Education Via Video Games

An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired/AP, food stamp recipients will now receive video games instead of brochures and pamphlets, in an effort to educate them on how to get the most benefit. One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."

Comments

It's not the 80s any more

[Minwee]

You only need to buy a computer once.

Seriously, I could walk down the street to the Goodwill and drop $10 on an old monitor or a PC, but they wouldn't be pretty. For $100 I could buy a decent P-II system used. That's not too bad for something which I can use to help me get a job. Heck, it's less than some unemployed people I have known spent on beer in a month.

Believe it or not, computers don't all cost $4000, have an "Alienware" logo on them and come with artificially intelligent graphics cards from a company called "Skynet".

Why doesn't welfare make them

[Travoltus]

sell their computers and electronic eq as a condition for benefits?

JUUUUUUUST kidding, folks.

Seriously, though.

"Players in the Price Makes Sense have to use their math skills to figure out the best food deal; for instance, that six servings of eggs at $1.20 is cheaper per serving than five servings of chicken at $2.00."

The error in the reasoning here is that 6 servings of eggs probably means more cholesterol than 5 servings of chicken, oh and it's a certainty that 5 servings of chicken fills you up far more than 6 servings of eggs. Based on what fills you up, the 6 servings of chicken at $2.00 is the best deal.

This brings me to the major question of my post... how credible is the "education" this game offers?

Oh, and if I have a Gameboy Advance and I'm on welfare, and this game only plays on the PS2, am I SOL? o_O

Insulting

[AC-x]

"Because so many young adults played such games as kids, they ought to be able to learn more easily from them, too, said the project's director"

This kind of education game is a good idea for very young children (before the age that cynicism gets the better of them), but adults?? If I was hard up, I would feel very patronised if I received a computer game telling me to store perishables in the fridge.

Re:same

[g3000]

Computers probably are increasingly pervasive, even among lower to lower middle class households now. But more to the point of...

"One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."

Assuming that even the poor can get credit (and I can't imagine why not, when I have marginally good credit and get about twenty pre-approved credit card offers a month, and those Rent-A-Center places seem to thrive in poorer neighborhoods), it's just too easy to "buy" things you want, but can't afford.

Luxury vs sustenance

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypotheticals...

The person on food stamps may have either saved up to buy a cheap system.

The person on food stamps may have bought the system before becoming poor. Selling the system may only bring in $30, which will temporarily buy food, yet cut your overall quality of life.

Hear me out

[Anonymous Coward]

One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games.

I'm posting this anonymously because it uses the N word, and the N word isn't very nice.. but a friend of mine has this opinion and I think he might be on the money.

Basically it's because a lot of people are "nigger rich." This supposedly means that the person is crap with their money. They buy rims for their car before they buy textbooks for their kids. They have a 50" entertainment center, but eat grits for breakfast.

A lot of people DO live like this. They spend money on the most pointless of crap without buying the basics first. Sure, they have 500 channels on the entertainment center, but the kids have clothes with holes in.

So, that's my reply to this. A lot of people are crap with their money, and would buy a computer to play games on before they'd bother to work out how they're paying their rent this month.

Re:Hear me out

[Shihar]

I'll bite. My karma is high enough to take a few hits.

Such people need at best a training course as to how to save money, and at worst probably need to go hungry for a few days to knock some sense into them. I don't know what the problem is, but it needs to be fixed because it is an epidemic (in America at least).

I live in a poor neighborhood because, well, I am poor. I am getting through college and doing it on a tight budget. I don't worry for the future because I am getting out with a solid chemical engineering degree and have a fair padding of cash from working despite loan payments. I intend to stay where I am exactly long enough to get a job, then go live some place safe.

I live in a shit hole. My apartment is a piece of crap, but the rent is cheap (for Boston). Across the street from me is a massive block of beautiful apartments. These apartments all have rent much cheaper then mine because they are apart of a project. There are these beautiful apartments filled with 'poor' people. Now, the idea would be solid if it wasn't for the fact that they are living like kings while I work hard to make ends meat. My car is a POS rust bucket with no radio that barely runs and can get me to work and back. Half the cars across the street have fucking rims that literally cost more then my entire car. My car doesn't have rims, the wheel bolting is exposed.

Now, not even this would bother me if it wasn't for the fact that I fucking have had to fund the project with my tax dollar. The socialistic systems are flat out broken. I know it is a little cruel, but I wish the capitalist poke in the ass was harsher because these people are just bleeding the system.

Social programs should be reserved for exactly two types of people. People who were born with mental/physical disabilities that do not allow them to go take their share, and people who received mental/physical disabilities through no fault of their own. Everyone else should get just enough food and medical coverage to live, a basic education, and nothing else. Hell, through in a safety net of a year or two for people who get unemployed. If there is not anything wrong with you, you should get your ration of just enough food to not starve. Is that an uncomfortable life? Hell yeah. I have been there. Do something about it. The problem is a cultural problem. Maybe if people were uncomfortable enough the culture would change. Judging by the fucking base rocking my house from across the street right now (7 am BTW) the current method isn't working.

Re:Hear me out

[Shihar]

There is the difference between a poor college person and a poor person. The poor college person generally gets the necessities and spends on luxury only what is left. Generally poor college students do this because they realize fucking up a $40,000 a year investment is a very bad idea. Even if you are not paying a cent and doing it all through scholarships, you still don't want to fuck it up.

The other half is the chronically poor. Some of those people are poor because they truly are victims and have a mental of physical ailment. We are a rich enough society where we can afford to take of these people and make their lives reasonably comfortable and find them a job to suit their abilities. The other people are people for on reason or another made and continue to make stupid decisions. These are the idiots with rims worth more then my car, speaker systems worth more then a months rent, and with sets of name brand clothes worth more then my interviewing clothes. These people should be given just enough to live, an education if they want it, and nothing else. I don't want to subsidize someone's car upgrades or 100 dollar sneaker fetish.

Taxing or not taxing corporations is silly because what you don't seem to realize is that YOU pay the tax regardless. The corporations don't grow money out of air. Whatever you tack on to their expenses is just passed down the line. If the price of raw iron ore goes up, steel makers don't suddenly just make less profit. They up the price and make the customer pay the difference to maintain their profit levels. The entire idea of taxing a corporation for revenue is flawed to begin with because it ignores the fact that the consumer will ALWAYS pay that tax. If you want to beat the elite with taxes, don't tax the corporation, tax their income. This is the only way to stop them from simply passing the buck. So, am I angry that the piss pot we call the 'corporate tax laws' are routinely examined by corporations to find any way out paying the maximum amount? No. It just means the stuff I buy is cheaper. If you want evidence of this, simply examine England's gas prices for the prices of gas in the US. More taxes doesn't mean less profit, it just means you pay out the ass for gas. So, would taxing corporations put more money in government coffers? Sure. Of course, it would also be taking money out of my pocket by making everything cost more. You might as well skip the foreplay and just tax me directly then.

If you want to use taxes on corporations realize what the taxes will really do. They will make whatever item that corporation sells more expensive. So, you should use taxes to attach consequence to selling certain products. IE, in the words of Nadar, tax what you don't like and there will be less of it. This differs form the Democrat's motto, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, give it subsidies."

Now, as to what we should do with taxes, we should offer two thing to the capable poor. First, give them just enough food to live and nothing else. Second, they can get a high school education at any time regardless of age. The rest is up to them. Millions of poor Americans each year find a way to scrounge up the money to get into a state college. I don't have any desire to pay someone's way through a private college at $40,000 a year because they are too lazy to go out and take the free scholarship money and loans sitting there. I managed to do it with not a single cent to my name, so can everyone else.

Computers for education

[SuperDry]

As computer literacy becomes almost a necessity in order to get a decent job, I would hope that low-income families invest in their children's future by having a computer at home. It's a lot better way to spend limited money than cable television.

So they have access to a computer!

[hugesmile]

One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games.

Our society provides food stamps to help the hunger issue in the United States. Providing food stamps (for food) to the poor seems to be a reasonable way of helping - tax payers and administrators feel good (and approve) systems that buy food, but usually not ones that buy booze, PC's, or provide funds to the poor for discretionary spending. If the food stamps provide some relief, or eliminate food bills, then the poor have more money for computers, a nice Christmas, beer, and other items that generally contribute to better quality of life.

If you believe in helping the poor, and provide the help through food and food stamps, don't complain that they use the little bit of money that they DO have for items that you don't endorse - whether that is bus fare to the public library to access a computer, or a 6-pack of beer.

Re:same

[iocat]

That's just bullshit. There are plenty of people who are poor as hell who still have cars, so they can get to their crappy minimum wage jobs. Without a car, many people would flat out STARVE TO DEATH, and having a car is often more important to the super-poor than anything else. I know, I live near tons of them in East Oakland.

I'd change your list to read something like

If you have to live with 8 other people in a two bedroom house to make rent, you're poor.

If your children face the prospect of going to terrible schools, and you don't have any recourse (like even sending them to better schools in the district), you're poor.

If you'll lose your job if your car breaks down because you won't be able to afford to fix it, you're poor.

A crappy Goodwill TV is $15 *at Goodwill*, so you're not going to get much rent money for selling it. And the entertainment / keep kids off the street value a TV provides is so extreme, I don't even consider whether or not you have cable as a reliable indication of poverty anymore (again, at least where I live, in East Oakland)

Finally, if you're poor and trying to make sure your kids won't be poor, buying a PC is not some indication that you're no longer poverty stricken. Hang out at a Goodwill next time some crappy 486 goes on the floor. It's sold in SECONDS.

I'm about 10 degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun, and even to me your post smacks of total cluelessness about the situation that actual poor people are in.

Poor is not being able to replace stuff

[SmallFurryCreature]

but poor is also having to buy crap. Terry Pratchet put a very nice simple example in one of his books. He has one character draw the difference between a rich man buying 1 pair of expensive quality boots that last a life time and a poor man only being able to buy cheap boots that last a year and barely keep you dry during that year. In the end the poor man spends more in a lifetime AND got wet feet.

That is the problem about being poor that "rich" people don't get. Not even if they had a "poor" period (typically they claim they had no money while being a student). Why don't they get it? Because they don't need to replace anything in that time. The bed the "rich" kid got from home when he wen't out of the house will last him a couple of years till he finished study and has found a job.

The poor kid's bed is already at the end of its live. Same with washing machines (Is it only in holland that the kid moving out gets the old one while the parents buy a new one?) a tv, a car, furniture, anything.

Poverty really starts to show its teeth when things start breaking down. The washing machine breaks and you don't have the money to replace it, worse you now need to use the laundromat wich is more expensive preventing you from saving up for a new one. It also takes more time, time you can no longer spend improving your lot.

Social services in the Netherlands are beginning to get this. That it may be all very nice to give just enough money to survive and perhaps a little bit more but that it ain't enough for those who can't get out (remember that unemployment is good for business, full employment would mean it is a workers job market. See bubble on what happens then) of their situation. So they now make it possible under certain circumstances to get washing machines, fridges and other household equipment.

The above poster if obviously a "rich" person who doesn't get it. He mentions that having a car makes you rich. He forgets that a car may be essential for having a job. Public transport is great if you work in a office block and work 9-5. If you clean that office then you may find that all the buses stop running after 5. Or that your work is in a factory in the middle of nowwhere and the shift starts at 6. Long before their is anykind of public transport service. Even if your shift neatly fall in public tranportation times that may make it impossible to do overtime if your shift ends 5 minutes before the last bus.

So he got it exactly the wrong way around. Being able NOT to have a car shows your "rich".

So get a cheap old car? Cheap old cars break down more often and consume more fuel. Worse, in high paying jobs you may have "flexible" hours. Factory shifts tend to rely on everyone being on time.

A tv is the only form of information/entertainment the poor can "afford". Go to the library and read a book? Check opening times of the local branch library. Oh the city branch has evening opening times? And how do you get there?

Being poor is constantly being constrained by money for a long time (10yrs+). That is where the real problems occur that are hardest to spot and hardest to get for politicians. "Rich" people just don't get it. They can't, it would be like expecting men to understand the feelings of motherhood.

Sadly goverment is formed by the "rich". Even the "socialist" goverments, just check on how many of even the most socialist parties had to survive at or below the poverty line during they youth for long periods.

So please ignore the above poster. He ain't got a clue, he is just a little rich boy who doesn't realize how good he has it. Being poor is not having no money this month. Being poor is not having enough money for live. Think of it as a company operating at a loss. No problem so long as you can make up for the loss by the profits in the past, kinda like Sun is doing now. But if you never had profits you can't do that. Human beings don't go bankrupt, they just slowly die. Poor people live significantly shorter then "rich" people.

One wonders?!?

[redragon]

One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games

Am I the only one that found this particular element of the comment particularly condesending?

Maybe they got a computer because someone out there realized that technological knowledge is important for under privelaged kids to have, and that gaining access to said technology would be beneficial?

Having seen this particular program at work in my community, I've been impressed. They have the kids learn how to build computers, install all the software, and learn how to use common applications. At the end of the summer, they get to take a computer home with them. Pretty sweet.

I'm also in the same graduate department as James, so this is a bit of a shameless plug. However, he's put a ton of time and effort into it, and it is pretty neat that they are providing resources to kids that need them.

Now, these probably aren't your Quake 3 running machines, but who cares.

Just one possible solution...

Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups

[Oligonicella]

"But lets also not forget that this UN body last year fed more than 100 million people."

So? While important, feeding people is only keeping them alive. One could argue that just feeding them is a good way to establish and maintain a fuzzy, feel-good beurocracy.

It doesn't address the issue of keeping them safe , which is more important and where the UN falls to its knees repeatedly. See the massacre just a couple of days ago.

The UN is not the end-all, freedom and economic development is.

I can't believe...

[avronius]

Coming from slashdot, I'm not surprised that the bulk of posts are written from atop a high horse.

Being poor is not something that people wallow in. It is simply a state that people find themselves in. Most people do not strive to be poor. If the have a computer, they likely bought / got it prior to their current state of affairs.

Sometimes the effects are gradual. Sometimes there are mass lay-offs that occur that shut down entire towns. Mines, automotive factories, etc. can create instant poverty by closing shop. It's not pretty, and considering that a large percentage of people live paycheck to paycheck, it's not surprising that people don't know how to live 'poor'.

Snide comments about why people are poor are not solutions to poverty. They only prove that you lack a serious understanding of how the real world operates.

It is unfortunate that there will always be people out there looking to take advantage of a situation.

chance of getting rich vs chance of getting poor

[Cryofan]

Most of this arrogant posts on this thread are from slashdotters who do not realize that their own chances of becoming poor in the future is much better than their chances of getting rich. And that is sad considering that the poor are so much greater in number than the rich.

Here are some numbers for the arrogant posters to digest: one third of all recent tax returns (single AND joint filers) have gross incomes of less than $20K, and almost 50% of them are less than $30K.

THe problem is that corporate propaganda has convinced most Americans that they are on the verge of getting rich. But the house always wins, numbkulls.....

Why not take the SAFE way, the prudent way, as they do in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Canada, etc etc, and RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.

Re:same

[dasunt]

And anyone who can afford to buy (and blithely add to the electrical bill with) tv's and computers is not realisticaly poor.

An older computer can be had for free, if you keep your eyes open. A TV can be had for free, or a few bucks at a garage sale.

The poor do need entertainment, like everyone else. A TV and an attenna is damn cheap entertainment, even if the quality sucks. Considering the draw of a TV, the electric bill is roughly about $5 more dollars a month.

Damn cheap entertainment.

Re:same

[CreatureComfort]

because in a lot of places their is nothing else to do.

Because God forbid anyone should actually go to the free public libraries that my tax dollars pay for, just to educate themselves and thier children so they can escape poverty, instead of living off the handouts also paid for by my tax dollars.

I would gladly double what I pay in taxes, if I could guarantee that all of it went to fund libraries, schools, and basic research grants, and not one dime went to food stamps.

Re:same

[SatanicPuppy]

The way the economy is right now, you don't think people who used to be able to afford kids are having it rought now?

Re:same

[Theatetus]

Jackass.

Maybe because you could support them when you had them but your plant got closed down and now you can't. Back when you had that job at the plant, incidentally, was when you bought your kids that X-box.

Maybe because you're Catholic or Muslim and don't believe in birth control.

Maybe your spouse was the primary source of income and died / left you / got mobilized and shipped off to Iraq / went to prison and now you have to support these kids.

Idea

[nial-in-a-box]

OK, I don't think I should even try to touch on that comment about affording food versus affording a gaming console/computer. I hope most realize how things work in this thing called reality. If you don't, go to a "bad" neighborhood and check things out for a while. Check out the inside of a project. My current theory after being a contractor for the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for the past few months is the more DirecTV dishes on a house, the poorer the occupants. It really is strange. Not that I think liberties should be squelched, but no one should have a right to TV if they cannot even afford housing. Additionally, not to encourage piracy, but these dish-using people need to learn how to share if they must have them at all.

I know this is hard to say...

[El Camino SS]

I hear a lot of you talking like living in poverty is a terrible thing, and that the poor die a lot quicker... the reason for this is that they are making terrible decisions. Here are some handy tips:

Don't get knocked up at fifteen and you won't have to worry about feeding a child at sixteen.
You can fill out a job application if you can read.
Hanging out with drug dealers will get you shot, either by the drug dealer or the other drug dealer.
No one will hire you if you have an attitude that you don't need to work, or if you can't be bothered to show up for work, or if you can't speak the King's English.

Life is rough. There is no doubt. But you have to be competent to be hired. That is how the whole of civilization works.

Poverty and government assistance are there to get you back on your feet... they are not there to feed you for a lifetime. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people that think that living in the projects and not worrying about an education is an acceptable LIFETIME proposition.

Free education. What do you do with it? Nothing. Free food. Housing is $30 a month. Yes, you have nothing of your own. Yes, the place you live in stinks, and is full of drug dealers... but let I remind you that drug dealers don't work for a living either. They just threaten people and stand around. If everyone is bored and in each other's business, and no one can read or find a way to find a job, then you just have idiots stealing from each other.

Look, if you can't be forced to get your butt to work and get a job like the other 90% of humanity, then you only get JUST ENOUGH TO SURVIVE. You don't get to thrive for failing.

Sorry about the breaks.

Re:same

[allism]

There is the occasional case where someone has fallen into poverty through unfortunate circumstances, i.e. illness - but these cases are the rare exception to the rule. What are YOU doing to help your friend?

If everyone who needed some sort of assistance had to actually go and ask a person or a charity (i.e. a church) for aid every time they needed it instead of sitting around waiting for the checks and the food stamps to come in the mail, there would be MUCH less abuse of the system.

I did volunteer work for a few years in a job that put me in contact with quite a few people receiving welfare, disability, and food stamps. Before working in that job, I considered myself very liberal. After about a year of that job, I realized how wrong I had been. The system gets greatly abused with very little oversight of how welfare recipients spend their money - and the attitude (to quote one of the clients) was "It's just food stamps - who cares if I buy Cheetos?" In my opinion, if someone is poor enough that they have to receive food stamps on a regular basis, they generally are not capable enough of making life decisions to earn the right to choose what food they eat.

I don't currently do any volunteer work because my service to society right now is to make sure that my son grows up to be a responsible, productive person - but I will be returning to volunteer work when he is old enough that he doesn't need so much of my attention. I think if more people did volunteer work, that there would be less need for government-subsidized handouts.

(BTW, my husband became ill to the point where he couldn't work for a couple of years about 8 years ago - he never went on any kind of government-sponsored aid. It can be done.)

Re:same

[Frobnicator]

One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games.

Assuming that even the poor can get credit, it's just too easy to "buy" things you want, but can't afford.

You don't have to be perpetually poor to qualify for food stamps. Temporary poor qualify as well.

You are apperently employed at the moment. But that could change. Lets assume you are suddenly unemployed, and you have a wife and two kids.

Now that you are suddently and hypothetically unemployed... Flipping burgers at minimum wage will not continue to pay your housing payments and whatever loans (car, student, consumer debt, whatever) that you have, plus food for your wife and kids. Regardless of if you qualify for unemployment checks, your total income is probably still less than the food stamp eligibility requirements for your area.

I doubt you, as a self-proclaimed nerd, will sell your computers just because you are suddenly unemployed, but qualify for food stamps.

If you qualify for food stamps, the little cash you have will go that much more toward other living expenses. In that situation, they are a god-send.

The US Bureau of Laber Statistics unemployemnt statistics released this month shows over 8 MILLION people currently unemployed. I know many geeks who are under-employed and qualify for food stamps, yet don't show up on the unemployed stats. Lots of these people will have computers and other goods, that you think they shouldn't have because of easy credit.

But you are still gainfully employed, unlike millions of others. You ought to be grateful.