Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disappointing Findings on Anti-Poverty Cash Transfers in the USA

straighttalkonevidence.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 149 posts

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

#81

Post by icebraining »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #54
jstarfish wrote: post #22

Earlier 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? 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…

Banning that stuff doesn't solve anything except the guilt of the middle-class.

People use payday loans because nobody else lends them money. If you want to help them, offer them loans with better conditions, and you'll see most of those payday shops go out of business.

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

#82

Post by bdcravens »

elipsey wrote: post #41
bdcravens wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

Do you mind if I ask what you mean by "stupid crap"?

Electronics, toys, clothes, food we wouldn't normally buy. Just stuff we wanted, even though the next month, a utility might get paid late. We didn't comprehend the concept of saving anything.

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

#83

Post by chatmasta »

linkmotif wrote: post #45
sp332 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem kinda random to me. "Contrary to popular belief," he wrote over the weekend, "the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high." Between the ages of 25 and 60, Rank has found, almost 40 percent of Americans will live at least one year below the poverty line. Yet over time, most also pull themselves back above of it. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11…

Being poor happens to people who have failed to get and keep money. Sometimes that starts with you, sometimes your ancestors. Obviously it’s easier to get money if you already have it. But if you’re poor, someone didn’t get it. Could be for messed up, unfair reasons. But it’s that simple. It’s not random. Getting wiped out by a medical event means you didn’t have health insurance. Health insurance is generally afford…

> sometimes your ancestors

The sins of the father...

> It’s not random

But people cannot choose where, when, or to whom they are born.

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

#84

Post by charlescearl »

closetohome wrote: post #66
bdcravens wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

> Every time my family had any money, they bought stuff This is a pretty well-known phenomenon among people with unreliable income. Their default state is that they have no money, because they keep ending up there. So when there's a windfall, they don't think long-term, they just know it will be gone. So they spend it on something that provides immediate gratification. I came from pretty dirt poor too, and saw this a…

This article on most professional athletes going broke

https://www.si.com/vault/2009/03/23/105789480/how-and-why-at...

was on HN recently. Seems to give some credence to the claim that those of us who are dealing with poverty, are conditioned to stay that way. As a child of someone from a poor family of 9, it always seemed like there were so many traps to overcome.

It has to be a massive societal commitment.

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

#85

Post by danieltillett »

MechEStudent wrote: post #30

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 rul…

You do realise what would happen if you used this rule - our data on GDP would cease to be accurate (not that it is too accurate now).

The basic problem is the politicians work for the owners and the poor are not owners of anything.

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

#86

Post by bdcravens »

djtriptych wrote: post #43
linkmotif wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people are there because they don't have a way out even if in your specific circumstance that wasn't the case. That’s a huge statement. How would you back that up? “Most” people? Who? When? Why?

It's not a huge statement. The counterargument, that most poor people are there because they consciously and continuously choose to be poor is ridiculous on its face.

I think you're mischaracterizing. No one chooses poverty; poverty is an aggregate result of other choices.

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

#87

Post by danieltillett »

valar_m wrote: post #71
MechEStudent wrote: post #30

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 rul…

> There are known good solutions for poverty that work reliably and consistently well. Can you give some examples?

Science and technology. Has been the only thing that has gotten the world out of the default historical state of 99% poverty.

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

#88

Post by learc83 »

linkmotif wrote: post #45
sp332 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem kinda random to me. "Contrary to popular belief," he wrote over the weekend, "the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high." Between the ages of 25 and 60, Rank has found, almost 40 percent of Americans will live at least one year below the poverty line. Yet over time, most also pull themselves back above of it. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11…

Being poor happens to people who have failed to get and keep money. Sometimes that starts with you, sometimes your ancestors. Obviously it’s easier to get money if you already have it. But if you’re poor, someone didn’t get it. Could be for messed up, unfair reasons. But it’s that simple. It’s not random. Getting wiped out by a medical event means you didn’t have health insurance. Health insurance is generally afford…

>especially if you’re in poverty then you can get some really good Obamacare for free

Unless you're in one of the many states that didn't expand medicaid coverage. Then you need to make above the poverty line to qualify for subsidies.

>Health insurance is generally affordable despite what the GOP says

Now that the GOP has revoked the individual mandate, the prices are going to keep going up for people on the exchange.

My Brother and his wife get coverage from the exchange and their cheapest plan went up 50%. Average out of pocket (after subsidy) insurance rates went up around the country this year, and they are expected to go up again next year.

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

#89

Post by stevenwoo »

olympus wrote: post #56

I 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 h…

I can't find the link right now but IIRC there was a study that counterintuitively showed the yearly payments program to Alaska residents (from petroleum extraction taxes) increased the likelihood of poorer people taking on more work.

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

#90

Post by danieltillett »

Leader2light wrote: post #51

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.

I would rephrase you last sentence as spending other people's money to give someone else free stuff.
Post reply on HN