Shoulda Neva Gave Y'all Any Money!! (substack comparing cash transfer programs)

[WIA20XX]

TL/DR - Giving people money didn't end their poverty.

My reaction - DUH.

www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than

The team behind Baby’s First Years, one study of a guaranteed income program for new mothers with an emphasis on the effects it would have on mothers and on child development, gave their control group $20 per month and their experimental group $333 per month. They recruited low-income mothers at the hospitals where they gave birth, running the study in Omaha, Nebraska; New York; New Orleans and the Twin Cities. The experimental group had more money (as you would expect) and worked a little less (but it’s probably good if mothers of young babies can cut back on hours slightly). They also spent slightly more money on stuff for their kids.

But there was not much else. The cash transfers did not improve maternal health outcomes or child health outcomes.

But maybe, it just takes a lot more cash.

A Compton, California, RCT tried $500 per month for two years. They found “no significant effects of the transfers on labor supply; assets; psychological well-being; financial security; or food insecurity.” The biggest effect they found was on other income sources: The groups receiving transfers worked fewer hours or got paid less than people in the control group. The lost nontransfer income averaged $333 a month.

OK, well let's double it.

The OpenResearch unconditional income study tried $1,000 per month for three years, while the control group got $50 per month. They found that participants worked less — but nothing else improved. Not their health, not their sleep, not their jobs, not their education, and not even time spent with their children. They did experience a reduction in stress at the start of the study, but it quickly went away.

The rest of the substack is pretty good, but deeply flawed.

The unsaid premise under all of this stuff is that if they give poor people (i.e. namely 76 million whites that make up the bulk of the poor, not the 10M of Blacks) - they will take that extra 1,000 or so bucks and flip it into becoming middle class...and not need the 1,000 bucks a month.

If you turned 76M people that are not doing much into plumbers and programmers (etc) - you've suddenly got 76M fighting for the "good jobs" driving down wages, and increasing demand for goods, services, and housing.

As long as people have to participate in the market - there will be wealth/power stratification.
And as long as there are white folks calling the shots, non-whites are gonna get the left overs...

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

Just like every other major socio economic issue - allowing people who are so far removed from the population that is meant to be helped to manage implementation and analysis, is never a good idea.

 

[DEAD7]

As long as people have to participate in the market - there will be wealth/power stratification.
And as long as there are white folks calling the shots, non-whites are gonna get the left overs...

 

[Wargames]

I wonder if it’s because $500 and even $1000 more a month isn’t enough to change people’s situations? If you was working poor before that subsidy and are working poor but get a free $500 a month.… You’re still working poor.

One study said happiness peaked at $75,000 in income. Now, economists say it's higher — by a lot.

I also think that might be why a more narrow approach might work. If that $500 went towards groceries for a family that is starving, or to someone who got out of jail and needs money to survive until they get a job to even qualify as being working poor it would be a lot more useful.

 

[WIA20XX]

I wonder if it’s because $500 and even $1000 more a month isn’t enough to change people’s situations? If you was working poor before that subsidy and are working poor but get a free $500 a month.… You’re still working poor.

One study said happiness peaked at $75,000 in income. Now, economists say it's higher — by a lot.

I also think that might be why a more narrow approach might work. If that $500 went towards groceries for a family that is starving, or to someone who got out of jail and needs money to survive until they get a job to even qualify as being working poor it would be a lot more useful.

I am pretty sure the same thing would happen, which is that poor people would consume more of the same/less but better quality - because the things that they're measuring aren't financially determined.

Academia and The Left - are very convinced that money solves ALL. It's one of many blind spots that "my" team has.

 

[Wargames]

I am pretty sure the same thing would happen, which is that poor people would consume more of the same/less but better quality - because the things that they're measuring aren't financially determined.

Academia and The Left - are very convinced that money solves ALL. It's one of many blind spots that "my" team has.

It could be spending habits, but idk to test that you would have to see if the money was paid in say “groceries” or we’ll cover your rent/electric/car bills. Does that equal a better life? If That works then I would agree the issue is bad spending habit’s, but if it doesn’t it could just be the threshold to no longer being working poor isn’t going to be surpassed with a extra 12,000 a year for these people and some of there habits remain the same working poor habits they had before the cash infusion.

 

[WIA20XX]

It could be spending habits, but idk to test that you would have to see if the money was paid in say “groceries” or we’ll cover your rent/electric/car bills. Does that equal a better life? If That works then I would agree the issue is bad spending habit’s, but if it doesn’t it could just be the threshold to no longer being working poor isn’t going to be surpassed with a extra 12,000 a year for these people and some of there habits remain the same working poor habits they had before the cash infusion.

1) Spending habits in the sense that

Working class people spend their money on 1) rent, 2) food, 3) utilities, 4) transportation, 5) child care etc.

Middle/Professional/Educated class - also spend on 1-5, but some of them spend their money on better education, retirement savings, etc.

2) More money on those things - better life?

I think that's a point of debate. I'm just going to assume buying name brand cereal is better than store brand cereal, or taking Uber is better than taking the Bus.

3) Threshold isn't high enough

That's kinda sorta the issue?

One of my homies hired this woman that was making 30k, and bumped her pay to 60k.

Rich Homie - "Archie, that money meant a lifestyle change for her".

Living at home, living with roommates to having your own place.
Taking public transit and begging rides, to having your own car.

For me, I think a lot of these "do-gooder" types are looking for the least amount of money for someone to go from, 1 step away from homelessness to solid middle class citizen.

Having said that, whoever gets the funds needs the mentality to want those "middle class" things.

Buy a 10,000 2010 BMW 5 Series, or a 10,000 2010 Toyota Camry

Spend more money and move out the hood, or keep that extra money and spend it on stuff you like.

There are 1st and 2nd order effects to these decisions.

But it's not like "financial education" hasn't been offered (and required) for decades now. I'm willing to bet plenty of folks that live on the edge, follow Suze Orman, or say what my granny would say, "Pay Yourself First"....

They don't have enough money, no matter how much the scrimp and scrape.

We're stuck in a paradigm of - Earning more money vs making things cheaper - all the while expenses increase. (and those expenses are mostly profits taken by businesses and rentiers)

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Teach men to fish.

 

[OfTheCross]

TL/DR - Giving people money didn't end their poverty.

My reaction - DUH.

www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than



The rest of the substack is pretty good, but deeply flawed.

The unsaid premise under all of this stuff is that if they give poor people (i.e. namely 76 million whites that make up the bulk of the poor, not the 10M of Blacks) - they will take that extra 1,000 or so bucks and flip it into becoming middle class...and not need the 1,000 bucks a month.

If you turned 76M people that are not doing much into plumbers and programmers (etc) - you've suddenly got 76M fighting for the "good jobs" driving down wages, and increasing demand for goods, services, and housing.

As long as people have to participate in the market - there will be wealth/power stratification.
And as long as there are white folks calling the shots, non-whites are gonna get the left overs...

UBI doesn't work in America