4 ms·

I would disagree on the relative merits of in-kind vs. cash assistance, for reasons that have mostly been explored by other replies. There is a specific problem

I would disagree on the relative merits of in-kind vs. cash assistance, for reasons that have mostly been explored by other replies. There is a specific problem, I see though, and it's what all of these quotes have in common: "When poor people are explicitly given a room, 3 square meals/day, and government issue poor-people sweats" "You've now demanded that specific goods be added to the list and we can explicitly have a debate on the merits of those goods." "then they can consume only some of the available in-kind benefits" "But you can also just eliminate the bad choices and directly manage their lives until they develop the ability to manage their own life." All of these things have massive overhead at the administrative, procurement, and distribution tiers. Each of these things costs a lot of money: 1. Deciding on what to distribute 2. Subsequently arguing with recipients over the addition of items to the available benefits, and subsequently approving new items 3. Selecting and procuring the available options for each benefit item or type. 4. Distributing each item. 5. Tracking inventory of each in-kind benefit. 6. Negotiating returns of each in-kind benefit. 7. Balancing stock levels of available benefits to match the partial consumption of some recipients. While I haven't seen a specific evaluation, I would be completely flabbergasted if this overhead was somehow a lesser cost than the potential loss of cash benefits to pleasure spending. EDIT: To summarize, why manage this all centrally instead of relying on market dynamics that are well understood and efficient retail and distribution infrastructures that already exist?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Once the minimum benefit is determined, you can of course rely on market dynamics to provide it. The government can put out an RFP for caring for poor people and the lowest bidder can service the contract. As for determining the actual minimum benefit, that's really just the job for a few bureaucrats. Once the basics are specified, the rest reverts to (free) political pundits - e.g., kragen arguing that books should be included. And note that the losses due to pleasure spending can be HUGE in some cases, mainly relating to location. For example, consider the various housing projects in the east village, upper west side, etc. The cost of pleasure spending is $manhattan 2 bedroom - $cheaper location dormitory (living in Manhattan without roommates is a consumption choice).
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Market forces will guarantee that any bidding for an RFP will maximise profit and minimise actual social spending. It's bad enough trying to manage IT procurements through RFPs. When you try to manage social spending through RFPs, the result is madness. This is empirical, and not just opinion. The UK has made a policy of outsourcing all kinds of critical social services to "market forces", and the results are predictably unsatisfactory. Why would they be anything else when you have a direct and clear conflict of interest between maximising shareholder returns and providing effective services?
- giaour 11y ago
  That would mean that market dynamics are used to plan but not administer the benefits. Distributing can lets market dynamics take care of everything.
- dikaiosune 11y ago
  I think it's really spurious to imply that moving to a luxury apartment would be high on the list of priorities for anyone receiving a small cash infusion instead of in-kind benefits. I see no reason to expect even a small number of people receiving assistance to squander it on overpriced housing. Is there any evidence to suggest that cash assistance to poor families is wasted at anywhere near the rate you're describing? I can understand being uncomfortable with the amount that may get spent on alcohol or other vices, but I still think that any reasonable amount to expect would be much lower than the amount wasted on administering in-kind and similar benefit programs. Just think about how much it costs us as a society to administer EBT systems -- it raises the cost of food for everyone, not just the benefit recipients.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Is there any evidence to suggest that cash assistance to poor families is wasted at anywhere near the rate you're describing? There are 53,809 NYCHA housing units in Manhattan alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authorit... Assuming an average market rent of $2,000 (a huge underestimate), and assuming dormitories could be provided in distant brooklyn/queens/bronx for $700 (an overestimate), that means we are wasting 70M/month on luxury goods for poor folks in one county alone. Are you really trying to claim that the cost of administration would exceed $1300/month per housing unit?

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Once the minimum benefit is determined, you can of course rely on market dynamics to provide it. The government can put out an RFP for caring for poor people and the lowest bidder can service the contract. As for determining the actual minimum benefit, that's really just the job for a few bureaucrats. Once the basics are specified, the rest reverts to (free) political pundits - e.g., kragen arguing that books should be included. And note that the losses due to pleasure spending can be HUGE in some cases, mainly relating to location. For example, consider the various housing projects in the east village, upper west side, etc. The cost of pleasure spending is $manhattan 2 bedroom - $cheaper location dormitory (living in Manhattan without roommates is a consumption choice).

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Market forces will guarantee that any bidding for an RFP will maximise profit and minimise actual social spending. It's bad enough trying to manage IT procurements through RFPs. When you try to manage social spending through RFPs, the result is madness. This is empirical, and not just opinion. The UK has made a policy of outsourcing all kinds of critical social services to "market forces", and the results are predictably unsatisfactory. Why would they be anything else when you have a direct and clear conflict of interest between maximising shareholder returns and providing effective services?
giaour 11y ago
That would mean that market dynamics are used to plan but not administer the benefits. Distributing can lets market dynamics take care of everything.
dikaiosune 11y ago
I think it's really spurious to imply that moving to a luxury apartment would be high on the list of priorities for anyone receiving a small cash infusion instead of in-kind benefits. I see no reason to expect even a small number of people receiving assistance to squander it on overpriced housing. Is there any evidence to suggest that cash assistance to poor families is wasted at anywhere near the rate you're describing? I can understand being uncomfortable with the amount that may get spent on alcohol or other vices, but I still think that any reasonable amount to expect would be much lower than the amount wasted on administering in-kind and similar benefit programs. Just think about how much it costs us as a society to administer EBT systems -- it raises the cost of food for everyone, not just the benefit recipients.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Is there any evidence to suggest that cash assistance to poor families is wasted at anywhere near the rate you're describing? There are 53,809 NYCHA housing units in Manhattan alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authorit... Assuming an average market rent of $2,000 (a huge underestimate), and assuming dormitories could be provided in distant brooklyn/queens/bronx for $700 (an overestimate), that means we are wasting 70M/month on luxury goods for poor folks in one county alone. Are you really trying to claim that the cost of administration would exceed $1300/month per housing unit?