3 ms·

This article focuses on Nigeria, but this happens in the US [0] as well. This is especially cruel when you consider how many benefits are tied to work requireme

by dfxm12 5y ago

This article focuses on Nigeria, but this happens in the US [0] as well. This is especially cruel when you consider how many benefits are tied to work requirements. This leads to a power imbalance for employers know people will take terrible jobs, which leave them in poverty, because if they take time to get job training or even time to just find a better job, they might lose the SNAP benefits they need for their own and their children's survival, just as one example. 0 - https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/work-alone-often-not-enough-lift-people-out-poverty https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/work-alone-often-not-enough...

notch656a 5y ago
SNAP is certainly an example, although it's pretty minimal (generally ~$1-$2 / hr increase is enough to jump out of the cliff). The child care subsidies cliff is the biggest one by far -- not even close. One interesting question though is since the framing here is net benefit of society, is whether it's actually a benefit to society to fix the child care cliff. It could be that stacking <5 y/o in a pile with an overworked stranger leads to worse outcomes for children. It may be this cliff is actually a net benefit by allocating labor of a low earning parent into a high-payoff 1:1 attention long-term benefit to a small child. I think we may find that society is worse off if child-care subsidies are "fixed."
- brimble 5y ago
  Financial hardship & stress causes an awful lot of problems, including being a major factor in divorce, which is definitely, statically speaking, really bad for kids. Housing insecurity and things like frequent moves between apartments and/or spending stretches with various relatives are common among the very-low-income—those things keep kids from developing friendships with peers (in school or otherwise), and badly disrupts their school experience, once that starts (because they switch schools a lot, have tons of absences for various reasons, et c.) I'd be very surprised if the benefit you mention even comes close to making up for those things.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    > divorce, which is definitely, statically speaking, really bad for kids. The alternative, seeing parents who clearly don't like each other, is worse. I often think that studies on the effect of divorce on kids are missing the forest for the trees: They're studying divorce, not broken parental relationships that lead to divorce. Anecdata here, but I dated a girl who had parents that had certainly fallen out of love ages ago, and it was clear that she had a sad idea of what a relationship was supposed to look like. She didn't have a language of love [0] that she would ever express, and was unresponsive to my attempts at using any of the languages. She claimed to love me and cried when we broke up, but I couldn't be in a relationship that felt loveless. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Could be worse, could not. Maintaining two households is costly and could lead to imprisonment of one parent if they can't keep up with paying child support an imputed income a judge assigns to them. Were I to fall out of love with my wife I would be very much tempted not to divorce and instead maintain an amiable platonic relationship until my child is gone. I'm not sure which is worse, two parents who don't love each other, or two parent who don't love each other and are in separate households with one under constant stress of possible imprisonment if they lose their job.
    - brimble 5y ago
      The trouble is that divorce, and even relationships turning bad, isn't something that necessarily happens in a vacuum. Very few marriages would really survive all changing circumstances, no matter what the vows say. A relationship that might have worked out OK can turn bad and end in divorce in part because money gets very tight, for too long a time. I do agree that a more nuanced analysis would need to find some way of determining whether, or at what rate, the particular cases that are pushed over the edge by financial hardship were already in some way toxic or creating a poor environment for the kids, and were likely to stay that way even if circumstance improved somewhat.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  Do you have any evidence that kids in daycare do worse off than kids raised by a stay at home parent?
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I would prefer the burden of proof lie on those who seek to use systemic violence to extract money (taxes) from others to fund these programs. Violence should always be justified, so I'd like to see the evidence that providing benefits that allow being shoved in a room with 6+ kids per overworked stranger is better off than more individualized care by a parent. If it's your own kid and you're paying with your own earnings then have at it.
  - skrbjc 5y ago
    “ We find that the negative effects on noncognitive outcomes persisted to school ages, and also that cohorts with increased child care access had worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.” https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170603 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170603

by dfxm12 5y ago

notch656a 5y ago

SNAP is certainly an example, although it's pretty minimal (generally ~$1-$2 / hr increase is enough to jump out of the cliff). The child care subsidies cliff is the biggest one by far -- not even close. One interesting question though is since the framing here is net benefit of society, is whether it's actually a benefit to society to fix the child care cliff. It could be that stacking <5 y/o in a pile with an overworked stranger leads to worse outcomes for children. It may be this cliff is actually a net benefit by allocating labor of a low earning parent into a high-payoff 1:1 attention long-term benefit to a small child. I think we may find that society is worse off if child-care subsidies are "fixed."

brimble 5y ago
Financial hardship & stress causes an awful lot of problems, including being a major factor in divorce, which is definitely, statically speaking, really bad for kids. Housing insecurity and things like frequent moves between apartments and/or spending stretches with various relatives are common among the very-low-income—those things keep kids from developing friendships with peers (in school or otherwise), and badly disrupts their school experience, once that starts (because they switch schools a lot, have tons of absences for various reasons, et c.) I'd be very surprised if the benefit you mention even comes close to making up for those things.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > divorce, which is definitely, statically speaking, really bad for kids. The alternative, seeing parents who clearly don't like each other, is worse. I often think that studies on the effect of divorce on kids are missing the forest for the trees: They're studying divorce, not broken parental relationships that lead to divorce. Anecdata here, but I dated a girl who had parents that had certainly fallen out of love ages ago, and it was clear that she had a sad idea of what a relationship was supposed to look like. She didn't have a language of love [0] that she would ever express, and was unresponsive to my attempts at using any of the languages. She claimed to love me and cried when we broke up, but I couldn't be in a relationship that felt loveless. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Could be worse, could not. Maintaining two households is costly and could lead to imprisonment of one parent if they can't keep up with paying child support an imputed income a judge assigns to them. Were I to fall out of love with my wife I would be very much tempted not to divorce and instead maintain an amiable platonic relationship until my child is gone. I'm not sure which is worse, two parents who don't love each other, or two parent who don't love each other and are in separate households with one under constant stress of possible imprisonment if they lose their job.
  - brimble 5y ago
    The trouble is that divorce, and even relationships turning bad, isn't something that necessarily happens in a vacuum. Very few marriages would really survive all changing circumstances, no matter what the vows say. A relationship that might have worked out OK can turn bad and end in divorce in part because money gets very tight, for too long a time. I do agree that a more nuanced analysis would need to find some way of determining whether, or at what rate, the particular cases that are pushed over the edge by financial hardship were already in some way toxic or creating a poor environment for the kids, and were likely to stay that way even if circumstance improved somewhat.
cortesoft 5y ago
Do you have any evidence that kids in daycare do worse off than kids raised by a stay at home parent?
- notch656a 5y ago
  I would prefer the burden of proof lie on those who seek to use systemic violence to extract money (taxes) from others to fund these programs. Violence should always be justified, so I'd like to see the evidence that providing benefits that allow being shoved in a room with 6+ kids per overworked stranger is better off than more individualized care by a parent. If it's your own kid and you're paying with your own earnings then have at it.
- skrbjc 5y ago
  “ We find that the negative effects on noncognitive outcomes persisted to school ages, and also that cohorts with increased child care access had worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.” https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170603 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170603