3 ms·
Strong social safety nets of the Scandinavian variety do reduce post-transfer poverty (less so inequality), mostly by truncating the bottom of the income curve
by _delirium 9y ago
Strong social safety nets of the Scandinavian variety do reduce post-transfer poverty (less so inequality), mostly by truncating the bottom of the income curve with a floor. You can get rid of poverty pretty much by definition if you have sufficient income transfers so that everyone's income is above the povery line. E.g. if your national poverty line is $13k, if you guarantee $13k incomes, no more poverty, at least by that measure. Works a bit better in practice if you also have an integrated social worker system, so you can figure out e.g. if someone is homeless due to purely lack of income or mental health or other illness and direct them appropriately.
- microcolonel 9y ago> Strong social safety nets of the Scandinavian variety do reduce post-transfer poverty (less so inequality) Granted Scandinavian countries, now more just Norway and Denmark, tend to have very low potential for poverty in general. The rate would likely be comparatively low even without the programmes. Norway and Denmark have both considerably reduced entitlements over the years to relieve the enormous stress they put on the economy. Well before any of these programmes became so comprehensive, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden were very productive and comparatively equal.
- JamesBarney 9y agoI think we can agree "when you give poor people money to spend, they don't end up spending more money" is an extraordinary claim. And so should need an extraordinary amount of evidence to back it up. Can you point me in the right direction to some more information about how this could possibly be true?
- yorwba 9y agoI don't see anyone upthread making that claim you are challenging. Could you point me to the comment you meant to respond to?
- JamesBarney 9y agoMany of the comments up thread said redistribution doesn't work. Working is defined as reducing poverty levels which is literally measured by how much money they spend. And redistribution is literally giving poor people money. I.e. giving poor people money doesn't end up with the poor spending more money.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]