5 ms·
I can see reasons behind doing this either way. A good example is in medications. Lots of people go off medication because they feel better. But they feel be
by sbov 11y ago
I can see reasons behind doing this either way.
A good example is in medications. Lots of people go off medication because they feel better. But they feel better because of the medication. So they no longer feel better after they go off it.
Similarly, if all poverty reports in the US included benefits, many conservatives would say: see, we have no more poverty. We can get rid of these programs. But these programs were why we had no-one under the poverty line. We now have poverty again.
- mbostleman 11y agoI hear what you're saying and with accurate numbers and transparent assumptions there can be a good debate about that. But I don't think the census should be a political tool. If a person did not, in fact, spend a decade living in poverty thanks to the resources she had (either earned or given to her), why should the census report show that she lived in poverty?
- Retric 11y agoYour basic assumption is that a housing subsidy from HUD is equivalent to cash on hand. Which would imply the US government is as efficient as individuals when it comes to allocating resources which I find highly suspect. In the end a lot of 'government assistance' really lines other peoples pockets and only indirectly assists the poor.
- lkbm 11y agoThe US government is a massive bureaucracy, which is bad for efficiency, but they also control the bureaucracy, which gives them an advantage in cutting through red tape, and they can get an economy of scale that an individual can't.