3 ms·

I suspect that the benefits of conditional cash are very non-linear, such that the benefits aren't seen until the amount of monthly cash outweighs the immediate

I suspect that the benefits of conditional cash are very non-linear, such that the benefits aren't seen until the amount of monthly cash outweighs the immediate opportunity cost of meeting the conditions. If you're offering to pay me $200 per month, but I have to keep my kid in school (meaning a big time commitment from the kid and parent), and we have to go to regular doctor's appointments, then I'm losing several hours during a typical workday over the course of a year. If I take time off to take my kids to the doctor and also get myself to the doctor, then my boss is going to get irritated. I might lose my job. If I have to go to a work education program in the evening, then I don't have time for a second job. So now you're making me choose between $200 per month and possibly losing my job and preventing me from having two jobs. That's not worth it. You know what is worth it? $3k per month. That makes it worth the risk and effort. But sadly, nobody has tried a real big money CCT program, because the good "small money" programs haven't been proven to work so nobody is willing to take the risk. But the problem is, you won't see any benefit until you get over the hump of the opportunity cost that people in poverty have.

stevenwoo 9y ago
I can't find the link right now but IIRC there was a study that counterintuitively showed the yearly payments program to Alaska residents (from petroleum extraction taxes) increased the likelihood of poorer people taking on more work.
- neaden 9y ago
  Was it this one? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343&utm_content=buffer0e9c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343&...
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    Yes, though there was a news article this month about it and other studies that linked to all of them (they talked about different aspects) that I was searching for, it's a small impact.
- olympus 9y ago
  tl;dr: Alasak oil royalty payments are more like UBI and less like CCT, so the incentive structure is a little different. The Alaska oil royalties are not quite conditional cash transfer (CCT), since the only condition is that you lived in Alaska the entire year. They are much closer to universal basic income (UBI). Basically, since I don't have to comply with the forced requirements of a CCT, someone receiving a UBI is free to save it or spend it however they want. In Alaska that might mean that I'm more likely to go on a job hunt. I'm not exactly sure why, but not being forced to keep your kid in school and go to the doctor might be better in the long run. CCT and UBI are quite different, although they might look the same at first glance. A UBI would give money to everyone, even the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet. CCT only targets poor people, but places restrictions on what you have to do to get the money. With a CCT, you aren't free to spend your money however you want. You must first spend your money complying with the conditions or you stop getting the payments. If I'm only getting $150 per month, then most of the short term benefit is eaten up by going to doctor appointments and my kid's school.

stevenwoo 9y ago

I can't find the link right now but IIRC there was a study that counterintuitively showed the yearly payments program to Alaska residents (from petroleum extraction taxes) increased the likelihood of poorer people taking on more work.

neaden 9y ago
Was it this one? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343&utm_content=buffer0e9c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343&...
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Yes, though there was a news article this month about it and other studies that linked to all of them (they talked about different aspects) that I was searching for, it's a small impact.
olympus 9y ago
tl;dr: Alasak oil royalty payments are more like UBI and less like CCT, so the incentive structure is a little different. The Alaska oil royalties are not quite conditional cash transfer (CCT), since the only condition is that you lived in Alaska the entire year. They are much closer to universal basic income (UBI). Basically, since I don't have to comply with the forced requirements of a CCT, someone receiving a UBI is free to save it or spend it however they want. In Alaska that might mean that I'm more likely to go on a job hunt. I'm not exactly sure why, but not being forced to keep your kid in school and go to the doctor might be better in the long run. CCT and UBI are quite different, although they might look the same at first glance. A UBI would give money to everyone, even the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet. CCT only targets poor people, but places restrictions on what you have to do to get the money. With a CCT, you aren't free to spend your money however you want. You must first spend your money complying with the conditions or you stop getting the payments. If I'm only getting $150 per month, then most of the short term benefit is eaten up by going to doctor appointments and my kid's school.