4 ms·

It's pretty self evident isn't it. Having some (likely small) percentage of people getting food that they shouldn't will likely only have very minor influence o

It's pretty self evident isn't it. Having some (likely small) percentage of people getting food that they shouldn't will likely only have very minor influence on how muchnfood can be distributed (often enough there are some left overs even). Denying someone who really needs the food, might mean that person will not have food possible for several days. That's a pretty big cost for the person. Generally many "fraud prevention methods" for poor people are more about punishing poor people than actual fraud prevention. Often the cost of enforcement is as high or higher than the cost of the fraud.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
This seems like a repetition of the parent comment with more words. Can you describe, step-by-step, how you arrived at the conclusion?
- isoprophlex 4y ago
  Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. There is enough food to go around 2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    If you don't understand the conversation then chiming in doesn't advance the argument. The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited. But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question: "How is this assessment made when food is limited?
    - jelly 4y ago
      Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        > Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. This makes sense, thanks for actually writing an easy to follow explanation. > If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help. Can you explain how the second follows the first?
  - thefounder 4y ago
    I think this is more about the money rather than food
jacquesm 4y ago
Spot on. The real fraud isn't committed by the poor, the real fraud is committed by the rich. There is ample evidence that focusing on the rich will yield a much higher pay-off per man hour invested of investigators but the politics dictate that being 'tough on crime' or 'tough on fraud' aims for the people least likely to be able to defend themselves (rightly or wrongly accused).
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Pretty sure that both poor and rich can and do commit real fraud.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Yes, but if you look at the numbers then there are more poor people committing fraud than there are rich people, but if you look at the amounts then the rich people win by a very, very large margin. So focusing your investigative powers on the rich has a much bigger pay-off, even if they are willing to throw more money into the defense. The poor are by comparison much softer targets and so it may look good on paper but you're likely losing money on every case.
    - thefounder 4y ago
      I think going after the many rather the few is better for society
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        The rich agree... but personally I think you should allocate your resources there where it has the most effect and those that need these services are already operating on the margins. So 'better for society' does not translate into 'where the larger numbers of people are'.
        abyssin 4y ago
        And the rich should be an example for the poor.
concordDance 4y ago
Note that while this may be true where you live, it isn't true in all contexts. E.g. if you try and do food distribution to all who come with no checking in, say, the Congo you'll very soon have the vast majority of it being resold. Very poor countries are a very different environment (I lived in one for a couple of decades).

MichaelZuo 4y ago

This seems like a repetition of the parent comment with more words. Can you describe, step-by-step, how you arrived at the conclusion?

isoprophlex 4y ago
Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. There is enough food to go around 2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  If you don't understand the conversation then chiming in doesn't advance the argument. The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited. But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question: "How is this assessment made when food is limited?
  - jelly 4y ago
    Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      > Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. This makes sense, thanks for actually writing an easy to follow explanation. > If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help. Can you explain how the second follows the first?
- thefounder 4y ago
  I think this is more about the money rather than food

jacquesm 4y ago

Spot on. The real fraud isn't committed by the poor, the real fraud is committed by the rich. There is ample evidence that focusing on the rich will yield a much higher pay-off per man hour invested of investigators but the politics dictate that being 'tough on crime' or 'tough on fraud' aims for the people least likely to be able to defend themselves (rightly or wrongly accused).

BurningFrog 4y ago
Pretty sure that both poor and rich can and do commit real fraud.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Yes, but if you look at the numbers then there are more poor people committing fraud than there are rich people, but if you look at the amounts then the rich people win by a very, very large margin. So focusing your investigative powers on the rich has a much bigger pay-off, even if they are willing to throw more money into the defense. The poor are by comparison much softer targets and so it may look good on paper but you're likely losing money on every case.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    I think going after the many rather the few is better for society
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      The rich agree... but personally I think you should allocate your resources there where it has the most effect and those that need these services are already operating on the margins. So 'better for society' does not translate into 'where the larger numbers of people are'.
      - abyssin 4y ago
        And the rich should be an example for the poor.

concordDance 4y ago

Note that while this may be true where you live, it isn't true in all contexts. E.g. if you try and do food distribution to all who come with no checking in, say, the Congo you'll very soon have the vast majority of it being resold. Very poor countries are a very different environment (I lived in one for a couple of decades).