The goal of all welfare should be temporary support.
At the end of the day, its just other people paying for someone else to get free stuff.
Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
51–60 of 149 posts
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#52A 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 think this is OK. As a test.
A larger amount makes more sense in terms of being surer to have an impact. But it would make a widespread program based on those amounts so expensive that there’s probably no point in answering the question. Suppose it was found that giving poor families $20K annually did make a substantial difference? It probably wouldn’t matter because a large scale program based on that amount would probably never get funded.
Here, the question is if we give poor families a small (but not insignificant) amount of cash could that make a diffeeence? I guess the idea is that it might provide just enough to enable at least some of them to do something they would really like to do anyway but can’t quite manage.
Unfortunately, at least according to this, the answer is no. Perhaps we can think of it as a promising idea that didn’t pan out?
IDK, it sure would be nice if we could find a relatively cheap and straightforward solution to wide-spread poverty and inequality. Not exactly surprising that we haven’t, but it still seems worth continuing to try.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think it's dangerous to take your situation and apply it to everyone in poverty. Most people are there because they don't have a way out even if in your specific circumstance that wasn't the case.
> Most people are there because they don't have a way out even if in your specific circumstance that wasn't the case.
I disagree, although I can't really give anything more than the same anecdotal evidence that's already been given. Both of my parents grew up only slightly above the poverty line. It was entirely because of choices their parents made. They didn't make the same mistakes, and are now both well positioned in the middle class. How? Essentially, they both just put themselves through school. That's all it really took. A few loans, and a fast food job on the side, got them the education they needed to break the poverty cycle.
I think the truth is neither of us have enough real evidence to be making the assertions we are making. For every anecdotal case you find of someone stuck in poverty, I guarantee I can find a case of someone who made a few simple choices and got out of poverty. What we really need are more studies like this that produce empirical data on the subject. Then we can start to argue whether poverty is a choice or a social class people are forced into.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 in…
How about harsher regulations on the predatory businesses?
Yes--I know regulations are not liked.
Rent-to-own is basically extorsion.
My biggest gripe is the payday loan type companies.
Oh yea, federally insured banks should be required to cash checks, without a consumer being a customer.
We have so many laws/regulations that protect businesses; While the poor have the BBC. This is not the America I put my hand over my heart as a kid. I ashamed at what we have become.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#55Man, 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…
> Every time my family had any money, they bought stuff. Not stuff we needed, but stupid crap.
There has been research into why this happens. I don't remember the author I read but the gist of it is, poverty conditions a person never to think long term. You spend all your mental energy on immediate needs. Food for today. Rent for this week. Money is never around for long. You know next week is going to suck no matter what, so if you come into some extra money you spend it on something immediately gratifying. Not necessarily alcohol or drugs, but like you say, stupid crap -- something that provides some immediate entertainment or escape but has no other benefit.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#56I suspect that the benefits of conditional cash are very non-linear, such that the benefits aren't seen until the amount of monthly cash outweighs the immediate opportunity cost of meeting the conditions. If you're offering to pay me $200 per month, but I have to keep my kid in school (meaning a big time commitment from the kid and parent), and we have to go to regular doctor's appointments, then I'm losing several hours during a typical workday over the course of a year. If I take time off to take my kids to the doctor and also get myself to the doctor, then my boss is going to get irritated. I might lose my job. If I have to go to a work education program in the evening, then I don't have time for a second job. So now you're making me choose between $200 per month and possibly losing my job and preventing me from having two jobs. That's not worth it. You know what is worth it? $3k per month. That makes it worth the risk and effort.
But sadly, nobody has tried a real big money CCT program, because the good "small money" programs haven't been proven to work so nobody is willing to take the risk. But the problem is, you won't see any benefit until you get over the hump of the opportunity cost that people in poverty have.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#57The goal of all welfare should be temporary support. At the end of the day, its just other people paying for someone else to get free stuff.
Your second sentence describes the entire concept of civilization.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that exactly how this program was operating? Short-term reward payoff: monthly cash; long-term reward: children graduate from school.
In the context of brain psychology, short-term needs to be seconds to minutes. For example try to train a dog with rewards that come an hour later. It won't work. In the example that I gave, you brush your teeth, your mouth feels better right away. That works. By contrast if you start working on your project now, next week you won't have a miserable all-nighter. That doesn't work. Just ask anyone in college if you do…
Gamify anti-poverty programs?
I wonder though, isn't forgoing small short-term rewards for greater long-term rewards a key aspect of escaping poverty? How can you condition that behavior with short-term rewards?
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#59On average, the program cost $13,459 per family, 48 percent of which was paid directly to families as cash rewards. So the best we can do is 48% efficiency?
If you are an employee, your cost to your employer is likely to be close to 2x your salary.
Re: Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA
#60Why 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).
You'll need a lot of citation for that. Also, Affirmative Action is decidedly not an anti-poverty program. It's an anti-bias program. And the comparison to China and India is apples and oranges. Aside from the fact that both countries have hundreds of millions of people in poverty, their success has been in industrializing agrarian societies. America is pretty far past that point. Our levels of absolute poverty (penu…
Giving someone a 200+ point advantage on their SATs based solely on the color of their skin is an anti-bias program now?