111–120 of 149 posts
On 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?
Are you assuming that the remaining 52% is all admin overhead? Why not assume it's partially paid out in non-cash rewards?
It's interesting to see approaches that have been documented to fail in eliminating poverty in developing countries ( https://chrisblattman.com/2013/06/27/why-cash-transfers-to-t... ) failing in a developed country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 categorica…
> 48 percent of which was paid directly to families as cash rewards. So where did the other 52% go to? Working costs of the program?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going with the previous calculation of $180/month ($2160/year), that's about a 9% annual increase for a family of 4 at the poverty line (I'm seeing stats of ~24/year). One of the main ways in which redistribution programs are justified is by pointing out that a marginal dollar goes further for a poor person than a rich one. So I would hardly call this a "little" money, relative to baseline. Having said that, one of t…
$2k/year isn't going to change anyone's life in America very much. 9% of a tiny amount is also a tiny amount.
- Mostly cover the cost of operating a car
- Feed 2+ people (white rice is $34/month for 2400 calories/day; chicken is $60/month, whole milk is $80/month; mix and match to taste)
While $2k/year isn't a whole lot of money, it's marginal. If you're living at the edge of what you can afford, even a 9% bump can put you in a much more comfortable place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, it's a massive statement, and I think you're being intellectually dishonest to assert it's not. The counterargument is also a huge statement, none of us are saying it's not. The only reason the counterargument is slightly more palatable is because it conforms to Occam's Razor. > because they consciously and continuously choose to be poor is ridiculous on its face This is a blatant straw man. We are saying they do…
Totally. And then dismissing something as "ridiculous on its face" without following up as to why? :(
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…
> 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.
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.
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…
I've seen this repeated by most everyone who's been poor, including seeing my GF do that. There is a psychological difference in how people look at a windfall. I was always middle class, give me $10k and I'll stash it for 'later' because I assume there will be a later. Poor people think they'd better use now it before it 'disappears'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If we're never going to fund an amount that would make a difference, why bother doing small scale tests?
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.