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

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

#101

Post by SrslyJosh » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

> The study found that the program did not produce the hoped-for effects on most key outcomes (g., child education, parental employment) during a two to four-year period.

Measuring educational outcomes is a good idea...

> a conditional cash transfer program for low-income families with at least one child entering ninth or 10th grade.

...but you are measuring the impact kids who likely have already spent over a decade in poverty?!? Why not measure younger children? Infancy and early childhood are the most critical developmental periods.

> Over about a three-year period, the program provided each participating family with cash rewards that were contingent on meeting certain goals related to children’s school performance, the family’s use of preventive health care, and parents’ employment.

So if you're not doing well enough, you don't get the money, which of course will help you meet the targets for the next month.... :-/

As others have said, the amount of assistance seems shockingly low for 1) the outcomes they seem to be looking for and 2) the massive dysfunction of American society.

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

#102

Post by valar_m » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #87

valar_m wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sounds like you're answering "What strategy may work to solve poverty?" or something close to that. OP said there are "known good solutions for poverty that work reliably and consistently well". I'm interested to hear what is known to work, not what might work.

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

#103

Post by linkmotif » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #83

linkmotif wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The sins of the father...

It's funny your parents actions shouldn't dictate if you're poor, but God forbid your parents were rich: no one likes a rich kid.

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

Life is not fair. It just isn't...

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

#104

Post by linkmotif » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

linkmotif wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Being poor is buying a 2 pack of toilet paper for $2 rather than an 8 pack for $4 because even though the 8 pack is a much better deal, the extra $2 will buy the loaf of bread you also need.

It's true. Not to mention all the other examples in books like Nickel and Dimed. It's hard and shitty to be poor, and people exploit you.

But you don't end up in endless poverty by making the right decisions. The United States can be a pretty brutal place, but comparing to human history it's actually incredibly forgiving and full of opportunity.

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

#105

Post by thaumaturgy » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:12 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…

Yeah. I get pretty vocal in threads about poverty, and I'm a big fan of effective social programs intended to reduce poverty, but I have to agree with you (on the basis of personal experience) to some extent.

It's a bit more complicated than just "poor people make bad decisions"; there are confounding factors in mental health (https://www.nature.com/news/poverty-linked-to-epigenetic-cha...), relative education, and human psychology (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br...).

However, there's an entire class of politics around the notion that people are wealthy or poor only on the basis of their qualities as a person (and therefore social programs should be eliminated and people left to fend for themselves), and so people who are trying to experiment with effective social programs for the poor are quick to counter any arguments that imply that individual decision-making is a factor. (Myself included.)

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

#106

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #94

setgree wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

compliance and monitoring, most likely. The cash was conditioned on various attendance metrics, and the data collection process with such things is never as smooth as you'd like (I did a stint at a non-profit that ran experiments like this on behalf of economists).

I wonder if it'd be more successful if that overhead were dropped to say 10-20% (via automation and simplification of qualifications)

Why would it? The study said that they found no significant effect, not that the return was poor relative to costs. It's possible that shifting the saved administrative costs into more aid would appreciably change the outcome, but it seems more likely that it's a structural problem with the program: ie, that CCTs are optimizing the wrong input.

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

#107

Post by thaumaturgy » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #55

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. 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…

This may be able to point you in the right direction: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br...

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

#108

Post by SilasX » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #97

SilasX wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that theory is that it implies that you could have a self-funding charity that just makes loans that enable such long-term purchases: "Hey, don't buy the two pack. We'll buy you the 8 pack if you pay us $1/month for the next 5 months." Client saves $3. Charity gets >50% annualized ROR. Perpetual virtuous cycle that ends all poverty. Why do you think no one's been able to pull off such a charity? Prob…

>Why do you think no one's been able to pull off such a charity? It turns out there are numerous charities designed to provide liquidity to poor people through microloans. Many of them are very effective.

In the third world, to self-starting entrepreneurs who already did the footwork of figuring out how the capital could quickly pay itself back, not the small-unit-buying clients in the American communities that the parent was diagnosing.

(I was originally going to give a caveat about Kiva, etc.)

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

#109

Post by pdabbadabba » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:16 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…

> I see people using benefits cards to buy groceries that I would never buy because they are so expensive or unnecessary.

I hear people make claims like this frequently and I always wonder if it could possibly be true. I can't remember the last time I paid any attention whatsoever to what other people were buying in the grocery store, much less their mode of payment. This sounds more like the repetition of a certain strain of conservative mythology (with a strong family resemblance to the infamously fictional "welfare queen") than actual anecdote.

And if it is true: 1) Maybe consider giving your fellow shoppers a little privacy. And 2) I wonder: exactly what groceries are we talking about here that you can be so sure another person, whose life and preferences you know nothing about, is making not just a mistake, but being "economically offensive" by buying them? Voss bottled water is about the only thing I can think of that might fit the bill here.

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

#110

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

SrslyJosh wrote: post #101

> The study found that the program did not produce the hoped-for effects on most key outcomes (g., child education, parental employment) during a two to four-year period. Measuring educational outcomes is a good idea... > a conditional cash transfer program for low-income families with at least one child entering ninth or 10th grade. ...but you are measuring the impact kids who likely have already spent over a decade…

> As others have said, the amount of assistance seems shockingly low for 1) the outcomes they seem to be looking for and 2) the massive dysfunction of American society.

I think people are misunderstanding what they're actually trying to test here. CCTs aren't simply assistance, or UBI by another name. The intent of the study was to test the effect on incentives. The FPL for a family of 4 is 24600, or 2500/mo. An extra 10+% in disposable income at that level of poverty isn't a transformative amount of aid, but it's plausibly significant enough to shift incentives (and perhaps ability to meet the bar), which is the point of the study. As it turns out, it _doesn't_ appear to do that, but that more likely indicates structural problems with the hypothesis than the fact that the study should've started with higher amounts of aid.