6 ms·

Did anybody actually read the story? The key observation is that a study published in Nature "found a correlation between child brain structure and family inco

by scholia 11y ago

Did anybody actually read the story? The key observation is that a study published in Nature "found a correlation between child brain structure and family income. Simply put, family income is correlated with children’s brain surface area, especially among poor children. More money, bigger-brained kids." This is supported by the Cherokee study: when the families became a bit better off ($4,000 a year) the kids did better when they grew up. So it's missing the point to argue about how grown-ups might (or might not) "waste" money and whether cash is better than other forms of welfare. The point is that bringing up children in poverty creates a worse outcome for society as a whole. The fact is that $4,000 a year for 20 years is a very small amount compared with the cost of US police, courts, and prisons. If a poor kid grows up, gets a job and pays taxes, that's a massive win for society compared with the same kid growing up in the sort of deprivation that leads to a life of crime and jail.

13thLetter 11y ago
Is correlation, causation? Perhaps if you're taking good care of your children, a) they will have bigger brains and b) you probably had more resources to take good care of your children than people who don't, which means you probably have more family income.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Will the average Cherokee child consume $80k of police/court/prison services during their lifetime? That's breakeven. Assuming "massive win" means another $80k of cost savings, that means that absent this intervention, the average Cherokee will cost society $160k over their lifetime. Is this really true? Is the average Cherokee a criminal who spends 3 years in prison (google suggests prison costs a bit under $50k/year)?
- ddlatham 11y ago
  Agreed that it seems unlikely an average child would grow up to use $80k less in police/court/prison services, but much more persuasive to me would be a case that they produce $80k more value to the rest of society, from less use of such services to paying more taxes, to being better neighbors, employees, employers, and citizens.
  - scholia 11y ago
    80k is roughly the cost of jailing one US adult for two years. "In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
- jessedhillon 11y ago
  That analysis is too linear. As a basic rebuttal, supposing some small percentage of Cherokee children is averted from a path of violent crime, the reduction in violent crime brings an outsized benefit (especially to would-be victims) which is worth the cost. You're looking at the middle of curve, and ignoring the narrowing of the extreme bottom. And presumably the entire curve is shifting to the right, so there's gradual gains at the extreme top as well.
- Riseed 11y ago
  First, I don't think "cost to society" is something that can currently be precisely calculated by a balance sheet. What's the "cost" or "savings" from x hours of y humans suffering (or not)? Secondly, going on math alone, you're missing many variables: the (taxed) income of the free individual, hours volunteered, money donated, "positive influence" ripple effect, etc.
- Avshalom 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia US human lives are valued at 50-100k a year so if it provides the equivalent of 2 good years above what they would have otherwise it's plus.
- barrkel 11y ago
  Will the average Cherokee child consume $80k of police/court/prison services during their lifetime? That's breakeven You can't talk about "breakeven" without considering opportunity cost of not taking the choice - in this case, taxes and other returns that better outcomes would produce. It doesn't take much increase in outcomes to arrive with a benefit worth $80k over a whole lifetime.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
resonate 11y ago
Exactly! Unfortunately people are quick to react to short term costs ($4,000 a year to improve society) rather than seeing that the long term benefits far outweigh them.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Also, people are quick to weasel out by assuming someone's problems are caused by their lack of virtue ("if only they worked harder", "had more discipline", etc.) instead noticing the environmental factors that can actually be improved.
jdonaldson 11y ago
When I saw that the argument was based on the outcomes at an Indian reservation I became very, very skeptical of the findings. Reservations are not an ideal arrangement, and there's plenty of evidence that many of their problems came out of "free cash" from the government or casinos. I personally think that over a large enough population free cash undermines the motivation to seek education or employment. Many of the youth there have severe drug and alcohol problems, far greater than global statistics that their rural demographic would suggest. As a counter point, you could look at the success of Native American tribes that receive government grants or casino payouts, vs those that don't, such as the Lumbee Indians. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/business/features/2470-lumbee-tribe-builds-capital-success http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/business/features/2470-... In the case of the Lumbee, there's still a strong sense of helping out folks that need it, but the help is at the discretion of the tribe, not a government (or casino). Furthermore, they've built that system without much federal help. Note that I'm not arguing for an all or nothing approach here, I think it's reasonable for the federal government to help the tribe financially. I don't think it's reasonable to have the government give money directly to individuals in the tribe.
- pyre 11y ago
  > I don't think it's reasonable to have the government give money directly to individuals in the tribe. Well, in some tribes there is economic inequality due to local corruption. So this isn't really a one-size-fits-all solution. It works out well when the local government is actually working for the people (vs. just for itself + relatives).
marblar 11y ago
> The point is that bringing up children in poverty creates a worse outcome for society as a whole. I see your point, but it’s important to note that the authors still haven’t established causation, but are planning a follow-up to do so. The authors aren’t making quite as strong of a claim as you’re making here -yet.
- scholia 11y ago
  Point taken, but causation is hard if not impossible in this kind of area (we're not dealing with physics here), and do you want to wait 20 years to see the results? The immediate problem is that the costs of US courts and prisons are extremely high (1) and they are still growing quite rapidly. Jailing one criminal for three years costs over $100,000 (aside from the other social costs that other people have pointed out), which would cover a substantial amount of intervention. Further, US prisons hold very large numbers of poor people, because poor people have the biggest motive to commit crimes (nothing to lose), and the least ability to pay for bail, lawyers or other treatments (eg for mental illness). I'll take correlation if it shows that interventions help poor children to avoid this fate. (1) Quoting Wikipedia: "Judicial, police, and corrections costs totaled $212 billion in 2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2007, around $74 billion was spent on corrections according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics." "In 2014, among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the average cost of incarceration for federal inmates in fiscal year 2014 was $30,619.85." "In California in 2008, it cost the state an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a state prison. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual cost increased by about $19,500." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
cookiecaper 11y ago
The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd, and yet, it seems to be a cornerstone in Millennial thinking. We do everyone a disservice when we pretend that all of our problems stem from not giving everyone free money. Maybe we are too far removed from the Soviet era for the whippersnappers to understand how very not-well these strategies turned out 30+ years ago. Stop worshipping money. Correlation is not causation. What, pray tell, is the direct link that causes a child's brain size to increase in relation to the parents' bank account? Perhaps the reason wealthier children are healthier is because their parents have discipline and work hard to provide a safe, healthy, stimulating environment for their children, which includes retaining steady gainful employment and using the proceeds from that employment to provide food, shelter, and education for the children. This will not magically happen among poor children if you give the parents some baseline income. I'm not speaking in absolute terms; there is definitely some crossover with good parents who are down on their luck and bad parents who have way too much money. But boiling the problem down to "give poor people more money to fix kids' brain structures" is too lazy, and preaching this about like it's some fundamental righteous principle is highly distasteful.
- ryandamm 11y ago
  What I'm hearing you say is this (correct me if I'm wrong): You are resistant to early, empirical results that poverty causes negative outcomes for children, and you will require stronger evidence to overcome this resistance. Fair I suppose, but it says a lot about your politics. And I'll leave it there.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    A more charitable interpretation would be that while poverty is one thing that harms children (and that can be fixed by giving them cash) there's a bunch of other stuff that harms children, and these don't seem to be fixable with cash. EG parents with addiction to alcohol doesn't seem to be something that's fixed with cash hand outs.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd Yes, that argument nobody is making is indeed absurd. Perhaps the reason wealthier children are healthier is because their parents have discipline and work hard to provide a safe, healthy, stimulating environment for their children, which includes retaining steady gainful employment and using the proceeds from that employment to provide food, shelter, and education for the children. This will not magically happen among poor children if you give the parents some baseline income. Did you RTFA? The improvements happened after families started gaining an extra $4k from a new casino that was opened in the area. So yes, it did magically happened after the parents got a baseline income increase.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by scholia 11y ago

13thLetter 11y ago

Is correlation, causation? Perhaps if you're taking good care of your children, a) they will have bigger brains and b) you probably had more resources to take good care of your children than people who don't, which means you probably have more family income.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Will the average Cherokee child consume $80k of police/court/prison services during their lifetime? That's breakeven. Assuming "massive win" means another $80k of cost savings, that means that absent this intervention, the average Cherokee will cost society $160k over their lifetime. Is this really true? Is the average Cherokee a criminal who spends 3 years in prison (google suggests prison costs a bit under $50k/year)?

ddlatham 11y ago
Agreed that it seems unlikely an average child would grow up to use $80k less in police/court/prison services, but much more persuasive to me would be a case that they produce $80k more value to the rest of society, from less use of such services to paying more taxes, to being better neighbors, employees, employers, and citizens.
- scholia 11y ago
  80k is roughly the cost of jailing one US adult for two years. "In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
jessedhillon 11y ago
That analysis is too linear. As a basic rebuttal, supposing some small percentage of Cherokee children is averted from a path of violent crime, the reduction in violent crime brings an outsized benefit (especially to would-be victims) which is worth the cost. You're looking at the middle of curve, and ignoring the narrowing of the extreme bottom. And presumably the entire curve is shifting to the right, so there's gradual gains at the extreme top as well.
Riseed 11y ago
First, I don't think "cost to society" is something that can currently be precisely calculated by a balance sheet. What's the "cost" or "savings" from x hours of y humans suffering (or not)? Secondly, going on math alone, you're missing many variables: the (taxed) income of the free individual, hours volunteered, money donated, "positive influence" ripple effect, etc.
Avshalom 11y ago
According to Wikipedia US human lives are valued at 50-100k a year so if it provides the equivalent of 2 good years above what they would have otherwise it's plus.
barrkel 11y ago
Will the average Cherokee child consume $80k of police/court/prison services during their lifetime? That's breakeven You can't talk about "breakeven" without considering opportunity cost of not taking the choice - in this case, taxes and other returns that better outcomes would produce. It doesn't take much increase in outcomes to arrive with a benefit worth $80k over a whole lifetime.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

resonate 11y ago

Exactly! Unfortunately people are quick to react to short term costs ($4,000 a year to improve society) rather than seeing that the long term benefits far outweigh them.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Also, people are quick to weasel out by assuming someone's problems are caused by their lack of virtue ("if only they worked harder", "had more discipline", etc.) instead noticing the environmental factors that can actually be improved.

jdonaldson 11y ago

When I saw that the argument was based on the outcomes at an Indian reservation I became very, very skeptical of the findings. Reservations are not an ideal arrangement, and there's plenty of evidence that many of their problems came out of "free cash" from the government or casinos. I personally think that over a large enough population free cash undermines the motivation to seek education or employment. Many of the youth there have severe drug and alcohol problems, far greater than global statistics that their rural demographic would suggest. As a counter point, you could look at the success of Native American tribes that receive government grants or casino payouts, vs those that don't, such as the Lumbee Indians. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/business/features/2470-lumbee-tribe-builds-capital-success http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/business/features/2470-... In the case of the Lumbee, there's still a strong sense of helping out folks that need it, but the help is at the discretion of the tribe, not a government (or casino). Furthermore, they've built that system without much federal help. Note that I'm not arguing for an all or nothing approach here, I think it's reasonable for the federal government to help the tribe financially. I don't think it's reasonable to have the government give money directly to individuals in the tribe.

pyre 11y ago
> I don't think it's reasonable to have the government give money directly to individuals in the tribe. Well, in some tribes there is economic inequality due to local corruption. So this isn't really a one-size-fits-all solution. It works out well when the local government is actually working for the people (vs. just for itself + relatives).

marblar 11y ago

> The point is that bringing up children in poverty creates a worse outcome for society as a whole. I see your point, but it’s important to note that the authors still haven’t established causation, but are planning a follow-up to do so. The authors aren’t making quite as strong of a claim as you’re making here -yet.

scholia 11y ago
Point taken, but causation is hard if not impossible in this kind of area (we're not dealing with physics here), and do you want to wait 20 years to see the results? The immediate problem is that the costs of US courts and prisons are extremely high (1) and they are still growing quite rapidly. Jailing one criminal for three years costs over $100,000 (aside from the other social costs that other people have pointed out), which would cover a substantial amount of intervention. Further, US prisons hold very large numbers of poor people, because poor people have the biggest motive to commit crimes (nothing to lose), and the least ability to pay for bail, lawyers or other treatments (eg for mental illness). I'll take correlation if it shows that interventions help poor children to avoid this fate. (1) Quoting Wikipedia: "Judicial, police, and corrections costs totaled $212 billion in 2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2007, around $74 billion was spent on corrections according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics." "In 2014, among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the average cost of incarceration for federal inmates in fiscal year 2014 was $30,619.85." "In California in 2008, it cost the state an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a state prison. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual cost increased by about $19,500." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

cookiecaper 11y ago

The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd, and yet, it seems to be a cornerstone in Millennial thinking. We do everyone a disservice when we pretend that all of our problems stem from not giving everyone free money. Maybe we are too far removed from the Soviet era for the whippersnappers to understand how very not-well these strategies turned out 30+ years ago. Stop worshipping money. Correlation is not causation. What, pray tell, is the direct link that causes a child's brain size to increase in relation to the parents' bank account? Perhaps the reason wealthier children are healthier is because their parents have discipline and work hard to provide a safe, healthy, stimulating environment for their children, which includes retaining steady gainful employment and using the proceeds from that employment to provide food, shelter, and education for the children. This will not magically happen among poor children if you give the parents some baseline income. I'm not speaking in absolute terms; there is definitely some crossover with good parents who are down on their luck and bad parents who have way too much money. But boiling the problem down to "give poor people more money to fix kids' brain structures" is too lazy, and preaching this about like it's some fundamental righteous principle is highly distasteful.

ryandamm 11y ago
What I'm hearing you say is this (correct me if I'm wrong): You are resistant to early, empirical results that poverty causes negative outcomes for children, and you will require stronger evidence to overcome this resistance. Fair I suppose, but it says a lot about your politics. And I'll leave it there.
- DanBC 11y ago
  A more charitable interpretation would be that while poverty is one thing that harms children (and that can be fixed by giving them cash) there's a bunch of other stuff that harms children, and these don't seem to be fixable with cash. EG parents with addiction to alcohol doesn't seem to be something that's fixed with cash hand outs.
icebraining 11y ago
The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd Yes, that argument nobody is making is indeed absurd. Perhaps the reason wealthier children are healthier is because their parents have discipline and work hard to provide a safe, healthy, stimulating environment for their children, which includes retaining steady gainful employment and using the proceeds from that employment to provide food, shelter, and education for the children. This will not magically happen among poor children if you give the parents some baseline income. Did you RTFA? The improvements happened after families started gaining an extra $4k from a new casino that was opened in the area. So yes, it did magically happened after the parents got a baseline income increase.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]