I think this is OK. As a test. A larger amount makes more sense in terms of being surer to have an impact. But it would make a widespread program based on thos

I think this is OK. As a test. A larger amount makes more sense in terms of being surer to have an impact. But it would make a widespread program based on those amounts so expensive that there’s probably no point in answering the question. Suppose it was found that giving poor families $20K annually did make a substantial difference? It probably wouldn’t matter because a large scale program based on that amount would probably never get funded. Here, the question is if we give poor families a small (but not insignificant) amount of cash could that make a diffeeence? I guess the idea is that it might provide just enough to enable at least some of them to do something they would really like to do anyway but can’t quite manage. Unfortunately, at least according to this, the answer is no. Perhaps we can think of it as a promising idea that didn’t pan out? IDK, it sure would be nice if we could find a relatively cheap and straightforward solution to wide-spread poverty and inequality. Not exactly surprising that we haven’t, but it still seems worth continuing to try.