6 ms·
> That perspective isn't one you'll find popular in the nations that should be able to deploy programs like these, but don't. Their voters don't see them as hel
by galfarragem 5y ago
> That perspective isn't one you'll find popular in the nations that should be able to deploy programs like these, but don't. Their voters don't see them as helping the poor, and don't see the poor as likely to invest any protective income into survival.
That political discourse is easy to explain: while it is certainly helpful to "give the fish" to the starving one, it's less clear when you give the fish to "the idle" one instead of teaching him to fish.
The main difference is the meaning of "poor". The meaning of "poor" in Africa is someone that may eat once a day or not even that. In the west, the poverty line is way above that.
- shakna 5y ago> The difference is the meaning of "poor". The meaning of "poor" in Africa is someone that may eat once a day or not even that. The company mentioned that found cash programs work, GiveDirectly, works not only on a global scale, but within US borders, with similar results.
- Aunche 5y agoGiveDirectly's studies in developing countries are quite compelling, but I don't believed they've published any studies about the US yet.
- shakna 5y agoTemporarily correct. I am eagerly awaiting the publication of results from "Evaluating one-time cash transfers to U.S. households during the COVID-19 pandemic", which has the trials completed, and analysis underway. However, they have had previous programs of their own that ran in the US, such as their Hurricane Harvey relief programs. (Which haven't turned into research papers).
- fmajid 5y agoMuch more important is the new Child Tax Credit ($3000 per year).
- typon 5y agoAmericans are so concerned with accidentally helping someone who doesn't deserve it that they'd rather sacrifice the well being of millions who do
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoIndeed. And our definition of "deserve" is perverse as well. It tends to mean "people like me".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- alexilliamson 5y agoYes this the tradeoff we need to make more explicit in these discussions. Is it better to err on the side of feeding too many people? Or do we err on the side of extensively validating peoples' hunger status, knowing that for every inch of red tape added means another hungry person left in need.
- refurb 5y agoUnemployment in CA went $23B in debt because of Covid (spent more in benefits than collected). $11B is estimated to be fraud. Your statement is quite trite to be honest.
- xphilter 5y agoSo are the fraudsters poor people (before the payout obviously) or are they just fraudsters? Maybe we just need a better system.
- tylerhou 5y agoWhat are you trying to advocate for; making it much harder to receive unemployment benefits? Then your statement demonstrates the exact point the parent commenter is trying to make. 89% of payments weren't considered fraudulent. I.e. it seems like you're suggesting that you'd rather sacrifice the well-being of the millions of people who received legitimate unemployment benefits just to prevent payments to a relatively small percentage of people who don't deserve them. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-25/californias-unemployment-fraud-20-billion https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-25/californ...