Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA • Hacker News Board

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#21

Post by rmuesi » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #4

I think that the problem is simple. People respond poorly to long-term rewards. You need to set up a short-term reward payoff cycle. https://buildingpharmabrands.com/2013/05/27/the-ad-that-crea... is inspiring that way. It shows how people who could not be motivated to solve a well-known long-term problem, tooth decay, were successfully motivated to solve a short-term problem that they previously ignored - the fact t…

Isn't that exactly how this program was operating? Short-term reward payoff: monthly cash; long-term reward: children graduate from school.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#22

Post by jstarfish » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #10

cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient or otherwise helping them out of poverty. Even if 50% of recipients go buy drugs with the money, does it really matter? It probably costs more to enforce these conditions than the percent of funding that would go to drugs. It also creates bureaucratic overhea…

> I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient or otherwise helping them out of poverty.

> Even if 50% of recipients go buy drugs with the money, does it really matter?

The libertarian dream, however the unfortunate reality is that where the money is supposed to do things like feed your children, you instead squander it on drugs. If the presumption of drugs is too harsh, replace it with something equally stupid like cigarettes, lottery tickets, rent-to-own furniture or some other predatory service that the poor disproportionately participate in. This is not a behavior beneficial to anybody or worth enabling.

This is why we have systems like food stamps (disbursements that can only be spent on food), WIC (disbursements that can only be spent on fresh vegetables, baby food/formula, etc) and so on. Handing cash to people who don't know how to use it responsibly does not spontaneously teach them otherwise.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#23

Post by jellicle » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

linkmotif wrote: post #5

cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work? Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t…

> Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor?

No. Generally speaking, people are poor because their parents were poor and because they are in a system which works to make and keep them poor.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#24

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

jf wrote: post #2

A Conditional Cash Transfer program called "Opportunity NYC" is mentioned in this article. Given what I read in the article, I expected the amount of money in question to be on the order of hundreds or thousands a month, but according to Wikipedia, the only gave parents "$40 to $100 a month" The cash payments go to the family, almost always the mother or other female head of the household. Parents can receive from $4…

Opportunity NYC was the previous program. The current one is called Family Rewards 2.0

> On average, the program cost $13,459 per family, 48 percent of which was paid directly to families as cash rewards.

This was over a three year period, which means that each family received 13459*.48/3 = $2150, or about $180/mo. So they provided between 2-5x as much money. I share your confusion though, as this is still categorically a lot smaller than I would've expected.

I guess it's less of a UBI type program and focuses more on cash rewards for good health and educational outcomes. For a low income family, $2k/yr is non-trivial.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#25

Post by mberning » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #17

cortesoft wrote: post #3

Man, this type of program sounds patronizing. "Here, let us rich people tell you poor people what you need to do so you can be successful like me" Making this conditional is basically saying, "You don't know what you need, and we can't trust you to do what is best for yourself" People know what they need. If we have money to give them, just give them the money.

I grew up dirt poor. Filthy home, no family car, head lice, "food or electricity this week?" poor. Poverty was a series of choices, not something forced upon my family. Of course you eventually get to a point where you can't "better choice" your way out of it, but I think the truth needs to be said, as that reality isn't very PC it seems. Every time my family had any money, they bought stuff. Not stuff we needed, but…

Thank you for speaking up. I have seen the same time and time again growing up. Yet people can’t believe it is true. Poverty is not just a lack of money.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#26

Post by aantix » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

jf wrote: post #2

A Conditional Cash Transfer program called "Opportunity NYC" is mentioned in this article. Given what I read in the article, I expected the amount of money in question to be on the order of hundreds or thousands a month, but according to Wikipedia, the only gave parents "$40 to $100 a month" The cash payments go to the family, almost always the mother or other female head of the household. Parents can receive from $4…

I found that striking too. In this program they were provided "$13,459 per family, 48 percent of which was paid directly to families as cash rewards".

While I'm sure it was nice to receive a _little_ extra money, that certainly isn't going to be life changing. It's more of a tease than anything.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#27

Post by funkythingsss » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

Why is this surprising? Most anti-poverty measures are ineffective. The "war on poverty" has not worked in a single metric. Affirmative action hasn't changed a thing. The only thing that can get you out of poverty is a good family structure, a culture built on performance (Chinese, Indian culture takes this waaaay to far, but it's a start).

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#28

Post by Para2016 » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

ctrl-j wrote: post #12

Ashcroft001 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need crack. Please send the requisite funds post-haste.

As someone who grew up poor with parents who worked their asses off and didn't touch drugs or booze - your comment is both in poor taste, and ignorant. I'd happily give all the crack addicts assistance if it meant no children missed any meals.

It better be non cash based assistance then. If you're happily giving money to cocaine addicts then you're not being helpful at all.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#29

Post by jellicle » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

So if you actually read what the program is here: Provide families with a average of $179/month if and only if they jump through a whole bunch of hoops, from doctor visits (which they have to pay for) to school attendance to working more hours (each of which must be documented by the program participants), and then although the program did reduce poverty (give people money, they're less poor), it didn't make them into upper class people magically. So it didn't achieve its goals.

Probably the average participant ended up spending dozens of hours doing bureaucratic tasks each month to get that $179.

This is neoliberalism in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, worthy people like the Koch brothers can get a $1 billion to $1.4 billion (estimated ANNUAL benefit from most recent Trump tax cuts to them personally) donation straight from the Federal Treasury and have to do exactly nothing to show that they "deserve" it.

Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

#30

Post by MechEStudent » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:19 PM UTC

Welfare is engineered to fail, and it fails. You can't build a system by American political committee and expect it to actually work.

There are known good solutions for poverty that work reliably and consistently well. That isn't what the US welfare system is engineered for. It is engineered to put money in the hands of political donors, not resolve poverty.

The solution to resolving poverty, much like the Buffet rule for politicians, would work overnight, but will never be implemented. Buffet says a law that says no standing politician is eligible for re-election in a year when minimum true GDP year-over-year growth for the last 2 years has been below 3% would work. He is right.

A similar law, based on "theory of constraints" and directly extractable from the pages of "the goal" would work for poverty, but has (sadly sadly) the same political palatability as drinking a gallon of raw sewage.

Dang this lost, broken, wrecked political system and the scoundrels who are in power and abuse it.