4 ms·

"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?

dragonwriter 10y ago
"matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.
- ihaveajob 10y ago
  They can also be capped to a maximum amount. You can see this often on NPR listener donation rallies, when companies match funds up to something like $5k for the duration of a show. If more than $5k is reached, the company still donates only $5k.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    I think OP's intuition is understandable. Search Results match·ing ˈmaCHiNG/ adjective adjective: matching 1. corresponding in pattern, color, or design; complementary. "a blue jacket and matching skirt" **2. equal in number or amount; equivalent. "the college will provide matching funds to complete the project"**
    - Retric 10y ago
      It does not need to be 1:1 to be corresponding in pattern.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        I'm aware, but the second definition I think is also valid, and perhaps one that many people are more colloquially familiar with. After all, a match (singular) is a 1:1.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- overcast 10y ago
  Then I would have clarified that sentence, by saying matching funds UP TO $20 million. If my employer says they are matching my 401k contribution, I'd expect that is 1:1, not a hidden, oh we really only meant 20%. I'm just being pedantic.
  - neuronexmachina 10y ago
    You'd be assuming poorly, then. The most common 401k(k) matching is actually 50%.
    - spydum 10y ago
      (Up to 6%)
    - overcast 10y ago
      So you would just go into a 401k plan assuming 50%? My company has ZERO matching for 401k. You'd be assuming poorly, then.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    "Matching funds" is an established term of art in government (and some other) finance for contribution with some proportionality factor required by the granting agency to be spent toward the same goal by some other agency (often the recipient themselves) as a condition of the granted funds. The term was used correctly in the sentence, and since the exact funding split was specified, there was nothing to be clarified.
shshhdhs 10y ago
Ya, more importantly this is strange. This is more of a city/state issue than a federal issue.
- arthur_pryor 10y ago
  is this statement implying that you don't believe in federal disaster relief for local emergencies?
- no_wizard 10y ago
  I think I'm gonna to go ahead and assume what you are saying is 'why isn't the state and:or city already handling this' just more poorly worded. I'm going with that because I want to take a moment to highlight this is one of the things that is very wrong with American infrastructure. You see most states aren't like the federal government in that they are often competing with other states for things like industry, job creation, and this in turn has a very high curbing away from infrastructure projects from say a town like Flint which isn't really a thriving economic center like to once was. The state itself is going to choose rightly or wrongly to dump money into places like Ann Arbor, which is much more of a thriving place in Michigan. Cities also are competing more wholly in this regard and it's unlikely Flint could even come close to paying for this being caught up with all the other services that city has to run. This is before we factor for political favors, corruption, ill fated projects and the like. For all but the biggest metros/cities and most populous and still thriving states like California, New York, or San Fran, LA, NYC, hell your thriving and well run Minneapolis-St.Paul and the like. You have a great inability for cities and even entire States that without influx of Federal funds would be unable to do even minimal investment in infrastructure. It's a huge problem. One of the reasons that calls for a Federal Infrastructure Investment Act is so broadly supported in both sides (though what infrastructure that would be built isn't and it is always about Roads it's seems before anything else)

dragonwriter 10y ago

"matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.

ihaveajob 10y ago
They can also be capped to a maximum amount. You can see this often on NPR listener donation rallies, when companies match funds up to something like $5k for the duration of a show. If more than $5k is reached, the company still donates only $5k.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I think OP's intuition is understandable. Search Results match·ing ˈmaCHiNG/ adjective adjective: matching 1. corresponding in pattern, color, or design; complementary. "a blue jacket and matching skirt" **2. equal in number or amount; equivalent. "the college will provide matching funds to complete the project"**
  - Retric 10y ago
    It does not need to be 1:1 to be corresponding in pattern.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      I'm aware, but the second definition I think is also valid, and perhaps one that many people are more colloquially familiar with. After all, a match (singular) is a 1:1.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
overcast 10y ago
Then I would have clarified that sentence, by saying matching funds UP TO $20 million. If my employer says they are matching my 401k contribution, I'd expect that is 1:1, not a hidden, oh we really only meant 20%. I'm just being pedantic.
- neuronexmachina 10y ago
  You'd be assuming poorly, then. The most common 401k(k) matching is actually 50%.
  - spydum 10y ago
    (Up to 6%)
  - overcast 10y ago
    So you would just go into a 401k plan assuming 50%? My company has ZERO matching for 401k. You'd be assuming poorly, then.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  "Matching funds" is an established term of art in government (and some other) finance for contribution with some proportionality factor required by the granting agency to be spent toward the same goal by some other agency (often the recipient themselves) as a condition of the granted funds. The term was used correctly in the sentence, and since the exact funding split was specified, there was nothing to be clarified.

shshhdhs 10y ago

Ya, more importantly this is strange. This is more of a city/state issue than a federal issue.

arthur_pryor 10y ago
is this statement implying that you don't believe in federal disaster relief for local emergencies?
no_wizard 10y ago
I think I'm gonna to go ahead and assume what you are saying is 'why isn't the state and:or city already handling this' just more poorly worded. I'm going with that because I want to take a moment to highlight this is one of the things that is very wrong with American infrastructure. You see most states aren't like the federal government in that they are often competing with other states for things like industry, job creation, and this in turn has a very high curbing away from infrastructure projects from say a town like Flint which isn't really a thriving economic center like to once was. The state itself is going to choose rightly or wrongly to dump money into places like Ann Arbor, which is much more of a thriving place in Michigan. Cities also are competing more wholly in this regard and it's unlikely Flint could even come close to paying for this being caught up with all the other services that city has to run. This is before we factor for political favors, corruption, ill fated projects and the like. For all but the biggest metros/cities and most populous and still thriving states like California, New York, or San Fran, LA, NYC, hell your thriving and well run Minneapolis-St.Paul and the like. You have a great inability for cities and even entire States that without influx of Federal funds would be unable to do even minimal investment in infrastructure. It's a huge problem. One of the reasons that calls for a Federal Infrastructure Investment Act is so broadly supported in both sides (though what infrastructure that would be built isn't and it is always about Roads it's seems before anything else)