←back to thread

636 points xbryanx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.286s | source
Show context
jordanb ◴[] No.44532900[source]
I went on a deep dive on this scandal about a year or so ago. One thing that struck me is the class element.

Basically, the Post Office leadership could not understand why someone would buy a PO franchise. It's a substantial amount of money up front, and people aren't allowed to buy multiple franchises, so every PO was an owner/operator position. Essentially people were "buying a job".

The people in leadership couldn't understand why someone would buy the opportunity to work long hours at a retail position and end up hopefully clearing a middle class salary at the end of the year. They assumed that there must be a real reason why people were signing up and the real reason was to put their hands in the till.

So they ended up assuming the postmasters were stealing, and the purpose of the accounting software was to detect the fraud so it could be prosecuted. When the accounting software started finding vast amounts of missing funds, they ignored questions about the software because it was working as intended. I bet if the opposite had happened, and it found very little fraud, they would have become suspicious of the software because their priors were that the postmasters were a bunch of thieves.

replies(16): >>44532976 #>>44533020 #>>44533158 #>>44533278 #>>44533786 #>>44533975 #>>44534079 #>>44534542 #>>44535515 #>>44535532 #>>44536140 #>>44536170 #>>44536440 #>>44536933 #>>44537531 #>>44540144 #
njovin ◴[] No.44534079[source]
So the PO creates a franchise program that they later decide isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor, and instead of revising the terms of the franchise program to make it so, they assume that the participants are criminals and prosecute them?
replies(3): >>44534654 #>>44535013 #>>44535146 #
lawlessone ◴[] No.44535146[source]
The same way many think about welfare/unemployment/disability schemes.

Constant hoops to jump through to prove they're looking for work or still incapable.

Or in the case of illness to prove they're still sick. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101

replies(4): >>44535605 #>>44536032 #>>44536868 #>>44537052 #
wagwang ◴[] No.44537052[source]
Well yes, you're trying to take money from other people, of course you need to prove that you need it.
replies(2): >>44537186 #>>44537452 #
jacksnipe ◴[] No.44537186[source]
Sorry, but citation needed. Means testing might seem “obvious” from first principles, but from a policy point of view, it makes little to no sense.

The macroeconomic effects of welfare programs create a society that is better for everyone to live in. Reducing the issue to a matter of personal responsibility is a reframing that allows you to completely lose sight of the big picture, and create programs that are destined to fail by not reaching many of the people they need to.

replies(1): >>44537259 #
stretchwithme ◴[] No.44537259[source]
Citation needed for the right to other people's money.

Government running charity interferes with the normal feedback in society. And the need to ask politely, justify one's apparently bad decisions and change failing behavior.

People become "entitled" to regular cash so a lot of the fear that ordinarily motivates the rest of us goes away.

Any system that asks nothing of people is a bad system.

I grew up on welfare. I've also seen how a lot of people on welfare actually live and how they spend their time. They don't spend it cleaning, I can tell you that.

replies(5): >>44537435 #>>44537638 #>>44538114 #>>44538256 #>>44540305 #
1. soraminazuki ◴[] No.44540305[source]
Citation needed that your neoliberal views are anything other than bad faith voodoo economics. We have decades' worth of proof that it's toxic for society, both politically and economically. Your whole talking point is an excuse for the ultra rich to get even richer through mass exploitation, which ironically is the embodiment of entitlement that you're so opposed to.