91–100 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, the idea that someone should buy food for their kid rather than a big screen TV is extremely paternalistic.
Do you object to a specific part of the research methodology in the article, or are you just showing your classism off for fun?
I wanted to trigger the discussion of paternalism using a stereotype to see what kinds of arguments for paternalism emerged.
It's important to note also that they're using the group effect that are also popular among microlenders, in that the grants are made to groups of individuals so you'll have some degrees of the individuals checking up on each other.
I wonder if this could be applied to rich countries: give $500/month to each adult citizen. No questions asked. Unlike many existing programs for the very poor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_minimum_d'insertion ) it would not dissuade them from working (if you work you just earn more) and would be really easy to administrate (there are no criteria).
I wonder if this could be applied to rich countries: give $500/month to each adult citizen. No questions asked. Unlike many existing programs for the very poor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_minimum_d'insertion ) it would not dissuade them from working (if you work you just earn more) and would be really easy to administrate (there are no criteria).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is feeding into a prevalent and false narrative that persons in poverty are all drug addicts or welfare queens. Christian Parenti really sums it up well when he describes American views on poverty in his book, The Soft Cage: "In a society that denies the true causes of poverty—low wages and structural unemployment—the poor necessarily show up as objects of mystery to be examined, measured, interrogated,…
This is silly - the poor are not unemployed, structurally or otherwise. To be unemployed one must be looking for work, which most American poor are not. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf Your source [2] also disagrees with you. When Florida implemented drug testing, they spent $46k to identify 108 drug users (presumably taking them off the welfare rolls). Unless welfare costs less than $425/person, that's a net sa…
I wonder if this could be applied to rich countries: give $500/month to each adult citizen. No questions asked. Unlike many existing programs for the very poor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_minimum_d'insertion ) it would not dissuade them from working (if you work you just earn more) and would be really easy to administrate (there are no criteria).
Wouldn't that just cause inflation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is silly - the poor are not unemployed, structurally or otherwise. To be unemployed one must be looking for work, which most American poor are not. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf Your source [2] also disagrees with you. When Florida implemented drug testing, they spent $46k to identify 108 drug users (presumably taking them off the welfare rolls). Unless welfare costs less than $425/person, that's a net sa…
That pdf says nothing about who is or is not looking for work.
...46.2 million people...lived below the official poverty level...10.4 million individuals were among the “working poor” in 2011... The working poor are persons who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (that is, working or looking for work )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only point is that to me, giving cash to Kenyans and giving cash to beggars seems morally equivalent. Not saying you shouldn't do either but I do think if you give Kenyans cash but have qualms with giving beggars money, well I don't think that makes much sense.
I think the idea is to give the money to random people (not necessarily the ones who needed). A beggar is not exactly random.
Giving money to a beggar in the US would not do nearly as much good, both because the US has excellent safety nets (hospitals that will treat you, food banks) and because everything in the US costs more (so you can provide less of it to someone in need per dollar).
I wonder if this could be applied to rich countries: give $500/month to each adult citizen. No questions asked. Unlike many existing programs for the very poor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_minimum_d'insertion ) it would not dissuade them from working (if you work you just earn more) and would be really easy to administrate (there are no criteria).
The key word here is "basic income", and it's surprisingly liked by economists, as I understand it.