Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The chances of return are higher than 0%. They are just causally disconnected.

Consider that muggers are likely to be people in desperate need of money. Investing in kids now reduces you chance of being mugged later.

The same disconnected causality is at work in a ton of other ways. Chronically poor people will not invent a product you are likely to buy. Chronically poor people contribute less tax money, increasing your relative tax burden. Chronically poor people <contribute more> to <bad thing> and <contribute less> to <good thing>.

This is extremely hard to measure with something like single study, but the mechanism is clear and easy to understand. And data does bear this out. Educated and wealthier areas have less of the problems I touched on here.




> The chances of return are higher than 0%. They are just causally disconnected.

You're leaving off an important clause that I had:

> 0% chance of personal, direct, return on your investment.

Which is the most important part. I agree that essentially dumping money at the problem will help, but I disagree that it should be considered an investment in the traditional sense. I'm not sure what to call it other than charity.


It sounds like we both agree it would improve the future in tangible and measurable ways, even for those paying the taxes. I would rather not argue the semantics of the word "investment", not all investments need to be financial.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: