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

131–140 of 149 posts

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

#131

Post by _rpd »

btilly wrote: post #96
_rpd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a good question, and I don't have a good answer. But well-off people that I know manage to forgo short-term rewards by having an internal counteracting short-term reward in line with the desired long-term reward. Maybe this is a teachable skill..?

This article suggests that delayed gratification can be taught ...

https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1182

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

#132

Post by djtriptych »

neveroffensive wrote: post #76
djtriptych wrote: post #43

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…

Sure. All of us here would have made the correct hundred thousand or so choices and avoided the enormous number of traps and inherent dangers of poverty.

We would have gone from poor five year olds to wealthy 30 year olds by force of will.

We would have had the energy and resources and parental support to source our food, health, shelter, and education for our first 18 years because we make such great decisions.

Or: we believe we _are_ good because we _have_ it good.

Tell me again about Occam?

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

#133

Post by djtriptych »

linkmotif wrote: post #115
neveroffensive wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is a blatant straw man. Totally. And then dismissing something as "ridiculous on its face" without following up as to why? :(

No one wishes poverty on themselves.

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

#134

Post by iovrthoughtthis »

Mindless2112 wrote: post #130
djsumdog wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on your ability to conceive of a future without the suffering you're attempting to escape.

If the money is not significant enough to meaningfully impact that assessment then a short term distraction is a rational way to spend the money.

It's analogous but no the same as the prisoners dilemma with a known number of games.

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

#135

Post by ctrl-j »

Para2016 wrote: post #125
ctrl-j wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So, just to be clear, it sounds you're arguing that we should put barriers on how good people who are homeless/broke should be able to spend their financial assistance - in order to prevent addicts from buying drugs.

That sounds like conflating the issue of poverty with the issue of drug abuse. There is overlap, but I don't believe that the harm to addicts outweighs the help to the people struggling to survive.

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

#136

Post by gamblor956 »

olympus wrote: post #39
sharemywin wrote: post #19

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?

While it sounds low, this is almost the same efficiency that a temporary work program for homeless people in Denver had (which initially caused me to look into the low sounding efficiency number). Think of it like this: if all of the remaining 52% went to paying a NYC social worker's average salary of $73.9k (source below), then each social worker has to manage 10.5 families to pay their salary. That's managing ten f…

Employees do not actually cost 2x their salary in benefits, payroll taxes, etc. The 2x includes office space and the associated costs of running the office, and a Silicon Valley markup for other benefits like free food and luxury shuttle service. For most companies, an employee's total cost 1.25-1.5x of salary.

Most government agencies generally own the land and buildings in which the agencies are located (excepting agencies which entered into lease-back arrangements...). Whether or not those savings are eaten up by retirement benefits depends on the jurisdiction.

Source: I've worked in Finance Departments and have actually seen the cost side.

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

#137

Post by brudgers »

wutbrodo wrote: post #24
jf wrote: post #2

A 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…

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…

$2k a year without strings attached is non-trivial. Tying the money to activities that may come with direct or indirect costs may make earning the money non-rational. At the granularity of paychecks, it's less than $45 a week. That's about four hours overtime at minimum wage. Or four hours of part time work at $11/hour.

The value proposition of extra work is pretty straight forward. There's no bureaucratic process that might deny payment. There's no dependency on a health care provider or school filling out the paperwork correctly in a timely manner and correctly where "correctly" means to the satisfaction of bureaucratic process structured to say "no."

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

#138

Post by Para2016 »

ctrl-j wrote: post #135
Para2016 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, just to be clear, it sounds you're arguing that we should put barriers on how good people who are homeless/broke should be able to spend their financial assistance - in order to prevent addicts from buying drugs. That sounds like conflating the issue of poverty with the issue of drug abuse. There is overlap, but I don't believe that the harm to addicts outweighs the help to the people struggling to survive.

I said for addicts. It's pretty fuckin clear.

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

#139

Post by neveroffensive »

djtriptych wrote: post #132
neveroffensive wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure. All of us here would have made the correct hundred thousand or so choices and avoided the enormous number of traps and inherent dangers of poverty. We would have gone from poor five year olds to wealthy 30 year olds by force of will. We would have had the energy and resources and parental support to source our food, health, shelter, and education for our first 18 years because we make such great decisions. Or:…

> we believe we _are_ good because we _have_ it good

No, I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me I didn't make good choices and work hard to get where I'm at.

I paid my own way through college by working nights, got my first job in I.T. by repairing thrift-store computers and selling them on eBay, and chose to work hard in school because I knew it was important.

My parent's money didn't make a difference, what did make a difference was the lessons they taught me, and the interest they took in my education.

> We would have had the energy and resources and parental support to source our food, health, shelter, and education for our first 18 years because we make such great decisions.

There are almost no children in America who don't have access to food, shelter, and education. The only thing you are right about is parental support, but not in regard to food/shelter, what most kids don't have in America are parents who force them to focus on education and financial responsibility.

If you wan't to succeed in America, there are limitless options, most of which are extremely hard. That's the real problem. I didn't get to where I'm at because of my parents. I got there because I worked 60 hour weeks, and studied subjects I cared nothing about, but knew would benefit me in the long run. It was fairly hard, but completely doable.

I'm willing to make the assertion that anyone, regardless of their background or parental support, can go to community college, work to pay their way through, get a reasonable degree, and move into the middle class within 10 years.

Edit:

Forgot to address your other points.

> Sure. All of us here would have made the correct hundred thousand or so choices and avoided the enormous number of traps and inherent dangers of poverty.

If you don't make the right choices, it's your fault. It's unfortunate, but it's still your fault.

> We would have gone from poor five year olds to wealthy 30 year olds by force of will.

Yes, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

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

#140

Post by olympus »

stevenwoo wrote: post #89
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.

tl;dr: Alasak oil royalty payments are more like UBI and less like CCT, so the incentive structure is a little different.

The Alaska oil royalties are not quite conditional cash transfer (CCT), since the only condition is that you lived in Alaska the entire year. They are much closer to universal basic income (UBI). Basically, since I don't have to comply with the forced requirements of a CCT, someone receiving a UBI is free to save it or spend it however they want. In Alaska that might mean that I'm more likely to go on a job hunt. I'm not exactly sure why, but not being forced to keep your kid in school and go to the doctor might be better in the long run.

CCT and UBI are quite different, although they might look the same at first glance. A UBI would give money to everyone, even the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet. CCT only targets poor people, but places restrictions on what you have to do to get the money.

With a CCT, you aren't free to spend your money however you want. You must first spend your money complying with the conditions or you stop getting the payments. If I'm only getting $150 per month, then most of the short term benefit is eaten up by going to doctor appointments and my kid's school.

Post reply on HN