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

America is substantially reducing poverty among children

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 161 posts

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#31

Post by jandrese »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15
munk-a wrote: post #9

I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.

Nah, it's not. Monthly lottery winners are. If you know that 'free money' is just a temporary thing, you don't quit your job and move somewhere where that amount of money is enough to survive, and just stop working.... if ubi is permanent, and guaranteed to be "enough" to minimalistically survive, many more people would do that.

Using Lotto Winners as your experiment has the problem of selecting only the people who play the lotto. Your data will be biased towards less fiscal responsibility.

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#32

Post by koboll »

DonnyV wrote: post #20

This is just PR from the Economists, so that we think everything is fine. Its NOT! Just Google and find the mountain of evidence how the US fails its children and families.

"Things are getting substantially better" doesn't mean "everything is fine".

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#34

Post by markus_zhang »

munk-a wrote: post #9

I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.

If cost is not controlled I'd expect expenses of food, clothed and renting to rise after UBI being implemented.

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#35

Post by kiba »

throwaway210222 wrote: post #24
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it's not. Monthly lottery winners are. If you know that 'free money' is just a temporary thing, you don't quit your job and move somewhere where that amount of money is enough to survive, and just stop working.... if ubi is permanent, and guaranteed to be "enough" to minimalistically survive, many more people would do that.

> if ubi is permanent… The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a job" to pay rent and make ends meet. And whilst the masses our back out in the wilds scrounging up their money, the landlord class will be consolidating into an every smaller group. Inflation is what happens when too much money chases a limited supply of goods.…

That's why you need to fight asset inflation, reduce red tapes and increasing housing opportunities.

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#36

Post by 45yu56bwedfg »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #27

Poverty is more than an financial state. Giving away money to move someone from just below the poverty line - which is artificially low - to just above that line is honorable, but "curing" poverty is not that simple. Unfortunately, articles like this help the myth persist. More political magician-y mumbo jumbo. It's also important to ask: at what cost? If these monies were financed by printing more money, then that's…

Money is always printed. The only difference is how fast we inflate the current supply, not that we inflate it. Inflation is a function of the system itself. Its fundamental.

Poverty is a desired outcome of this system.

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#37

Post by jcranmer »

DonnyV wrote: post #20

This is just PR from the Economists, so that we think everything is fine. Its NOT! Just Google and find the mountain of evidence how the US fails its children and families.

Considering that the article points out the US's abnormally high child poverty rate, the difficulty the US has in actually getting the new child tax credits to those to whom it is warranted (since you have to file a tax return to get it, and the very poorest don't file tax returns), points out that the credits are only temporary and their permanent extension is not guaranteed, the article comes across not as "everything is fine" but rather as "this is a start, not the end--now keep at it!"

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#38

Post by encoderer »

markus_zhang wrote: post #34
munk-a wrote: post #9

I think this (COVID relief) is the closest America is going to get to a legitimate domestic experiment on UBI we're going to get for a while so it's rather heartening to see the drop in family poverty.

If cost is not controlled I'd expect expenses of food, clothed and renting to rise after UBI being implemented.

Costs cannot be controlled. That’s not how it works. That’s how you get empty shelves.

I think some inflation will happen but not dramatically in food and clothing. We do not have many naked and starving people in America. It’s the premium consumer goods that will see higher demand - think dishwashers not Chanel.

Re: America is substantially reducing poverty among children

#39

Post by munk-a »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #27

Poverty is more than an financial state. Giving away money to move someone from just below the poverty line - which is artificially low - to just above that line is honorable, but "curing" poverty is not that simple. Unfortunately, articles like this help the myth persist. More political magician-y mumbo jumbo. It's also important to ask: at what cost? If these monies were financed by printing more money, then that's…

Inflation always directly hurts those with the most the most by value alone - but it can specifically cause hardships to those who are in some critical point where an extra dollar could cause a dramatic increase in quality of life.

I think most proposals around sustaining this benefit in the long term don't rely on pure monetary creation but instead would shift it to a budget item that is directly funded by taxes (which in theory can be better targeted to hit those with excess)

Post reply on HN