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

The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–188 of 188 posts

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#181

Post by dang »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #177
dang wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. > The bigger issue is shilling Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.

> I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. Well it was. I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015 . I've further clarified post-censorship https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441 . > Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astro…

> I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship

That's a high word count on "censor", but I'm not sure what else there is to say.

> This is in effect a non-policy.

It sounds like you've misunderstood. Anyone with suspicions about astroturfing is welcome to email us; it's we who have the data and will look for evidence. What's not allowed is groundless accusation of other users in HN comments.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#182

Post by akshatpradhan »

bko wrote: post #110
rdtsc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day it boils down to that fact that the poor as a class, are easily abused and manipulated -- by governments, private entities, even the poor themselves. One of the most perverted ways they are abused is they are convinced to vote against their own interests. For example thinking back at Obama's healthcare reform and the fate of the single payer option vis-a-vis the "get your socialist government ou…

Why is it that when rich people vote against their self interest and vote to raise taxes, that's considered noble. But when poor people vote against their self interest and vote for the government to take less money from people other than them, they're being manipulated?

Education. The rich are informed and therefore its noble. The poor are uninformed are therefore its manipulation.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#183

Post by ChrisLomont »

XorNot wrote: post #132
icebraining wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthy will, in effect, receive nothing, as their taxes will increase more than they will receive from UBI. Yes, but what about the working/low-middle class who currently mostly doesn't pay for nor receive welfare? That's money that could be allocated for the actual poor.

The point is that you spend more money trying to do this, and help less people, then just not worrying about it. Attempts at identifying the truly needy end up mostly excluding them and making the aid less helpful overall.

>The point is that you spend more money trying to do this, and help less people, then just not worrying about it.

People keep repeating this. Go ahead and give us the actual numbers involved in your claims to back it up, since it fails even the most basic of smell tests.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#184

Post by giardini »

jazzyk wrote: post #139
giardini wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the CATO Institute is paid for largely by the right-winger Charles Koch (a former member of the John Birch Society) and is an organization that shills right-wing thought. The CATO institute isn't an "independent think tank" - it's been set up to promote a right-wing agenda. Paul Krugman histories the development of an entire network of such entities by wealthy arch-conservatives and small-bus…

The fact that you don't like Cato does not mean you need to put quotes around . I don't particularly care for any think-tanks - I prefer to think for myself - but Cato is respected enough to be quoted by The Economist and other major magazines/newspapers (though they may or may not agree with what Cato had to say). Also, of all people, you picked Krugman to form your opinion about "vast right-wing conspiracy"? Really…

"The fact that you don't like Cato does not mean you need to put quotes around ."

Thank you for that grammar tip: I was indeed incorrect to use quotes there. I'm still learning!

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#185

Post by giardini »

tonomics wrote: post #91
giardini wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the CATO Institute is paid for largely by the right-winger Charles Koch (a former member of the John Birch Society) and is an organization that shills right-wing thought. The CATO institute isn't an "independent think tank" - it's been set up to promote a right-wing agenda. Paul Krugman histories the development of an entire network of such entities by wealthy arch-conservatives and small-bus…

" entire network of such entities by wealthy arch-conservatives and small-business organizations" So, these 'evil networks' of small-business owners want less taxes to grow their business by making more money and employing more people? I can't see how an employed and wealthy population could be a bad thing.

Not "evil networks" but "entire network".

"I can't see how an employed and wealthy population could be a bad thing."

It isn't. But what we're facing is a _small_ employed and extremely wealthy fraction of the population together with a _huge_ low-paid supermajority of the population.

Small business owners want fewer and less taxes, no unions, lower wages, lower healthcare costs, fewer worker protections, etc. Left to themselves they would drive wages to zero. Small businesses join others to support certain non-profits that lobby in Washington, DC on their behalf. Nothing illegal, but one must ask such questions as: "Where are the lobbyists for low-paid workers?" or "Who will support the workers' families after the workers die from inhaling toxic substances day after day?" These are questions in which the small businessman's lobbyist has no interest.

In one chapter "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman histories the development of this relatively new conservative and wealthy network of individuals and not-for-profit corporations. Read/skim the book for details:

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/039...

One of Krugman's points is that the middle class is disappearing in the USA: wealth distribution now mirrors that which existed in the so-called "Gilded Age" of the Rockefellers, Carnegie et al (late 19th-early 20th century): a small percentage of extremely rich people and a large percentage of poor, with a very small middle class.

FDR's New Deal, by increasing taxes radically on the wealthy (both inheritance and income taxes) and increasing wages, brought a strong middle-class into existence. That middle class has been the engine of the US economy but is dwindling. The solution is to restore taxes and support the worker's causes.

Gilded Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

"Why We’re in a New Gilded Age" by Paul Krugman:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-...

The Rich, the Right, and the Facts: Deconstructing the Income Distribution

http://prospect.org/article/rich-right-and-facts-deconstruct...

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#186

Post by Matumio »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #180
Matumio wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to have any pointers to such research? If anything rigorous (comparable to GiveDirectly's randomized controlled trials) has been done in the US about the effect of just handing out cash, I would really be interested.

Another good read [1]. Here is a quote from the author of some key papers in favor of cash to certain poor, also the author of some pop articles on the idea: "If I were an enterprising young researcher looking for an idea and experiments that will prove powerful in five years, I would try to find the stake I can drive into the heart of the cash transfer movement." He states that giving cash is useful if the person is…

This is quite an interesting paper, thanks. But the idea that cash is useful only if the person is enterprising was not a result of this study, but an opinion that motivated its setup. As they write in the conclusions, it was "our conceptual framework" that suggests that the study has targeted the right (enterprising) people. Which I agree with, considering the variables they were interested in measuring.

Excerpts from the setup:

Groups had to submit a written proposal stating how they would use the grant for non-agricultural skills training and enterprise start-up costs. [...] The central government asked district governments to nominate 2.5 times the number of groups they could fund. [...] Successful proposals [note: randomized] received a large lump sum cash transfer [...] with no government monitoring thereafter.

Excerpts from the conclusions:

These results show that cash grants to groups of young people who develop business plans have large and persistent impacts in moving underemployed into non-agricultural jobs, increasing earnings and work hours. [...] In the end, YOP appears to have reached a group of motivated, able young people, who on average were neither exceptionally poor nor uneducated relative to their peers, in an economy with little financial depth but bouncing back from civil strife. Our conceptual framework suggests this is exactly the group to benefit from a windfall.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#187

Post by Matumio »

Futurebot wrote: post #175
Matumio wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to have any pointers to such research? If anything rigorous (comparable to GiveDirectly's randomized controlled trials) has been done in the US about the effect of just handing out cash, I would really be interested.

Some studies: http://econweb.tamu.edu/common/files/workshops/PERC%20Applie... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813... http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cfg... Articles related to the studies: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-... http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... (direct cash vs CCTs) http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049…

Those are great, thanks! All bookmarked.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#188

Post by eimai134 »

rdtsc wrote: post #176
eimai134 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a small town and most of my poor friends voted for Obama. Now they are all furious because they're getting fined for not having health insurance. They don't make enough (or don't manage their money well enough) to pay for Obamacare every month. It doesn't provide great plans either - one person I know pays $130/month for a plan with a deductible of several thousand.

Exactly it was a typical bait and switch program. It should have had a single payer option but that was gutted pretty quickly in the beginning (one can argue it would have never passed without). I was on the other end of the spectrum. I had a good insurance through a small company and because of Obama care also kind of got screwed insurance company raised our rates 50%+ in a couple of years before the whole thing sta…

My husband and I's rates have skyrocketed as well - and they were already close to $300/month per person.
Post reply on HN