3 ms·

> I'm genuinely unable to fathom why when it comes to solving the diverse, expensive and very real problems a social safety net is designed to capture, that "gi

by cheald 11y ago

> I'm genuinely unable to fathom why when it comes to solving the diverse, expensive and very real problems a social safety net is designed to capture, that "give everyone a fixed large chunk of cash each year" is so widely perceived as the "most efficient" solution on here. Economists widely agree that cash transfers are more efficient at improving welfare for the poor than transfers-in-kind. It's one of the less controversial statements in the field. "Give everyone a chunk of cash once a year" is probably not the most efficient manifestation of the concept just because peoples' behaviors tend to be different if they receive regular reliable income vs irregular income (see the permanent income hypothesis), but when it comes to the choice of giving the poor cash or services, just giving them cash is widely preferred.

gozur88 11y ago
>Economists widely agree that cash transfers are more efficient at improving welfare for the poor than transfers-in-kind. It's one of the less controversial statements in the field. I find that baffling based on San Francisco's experience. When the city replaced its "in kind" services with cash, for the most part the homeless people went out and spent the cash on booze and drugs. The cash system was such an obvious failure Gavin Newsom was able to build his political career on converting the system back to the "in kind" type.
- Already__Taken 11y ago
  The US is in the bottom half[1] of the education rankings which might impair good decisions. The rest of the world* has a much better functioning health care structure for lower income people as well, medical conditions that may impair their ability to make good decisions. [1] rank 36/65: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/OECD-education-report-subject-results-in-full.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/O... * developed world, obviously.

by cheald 11y ago

gozur88 11y ago

>Economists widely agree that cash transfers are more efficient at improving welfare for the poor than transfers-in-kind. It's one of the less controversial statements in the field. I find that baffling based on San Francisco's experience. When the city replaced its "in kind" services with cash, for the most part the homeless people went out and spent the cash on booze and drugs. The cash system was such an obvious failure Gavin Newsom was able to build his political career on converting the system back to the "in kind" type.

Already__Taken 11y ago
The US is in the bottom half[1] of the education rankings which might impair good decisions. The rest of the world* has a much better functioning health care structure for lower income people as well, medical conditions that may impair their ability to make good decisions. [1] rank 36/65: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/OECD-education-report-subject-results-in-full.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/O... * developed world, obviously.