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

121–130 of 149 posts

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

#121

Post by tootie »

yasp wrote: post #60
tootie wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's not really how it works, but I also didn't comment on it's effectiveness, just that it's not anti-poverty. If you're rich and a minority you get the same advantage. The test for eligibility isn't means-based. Hence, not anti-poverty. The intent is to get more minorities into colleges and into jobs. You can argue whether or not that's fair, but it probably works pretty well as intended.

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

#122

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

bequanna wrote: post #33
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ... You're refuting an anecdotal example with an unsubstantiated claim.

Then they should get equal weight. I know poor people who are there do to uncontrollable circumstance - bad schools, sick family members, take your pick. I think if you exist in a western country and you don't know a single person who is poor by virtue of circumstance and not by choice then you're not doing near enough to leave your bubble.

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

#123

Post by stevenwoo »

neaden wrote: post #120
stevenwoo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Was it this one? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343&...

Yes, though there was a news article this month about it and other studies that linked to all of them (they talked about different aspects) that I was searching for, it's a small impact.

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

#124

Post by ereli1 »

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.

welfare is only needed if the labor market is allowed to create jobs that don't provide viable living wages. If given a choice, people choose well-paid work of reliance on welfare. The problems do start when full-time employment doesn't prevent a family from being poor. This happens because wages were allowed to drop to a level that doesn't support decent human conditions.

My guess that since addressing this angers people who would hope to see wages low so they can maintain their business that has grown to be dependant on cheap labor - it's much easier to talk about lump sum transfers (conditional or conditional) as those do not impact the cost of labor, unemployment or living standards.

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

#125

Post by Para2016 »

ctrl-j wrote: post #64
Para2016 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you're happily giving money to cocaine addicts then you're not being helpful at all. How about we don't conflate the two issues? People who have so little money they can't afford food, should get assistance. Full stop. Crack addicts who are so poor to require that same assistance probably need drug counseling and possible mental health assistance. In addition to the money for food. If you think throwing it on a…

Yea, they should get assistance. Just not direct cash, I totally disagree with you in that regard.

What they do need is drug counseling, psychiatric counseling, a safe place to stay, food provided for them, clothing, help finding a job and stable housing arrangement after they are sober. Giving a cocaine addict that is so poor they are living on the streets just cash, is unhelpful. Once they are sober and have proven they will responsibly use money for needed items, then you can give it to them.

As a physician who sees plenty of county patients that are addicts - you know what happens when they get a bunch of money? They spend it on drugs, not on their neglected children or anything else in Maslow's hierarchy. Do-gooders who think handing cash to an addict is helpful, are wrong. You're just wrong and I completely disagree with you, I'm not conflating anything.

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

#127

Post by yasp »

tootie wrote: post #121
yasp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving someone a 200+ point advantage on their SATs based solely on the color of their skin is an anti-bias program now?

That's not really how it works, but I also didn't comment on it's effectiveness, just that it's not anti-poverty. If you're rich and a minority you get the same advantage. The test for eligibility isn't means-based. Hence, not anti-poverty. The intent is to get more minorities into colleges and into jobs. You can argue whether or not that's fair, but it probably works pretty well as intended.

> Even With Affirmative Action, Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmativ...

Maybe it works as intended as long as you're trying to maximize enrollment in "any colleges", not "best colleges".

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

#128

Post by ams6110 »

Zungaron wrote: post #73
funkythingsss wrote: post #27

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).

Social Security is an anti-poverty measure, and it's the most successful thing the US government has ever done. Turns out that giving people money is a great way to solve the problem of not having enough money.

It helps old people who otherwise had nothing. But we're also giving money to a lot of people who don't strictly need it, or who had the means to save for their own retirements.

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

#129

Post by elipsey »

bdcravens wrote: post #82
elipsey wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks. I asked because I used to think people I knew were buying stupid shit, and at the same time a lot of my friends made fun of me for being a cheapskate.

When I was younger I managed to have a very low income for a while, but perhaps still (kind of) middle class sensibilities. I had college educated hippie parents, and was generally expected to succeed in some loose sense.

While I was wondering around on my own for several years getting fired from minimum wage jobs and such, I was sometimes surprised by how the people around me had different expectations and priorities then I did, and I think they were surprised by mine. (Actually, the interest in even talking about shit like this was one of those things that most people I knew mostly didn’t expect or share.) I was surprised when people I knew would settle for what I thought were bad deals they couldn’t afford like rentals, convenience food, pawn, or getting out of a jam with other expensive credit services.

So my friends made fun of me, and my girlfriend resented me because I wouldn’t buy a reasonable car, or a TV or cable, or a phone, for repairing things other people cast off, digging stuff out of the trash, and so on.

I felt like there was a real stigma attached to living within my pathetic means. Meanwhile, people seemed more worried about feeling or looking poor then actually being poor. It seemed like people with kids didn’t want them experience deprivation or stigma, and they especially tended to over-reach. In retrospect, I think I expected upward mobility, at least eventually, but the people around me didn’t.

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

#130

Post by Mindless2112 »

djsumdog wrote: post #80
DanBC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not much money. But for poor people $100 a month is the difference between eating or not eating some days, or having the heating on or going cold, or buying some books for the kids to read at home, or paying the bills on time vs paying them late. Also, about books: I don't know if there's something like this in the US, but it seems like a good idea: https://literacytrust.org.uk/support-us/help-child-fall-love...

I mean..even then..not really. That's still not a lot of money at all. I grew up with people who live mouth to paycheck. A meaningful amount, like $400~$500 a month could make a much more considerable impact. $100/month means "Maybe we can take the kids to a movie one a month or have a nice dinner to help distract ourselves." $500/month could mean, "We can get all those extra school supplies or put our kids in extra…

An expectation of "we'll use the money for important things after we treat ourselves" is exactly why people oppose these kind of programs. You can't just hand-wave that away.
Post reply on HN