly, among the people. Why hasn't your solution, if it is as effective as you say, seen the light of day?

Perhaps you could ask the same of my proposal and perhaps the answer to both will reveal to us the true nature of the problem.

They are dysfunctional because they have been fucked over too many times. — Bitter Crank

You're right in that things have been just too chaotic for countries to devise effective economic strategies and even when that was done, the environment was just too volatile for implementation.

I wonder though if that's the only reason for the poor state of affairs. I mean is it necessary for the conditions to be "perfect" before anything can be done? I guess it's not a question of whether there's any green pastures for our cattle to feed on but whether we've managed to escape the wolves. The conditions are so bad.

if everybody would lose their because of automation and AI taking over, the aggregate demand side of the system would dramatically fall and nobody would make investments. — ssu

Yes, I agree. Wholesale mechanization isn't going to happen because it would obliterate the market but only if the only way to acquire money is employment and money is the only way to acquire goods.

How, in your opinion, would we make the necessary transition if complete mechanization becomes a reality and I'm thinking of true general AI here. Humans would become obsolete in the truest sense of the word and assuming such general AI wouldn't opt to exterminate humans, what would be our role in such a world?

How, in your opinion, would we make the necessary transition if complete mechanization becomes a reality and I'm thinking of true general AI here. Humans would become obsolete in the truest sense of the word and assuming such general AI wouldn't opt to exterminate humans, what would be our role in such a world? — TheMadFool

Even if I'm no socialist, the real societal problem is the division of income and if there emerges a new class of povetry, those who aren't as poor as earlier, but idle and sustain an adequate, but meager lifestyle by wealth transfers. This can create a situation where the society lacks cohesion and anything unifying. Coming from a Nordic welfare state, it might be sound strange to Americans, but welfare state does create it's own problems, even if I would choose those problems rather than absolute povetry or crime. The biggest problem is alienation from the society. Imagine if not only you hadn't ever worked, but your parents and your grandparents had never worked. Unemployment carries a huge stigma and truly makes people fall into apathy as being unemployed is seen as a personal fault: there's still that job at McDonalds open.

Even if the economy can sustain this, thanks to cheap robot labour, it does create a lot of social problems.

Even if I'm no socialist, the real societal problem is the division of income and if there emerges a new class of povetry, those who aren't as poor as earlier, but idle and sustain an adequate, but meager lifestyle by wealth transfers. This can create a situation where the society lacks cohesion and anything unifying. Coming from a Nordic welfare state, it might be sound strange to Americans, but welfare state does create it's own problems, even if I would choose those problems rather than absolute povetry or crime. The biggest problem is alienation from the society. Imagine if not only you hadn't ever worked, but your parents and your grandparents had never worked. Unemployment carries a huge stigma and truly makes people fall into apathy as being unemployed is seen as a personal fault: there's still that job at McDonalds open.

Even if the economy can sustain this, thanks to cheap robot labour, it does create a lot of social problems.
2h — ssu

So, you foresee alienation from society via unemployment as an undesirable consequence of mechanization. Have you watched the animation wall-E? If you haven't then it's about humanity having literally trashed the earth and a sizable population of humans being sent out on a spaceship to find a habitable planet or wait for earth to recover from the damage humans have caused. The spaceship is fully mechanized; there's literally nothing for a human to do except eat, drink, and sleep. This image of the future of man and machine existing in harmony is very appealing to me. Even though the main antagonist in the movie is the AI captain of the ship, the movie breaks from tradition in depicting machines in a good light.

So, you foresee alienation from society via unemployment as an undesirable consequence of mechanization. — TheMadFool

It has already happened and continues to happen in the West. Just visit the rust-belt in the US. You have few hubs where the economy has centered and otherwise the country is "Fly-over-country". Those areas that pin their hopes in politicians like Trump.

This image of the future of man and machine existing in harmony is very appealing to me. — TheMadFool

In the 60's people believed that the Space Age would be right behind the corner. The makers of the 1968 classic "2001 - A Space Odyssey" genuinely thought that they made a very realistic portrayal on what life would be in 2001. And why wouldn't they believe it? If you looked at what had happened in 33 years from 1968 from the year 1935, Space Age by 2001 looked quite possible. How long has it now been since man has left low Earth Orbit? I think 47 years. In few years it will be 50 years. And all that talk about going to Mars with internet billionaires wanting to go there are just one stock market crash from being fairy tales.