Across the entire nation, the cost of administration doesn't need to exceed 1300/mo to be a worse option than cash benefits. It just needs to be greater than wh

Across the entire nation, the cost of administration doesn't need to exceed 1300/mo to be a worse option than cash benefits. It just needs to be greater than whatever waste recipients generate in aggregate. Manhattan low-income housing: 53,809 units, per your above claims, from one of the most expensive places to live in the entire country. 46.7 million Americans were below the poverty line in 2014: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ The vast majority of the US is quite a bit cheaper than NYC. Further, we don't need to provide cash assistance to match an area's rent -- thus achieving the same "ship out the poor people" policy you seem to espouse above. If someone can spend their $500 monthly benefit on Manhattan rent, or spend that same benefit on NJ rent, many will choose the latter and thus avoid the waste you claim is inevitable. And you've still cited no evidence which makes me think that the waste you're citing could exist on a national scale anywhere close to the administrative burden of an in-kind program.