Slashdot Mirror
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."
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".
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
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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...
- Sighuh?
"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.
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.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement