8 ms·

Giving people money helped less than I thought it would

68 points by tekla 1y ago

TimorousBestie 1y ago
The framing here is a bit off. As far as I can see, they don’t link to anyone actually saying something like “poverty is cured by direct cash transfers.” I don’t know who believes that. I browsed through the Denver study and while some metrics didn’t significantly improve, many of them did. I think the author overplays their hand somewhat. Some NGOs that help unhoused people did shift to direct cash transfers because 1) they still help improve material conditions (even the author agrees with this), and 2) it’s politically easier than trying to convince locals to actually build affordable housing. Of course a holistic approach is probably going to improve conditions better, but no one with actual political power is interested in doing that.
iberator 1y ago
I'm homeless for like 2 months. My stance: all we need is a job and emotional and mental support. And backpacks. And socks. And hats. And phones
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Contact me at gmail.
bko 1y ago
> Homeless people, new mothers and low-income Americans all over the country received thousands of dollars. And it's practically invisible in the data. On so many important metrics, these people are statistically indistinguishable from those who did not receive this aid. > I cannot stress how shocking I find this and I want to be clear that this is not “we got some weak counterevidence.” I don't think this is surprising when considering personal experience with people, at least not for me. I know people with various degrees of success in their lives. For instance, you meet someone who is chronically broke. At first, you empathize and see them as more or less a victim of misfortune. Unseen car repair bills, job losses, etc. But if its someone you follow over years and get to know, you begin to realize a lot of their problems are self inflicted. For instance, they may get a new job with a big pay raise. But they just adjust their spending up. Some windfall that could turn things around becomes a vacation. And so on. The same is true with other personal problems. Like the perpetually single person, who upon further examination, doesn't do anything to help their chances. Or the overweight person with a thyroid problem, that really just over indulges. Helping people we're close to and love is hard enough. I can't imagine just solving some strangers problems by writing them a check
- ryandrake 1y ago
  > For instance, you meet someone who is chronically broke. At first, you empathize and see them as more or less a victim of misfortune. Unseen car repair bills, job losses, etc. But if it's someone you follow over years and get to know, you begin to realize a lot of their problems are self inflicted. For instance, they may get a new job with a big pay raise. But they just adjust their spending up. Some windfall that could turn things around becomes a vacation. And so on. AND, they are enabled and pushed into this mentality by other, also-not-very-financially-savvy people in their lives. When that once in a lifetime $1,000 windfall comes in, everyone around them tells them "Come on, blow it on a vacation! You shouldn't deny yourself a little luxury if it makes you feel good! You can't just eat ramen every day, here's your chance to live a little!" and suddenly they're back where they started, pre-windfall.
  - 7speter 1y ago
    1000 dollars for a vacation?
    - MisterTea 1y ago
      It's an example not to be taken literally.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      I honestly am not sure whether you think $1000 is way too much or way too little for a vacation, and am curious which you thought.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - Jensson 1y ago
      Covers train tickets and hotel for a week if you don't choose an expensive hotel. For a poor person that is much better than nothing.
daedrdev 1y ago
The main study mention found 3 years of 1k a month had no impact on health, stress, sleep, jobs, income, education, child's education, or time spent with children compared to the control. Other studies have also shown tiny benefits a their headline findings. I think its clear UBI is not the savior people wish it was, sadly.
- billy99k 1y ago
  During covid, lots of people received a stimilus. The lines at high-end purse and luxury good stores were longer than I've ever seen.
  - teaearlgraycold 1y ago
    To be fair many people who were still employed and making decent money for their area received stimulus checks. At that point why not treat it as fun money? After all, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. That includes luxury stores. Others were making more on unemployment than they did while employed. They got checks on a regular basis that meaningfully increased their income level. I’m not surprised or offended if they try to temporarily increase their standard of living in frivolous ways.
  - SkyPuncher 1y ago
    I think Covid is unique because people just needed an outlet for something good in their life.
  - cadamsdotcom 1y ago
    You might believe that, and who knows, it may be true! But your one unsubstantiated story doesn’t constitute data that can be used to compare to anything.
    - billy99k 1y ago
      https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 Other people had the same idea as me. With data! PPP loans taken out during Covid to thousands and thousands of one-person companies and eventually forgiven by the Biden administration. To make another point, why didn't we see a surge in art and positive improvements when someone gets free money from the government? Because what happened is what always happens: It was wasted.
siva7 1y ago
[flagged]
- xenospn 1y ago
  I’m not rich and mighty and I’ll definitely tell you that more money doesn’t solve money problems.
  - sahila 1y ago
    Well I can disagree with you and can tell you that more money would solve my money problems, particularly with my housing and being able to buy / rent a bigger place.
- next_xibalba 1y ago
  Well, they are bringing data. There all multiple UBI studies that basically show no effect. What is the basis for your disagreement?
  - vannevar 1y ago
    They misrepresent the data, unfortunately. See my comment above. These are pretty sloppy mistakes about evidence that is core to the argument presented.
- weeznerps 1y ago
  Are you claiming the researchers are bought off by billionaires or something? Are you making some testable claim here or just generally being conspiratorial?
- shadowtree 1y ago
  The vast majority of poor people are poor due to their own actions. Low impulse control. "I opted to be fun in high school, now I get up at 4am in the morning" is fun meme that cuts at the heart of it. Instant vs. delayed gratification and its consequences. Source: I grew up in social housing, served in the army. Plenty of poor people around.
Apreche 1y ago
I’m not convinced because all of these examples gave people a pittance. $1000 a month at most? Give me a break. If someone is drowning, you can’t give their arm a little tug and claim that as strong evidence that pulling them out of the water won’t save them.
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  $1000/MN is enough to change people's lives if they have nothing.
  - jjk166 1y ago
    It's enough to get them over the hump if they're $1000/mo away from having something. Unfortunately a lot of people are further behind than that. Being poor is very expensive.
- vannevar 1y ago
  Actually, the Denver Basic Income study cited did find a significant benefit for the $1000/mo payments (and even larger benefit for the lump sum). The author of the article misrepresents the actual findings, which are here: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  It's 66% of the current Federal Poverty Level. That means that much of the poor people studied (in the US) were making less than that annually (they don't all lump up at the high end of poverty). If giving someone a 66% or more bump in income doesn't change their situation, they didn't have money problems to begin with.
vannevar 1y ago
The centerpiece of the author's thesis, which is that "the media" exaggerates the impact of cash payments to the poor, is undercut by an egregiously sloppy reading of the results of the Denver Basic Income study: she criticizes the project's claim that there was significant improvement in housing for people receiving $1000/mo vs the control group receiving $50/mo, citing results that show 43% of the controls were in housing by the end of the study while 44% of the test group were. What she fails to mention is that 12% of the controls were already housed at the beginning of the study, vs only 6% of the test group. She also fails to mention that the Baby's First Year study was unfortunately overlapped by the Covid epidemic, introducing an enormous confounding factor (made all the more significant since the study measured child welfare), not to mention the Covid payments that likely dwarfed the $333/mo study payments and would have been received by both control and test subjects. https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://newrepublic.com/article/199070/government-cash-payments-study-poor-americans https://newrepublic.com/article/199070/government-cash-payme...
- refulgentis 1y ago
  I am ashamed to complain she's the worst writer I've had the privilege of shaking my head at in my 37 years. There's this rushed, Eye of Sauron saccades, extremely-online, consistent undercurrent, stapled to a Stanford Rationalist™ who has never had to struggle to make a stronger argument - which opened my eyes to how much "Rationalism" is "performing thought in a particular style in a particular social group" This is a brand new publication and I really wish they skipped her, made the whole endeavour seem unserious and extremely online to me (which it is! but I wouldn't have noticed. so I guess I'm grateful?) It also made me appreciate how little editorial there is left, so many publications, especially online, are stripped down to the point its freelance bloggers that kinda stay the same no matter what, rather than people growing as writers. My two most scarring facepalms in recent memory: - [my home] Oakland is safe, the Feds coming in isn't needed, But..............the real problem of them being here would be Duh Dems complaining, people know crime is real and bad and hate being lied to. - It'd be bad if we deported people for their views but then again we don't know what we don't know about the level of terrorist support provided by these people who complain about Gaza.
srcreigh 1y ago
They all know the money is going to stop coming in.
- Balgair 1y ago
  Yeah, I've heard this critique too and I'm not sure how to address it. Like, the whole point of a 'study' is to test things out. That's temporary by design. But yes, it's a giant confound too. I guess what the DBIS showed is that the results are not spectacular and automatic. They are slight-ish, grey, muddled. Like, if UBI was a panacea like insulin was to diabetics, then we'd expect a huge result and difference. But it wasn't, and that a good result to report out too. I just wish there was a silver bullet.
  - srcreigh 1y ago
    If they did a study about insulin where they give it to you for 1 year then take it away, the results wouldn’t be positive.
    - Balgair 1y ago
      Oh no, they would very much be positive. You'd know that insulin would have saved every one of their lives. Even a very small does of insulin is just that good. But these studies aren't like that. They aren't that good. UBI isn't that good. That's what I get out of these studies.
      - srcreigh 1y ago
        If insulin was already GA, and you gave it to people without insulin, and they believed that you’d stop giving it to them in a few months. The people would be healthy temporarily while preparing for immanent suffering. The study would likely report mixed psychological benefits. I hope the analogy makes sense. A better UBI study would bucket people into a lifetime monthly payout (with inflation increase etc). Give them an opportunity to invest in their lives.
nemo44x 1y ago
[flagged]
- billfor 1y ago
  If your point is that giving a truly stupid person money won’t solve their problem, that’s probably correct. But not all poor people are stupid. It would be interesting to quantify “stupid” further, in support of your opinion.
  - nemo44x 1y ago
    Yes, on average IQ correlates with socio-economic status. Poor people are generally not as smart as not-poor people. That doesn't mean all poor people are unintelligent, just that most are. And my bigger point is you (a not stupid person I assume) can't give a stupid person a bag of money and expect them to make good choices with it. You're projecting your abilities, qualities, and values on them and their's are totally different. Because you don't actually have empathy for poor, stupid people but rather want to feel virtues even though you aren't helping and in fact are probably hurting them. I don't mean "you" to actually mean you, but the people that create and support these types of programs. Instead it's better to recognize that intelligence is largely fixed to a degree and that people on the bad end of the distribution often need a paternal society to take care of them. To house, clothe, and feed them and give them meaningful work and keep them free of harmful vice. That governments job is to support this type of relationship and regulate it and set standards. Instead we let these types of people end up in prison, take to life on the streets, and/or die young and we call it freedom. All enforced by government violence - the same government that enables and actively encourages it through its actions. At least in our modern, advanced civilization where income and outcomes are nearly 100% correlated with ability and that having below average intelligence is very much a handicap. And one where throwing money at the problem doesn't actually help at all and is actually harmful.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      There is a correlation between the IQ metric (whatever it represents) and income, but it's not as simple as Internet message boards want it to be: IQ reliability falls off as the scores get higher (which makes sense: IQ isn't intended as a ranking of human intelligence, but rather as a diagnostic measure for people with cognitive impairments) and income falls off as IQ scores get higher as well. Everything is complicated, as you'd expect.
apt-apt-apt-apt 1y ago
A few hundred to $1K seems too little to have much impact. Going from 0-$1k/mo or $1K to $2k/mo means you're still broke. You can definitely afford some food or necessities that were harder before, but fundamentally, you still need to hustle to change the fundamental financial situation.
- rocqua 1y ago
  I would still have expected that going from 0-1K to 1-2K would allow a lot more people to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. At least under the hypothesis that Poverty is a symptom of a persons circumstances, with most notably a lack of a financial buffer allowing for smart moves (e.g. the Sam Vimes theory of boots, or not being able to get a job because you cannot afford transportation). In that case, that extra money should likely cause quite a few people to get out of those self-reinforcing poverty traps, and let them escape.
tristor 1y ago
This is a completely unsurprising outcome to anyone who has actually been poor and spent considerable time around poor people. Being poor is both a mindset and an actual socioeconomic status. Giving enough cash to marginally change socioeconomic status will not change the mindset. The biggest thing we could is actually improve financial literacy in the US by mandating it as part of our standard educational curriculum, but that will never happen as so much of our economy is built off exploiting the uneducated, who are almost always poor. I started in pretty much the same circumstances as most of my peer group, with one distinct difference, my dad had gone to school for business and accounting and was a bit miserly, he instilled in my an understanding of the value of a dollar and the right skillset to track where my money is going. That small little difference is what separates the fact I will end up dying a multi-millionaire and my peer group are mostly going to end up dying broke. Obviously there's hundreds of thousands of little choices we make every day of our lives that nudge things in one direction or another for your financial trajectory, but starting with a grounding in financial literacy is literally life-changing. It's not cash that people need, it's education, so that they can actually effectively use the money they already earn. I started saving from my very first job as a teenager, and have never stopped. The median American net worth excluding home equity is negative, mine has never been negative at any point in my entire life, from before I was an adult, despite growing up low-income in a rough area.
gotoeleven 1y ago
A question for people who, like the author of this article, are genuinely surprised by these results: do these results change the way you think about what social interventions are feasible? Do they change the way you think about human nature?
9x39 1y ago
Every time I read explorations into basic income or cash transfers, I look for any signs that recipients' models of how money or wealth work are changing, and I don't see it. Thus, it seems to me like an evergreen source of naivete where the directors of cash expect the structural problems from not understanding those concepts to erode, but never do. I wonder about the possibility of a graduated financial literacy scale for participants that studies can use. For example, I have too many connections to the financially struggling to not ask for the receipts when they complain to me. Well, they demur, the cost of living is expensive. Okay, but can I see your spending? Typically never, but when I do, it's bad loans, unrestrained taxis-for-your-burritos and impulse purchases that fritter their income away $5-50 at a time indefinitely. There is no saving. There is no wealth. Only impulsivity. Nor is there change or recognition. New or bigger income sources only change one variable of their equation while their spending behaviors are fixed, and the outcomes are the same.
spaceguillotine 1y ago
money does nothing without stable housing and community
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  BINGO! Money is a metric. Life is qualitative, with quantitative pieces.
- timbit42 1y ago
  It also does nothing for those with physical or mental ailments. Public healthcare would help those.
throw0101c 1y ago
Contra, "The First $10,000 [of Net Worth] is the Most Important": > What’s the smallest amount of money that you would consider “life-changing”? Some might say $100,000. Others over $1 million. If you had asked me this question a few years ago, I would have told you something similar. > But today, I’m convinced that the most life-changing amount of money is $10,000—in particular, the first $10,000. […] > Why? Because getting out of Level 1 fundamentally changes how you experience life. You go from focusing on your next paycheck and dreading your next bill to enjoying your time without worry. Getting out of Level 1 frees your mind so that you can focus on other things. That first $10,000 can bring: Stability […]; Confidence […]; Momentum […]; Mental freedom. * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-first-10000-is-the-most-important/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-first-10000-is-the-most-imp... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44931836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44931836
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  My fundamental belief: Money doesn't bring happiness, but the lack of it brings unhappiness.
  - throw0101c 1y ago
    The author of https://ofdollarsanddata.com/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/ has a new book that has a couple of chapters that go into this: * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-wealth-ladder/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-wealth-ladder/ The research he cites finds that happiness starts levelling out at Levels 3-4 of his framework. Some of his posts on the subject: * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/?s=happiness https://ofdollarsanddata.com/?s=happiness
tastyface 1y ago
I believe this was previously flagged and has now been unflagged by the mods. I wonder why they chose to unflag this and not, for instance, “Brennan Center for Justice Report: The Campaign to Undermine the Next Election,” which is far better journalism and had a lot more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 They say they don’t make moderation decisions for political reasons, but I am finding it harder and harder to see.

68 points by tekla 1y ago

The framing here is a bit off. As far as I can see, they don’t link to anyone actually saying something like “poverty is cured by direct cash transfers.” I don’t know who believes that. I browsed through the Denver study and while some metrics didn’t significantly improve, many of them did. I think the author overplays their hand somewhat. Some NGOs that help unhoused people did shift to direct cash transfers because 1) they still help improve material conditions (even the author agrees with this), and 2) it’s politically easier than trying to convince locals to actually build affordable housing. Of course a holistic approach is probably going to improve conditions better, but no one with actual political power is interested in doing that.

iberator 1y ago

I'm homeless for like 2 months. My stance: all we need is a job and emotional and mental support. And backpacks. And socks. And hats. And phones

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
IAmBroom 1y ago
Contact me at gmail.

bko 1y ago

> Homeless people, new mothers and low-income Americans all over the country received thousands of dollars. And it's practically invisible in the data. On so many important metrics, these people are statistically indistinguishable from those who did not receive this aid. > I cannot stress how shocking I find this and I want to be clear that this is not “we got some weak counterevidence.” I don't think this is surprising when considering personal experience with people, at least not for me. I know people with various degrees of success in their lives. For instance, you meet someone who is chronically broke. At first, you empathize and see them as more or less a victim of misfortune. Unseen car repair bills, job losses, etc. But if its someone you follow over years and get to know, you begin to realize a lot of their problems are self inflicted. For instance, they may get a new job with a big pay raise. But they just adjust their spending up. Some windfall that could turn things around becomes a vacation. And so on. The same is true with other personal problems. Like the perpetually single person, who upon further examination, doesn't do anything to help their chances. Or the overweight person with a thyroid problem, that really just over indulges. Helping people we're close to and love is hard enough. I can't imagine just solving some strangers problems by writing them a check

ryandrake 1y ago
> For instance, you meet someone who is chronically broke. At first, you empathize and see them as more or less a victim of misfortune. Unseen car repair bills, job losses, etc. But if it's someone you follow over years and get to know, you begin to realize a lot of their problems are self inflicted. For instance, they may get a new job with a big pay raise. But they just adjust their spending up. Some windfall that could turn things around becomes a vacation. And so on. AND, they are enabled and pushed into this mentality by other, also-not-very-financially-savvy people in their lives. When that once in a lifetime $1,000 windfall comes in, everyone around them tells them "Come on, blow it on a vacation! You shouldn't deny yourself a little luxury if it makes you feel good! You can't just eat ramen every day, here's your chance to live a little!" and suddenly they're back where they started, pre-windfall.
- 7speter 1y ago
  1000 dollars for a vacation?
  - MisterTea 1y ago
    It's an example not to be taken literally.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    I honestly am not sure whether you think $1000 is way too much or way too little for a vacation, and am curious which you thought.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Covers train tickets and hotel for a week if you don't choose an expensive hotel. For a poor person that is much better than nothing.

daedrdev 1y ago

The main study mention found 3 years of 1k a month had no impact on health, stress, sleep, jobs, income, education, child's education, or time spent with children compared to the control. Other studies have also shown tiny benefits a their headline findings. I think its clear UBI is not the savior people wish it was, sadly.

billy99k 1y ago
During covid, lots of people received a stimilus. The lines at high-end purse and luxury good stores were longer than I've ever seen.
- teaearlgraycold 1y ago
  To be fair many people who were still employed and making decent money for their area received stimulus checks. At that point why not treat it as fun money? After all, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. That includes luxury stores. Others were making more on unemployment than they did while employed. They got checks on a regular basis that meaningfully increased their income level. I’m not surprised or offended if they try to temporarily increase their standard of living in frivolous ways.
- SkyPuncher 1y ago
  I think Covid is unique because people just needed an outlet for something good in their life.
- cadamsdotcom 1y ago
  You might believe that, and who knows, it may be true! But your one unsubstantiated story doesn’t constitute data that can be used to compare to anything.
  - billy99k 1y ago
    https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 Other people had the same idea as me. With data! PPP loans taken out during Covid to thousands and thousands of one-person companies and eventually forgiven by the Biden administration. To make another point, why didn't we see a surge in art and positive improvements when someone gets free money from the government? Because what happened is what always happens: It was wasted.

siva7 1y ago

[flagged]

xenospn 1y ago
I’m not rich and mighty and I’ll definitely tell you that more money doesn’t solve money problems.
- sahila 1y ago
  Well I can disagree with you and can tell you that more money would solve my money problems, particularly with my housing and being able to buy / rent a bigger place.
next_xibalba 1y ago
Well, they are bringing data. There all multiple UBI studies that basically show no effect. What is the basis for your disagreement?
- vannevar 1y ago
  They misrepresent the data, unfortunately. See my comment above. These are pretty sloppy mistakes about evidence that is core to the argument presented.
weeznerps 1y ago
Are you claiming the researchers are bought off by billionaires or something? Are you making some testable claim here or just generally being conspiratorial?
shadowtree 1y ago
The vast majority of poor people are poor due to their own actions. Low impulse control. "I opted to be fun in high school, now I get up at 4am in the morning" is fun meme that cuts at the heart of it. Instant vs. delayed gratification and its consequences. Source: I grew up in social housing, served in the army. Plenty of poor people around.

Apreche 1y ago

I’m not convinced because all of these examples gave people a pittance. $1000 a month at most? Give me a break. If someone is drowning, you can’t give their arm a little tug and claim that as strong evidence that pulling them out of the water won’t save them.

readthenotes1 1y ago
$1000/MN is enough to change people's lives if they have nothing.
- jjk166 1y ago
  It's enough to get them over the hump if they're $1000/mo away from having something. Unfortunately a lot of people are further behind than that. Being poor is very expensive.
vannevar 1y ago
Actually, the Denver Basic Income study cited did find a significant benefit for the $1000/mo payments (and even larger benefit for the lump sum). The author of the article misrepresents the actual findings, which are here: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
IAmBroom 1y ago
It's 66% of the current Federal Poverty Level. That means that much of the poor people studied (in the US) were making less than that annually (they don't all lump up at the high end of poverty). If giving someone a 66% or more bump in income doesn't change their situation, they didn't have money problems to begin with.

vannevar 1y ago

The centerpiece of the author's thesis, which is that "the media" exaggerates the impact of cash payments to the poor, is undercut by an egregiously sloppy reading of the results of the Denver Basic Income study: she criticizes the project's claim that there was significant improvement in housing for people receiving $1000/mo vs the control group receiving $50/mo, citing results that show 43% of the controls were in housing by the end of the study while 44% of the test group were. What she fails to mention is that 12% of the controls were already housed at the beginning of the study, vs only 6% of the test group. She also fails to mention that the Baby's First Year study was unfortunately overlapped by the Covid epidemic, introducing an enormous confounding factor (made all the more significant since the study measured child welfare), not to mention the Covid payments that likely dwarfed the $333/mo study payments and would have been received by both control and test subjects. https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://newrepublic.com/article/199070/government-cash-payments-study-poor-americans https://newrepublic.com/article/199070/government-cash-payme...

refulgentis 1y ago
I am ashamed to complain she's the worst writer I've had the privilege of shaking my head at in my 37 years. There's this rushed, Eye of Sauron saccades, extremely-online, consistent undercurrent, stapled to a Stanford Rationalist™ who has never had to struggle to make a stronger argument - which opened my eyes to how much "Rationalism" is "performing thought in a particular style in a particular social group" This is a brand new publication and I really wish they skipped her, made the whole endeavour seem unserious and extremely online to me (which it is! but I wouldn't have noticed. so I guess I'm grateful?) It also made me appreciate how little editorial there is left, so many publications, especially online, are stripped down to the point its freelance bloggers that kinda stay the same no matter what, rather than people growing as writers. My two most scarring facepalms in recent memory: - [my home] Oakland is safe, the Feds coming in isn't needed, But..............the real problem of them being here would be Duh Dems complaining, people know crime is real and bad and hate being lied to. - It'd be bad if we deported people for their views but then again we don't know what we don't know about the level of terrorist support provided by these people who complain about Gaza.

srcreigh 1y ago

They all know the money is going to stop coming in.

Balgair 1y ago
Yeah, I've heard this critique too and I'm not sure how to address it. Like, the whole point of a 'study' is to test things out. That's temporary by design. But yes, it's a giant confound too. I guess what the DBIS showed is that the results are not spectacular and automatic. They are slight-ish, grey, muddled. Like, if UBI was a panacea like insulin was to diabetics, then we'd expect a huge result and difference. But it wasn't, and that a good result to report out too. I just wish there was a silver bullet.
- srcreigh 1y ago
  If they did a study about insulin where they give it to you for 1 year then take it away, the results wouldn’t be positive.
  - Balgair 1y ago
    Oh no, they would very much be positive. You'd know that insulin would have saved every one of their lives. Even a very small does of insulin is just that good. But these studies aren't like that. They aren't that good. UBI isn't that good. That's what I get out of these studies.
    - srcreigh 1y ago
      If insulin was already GA, and you gave it to people without insulin, and they believed that you’d stop giving it to them in a few months. The people would be healthy temporarily while preparing for immanent suffering. The study would likely report mixed psychological benefits. I hope the analogy makes sense. A better UBI study would bucket people into a lifetime monthly payout (with inflation increase etc). Give them an opportunity to invest in their lives.

nemo44x 1y ago

[flagged]

billfor 1y ago
If your point is that giving a truly stupid person money won’t solve their problem, that’s probably correct. But not all poor people are stupid. It would be interesting to quantify “stupid” further, in support of your opinion.
- nemo44x 1y ago
  Yes, on average IQ correlates with socio-economic status. Poor people are generally not as smart as not-poor people. That doesn't mean all poor people are unintelligent, just that most are. And my bigger point is you (a not stupid person I assume) can't give a stupid person a bag of money and expect them to make good choices with it. You're projecting your abilities, qualities, and values on them and their's are totally different. Because you don't actually have empathy for poor, stupid people but rather want to feel virtues even though you aren't helping and in fact are probably hurting them. I don't mean "you" to actually mean you, but the people that create and support these types of programs. Instead it's better to recognize that intelligence is largely fixed to a degree and that people on the bad end of the distribution often need a paternal society to take care of them. To house, clothe, and feed them and give them meaningful work and keep them free of harmful vice. That governments job is to support this type of relationship and regulate it and set standards. Instead we let these types of people end up in prison, take to life on the streets, and/or die young and we call it freedom. All enforced by government violence - the same government that enables and actively encourages it through its actions. At least in our modern, advanced civilization where income and outcomes are nearly 100% correlated with ability and that having below average intelligence is very much a handicap. And one where throwing money at the problem doesn't actually help at all and is actually harmful.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    There is a correlation between the IQ metric (whatever it represents) and income, but it's not as simple as Internet message boards want it to be: IQ reliability falls off as the scores get higher (which makes sense: IQ isn't intended as a ranking of human intelligence, but rather as a diagnostic measure for people with cognitive impairments) and income falls off as IQ scores get higher as well. Everything is complicated, as you'd expect.

apt-apt-apt-apt 1y ago

A few hundred to $1K seems too little to have much impact. Going from 0-$1k/mo or $1K to $2k/mo means you're still broke. You can definitely afford some food or necessities that were harder before, but fundamentally, you still need to hustle to change the fundamental financial situation.

rocqua 1y ago
I would still have expected that going from 0-1K to 1-2K would allow a lot more people to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. At least under the hypothesis that Poverty is a symptom of a persons circumstances, with most notably a lack of a financial buffer allowing for smart moves (e.g. the Sam Vimes theory of boots, or not being able to get a job because you cannot afford transportation). In that case, that extra money should likely cause quite a few people to get out of those self-reinforcing poverty traps, and let them escape.

tristor 1y ago

This is a completely unsurprising outcome to anyone who has actually been poor and spent considerable time around poor people. Being poor is both a mindset and an actual socioeconomic status. Giving enough cash to marginally change socioeconomic status will not change the mindset. The biggest thing we could is actually improve financial literacy in the US by mandating it as part of our standard educational curriculum, but that will never happen as so much of our economy is built off exploiting the uneducated, who are almost always poor. I started in pretty much the same circumstances as most of my peer group, with one distinct difference, my dad had gone to school for business and accounting and was a bit miserly, he instilled in my an understanding of the value of a dollar and the right skillset to track where my money is going. That small little difference is what separates the fact I will end up dying a multi-millionaire and my peer group are mostly going to end up dying broke. Obviously there's hundreds of thousands of little choices we make every day of our lives that nudge things in one direction or another for your financial trajectory, but starting with a grounding in financial literacy is literally life-changing. It's not cash that people need, it's education, so that they can actually effectively use the money they already earn. I started saving from my very first job as a teenager, and have never stopped. The median American net worth excluding home equity is negative, mine has never been negative at any point in my entire life, from before I was an adult, despite growing up low-income in a rough area.

gotoeleven 1y ago

A question for people who, like the author of this article, are genuinely surprised by these results: do these results change the way you think about what social interventions are feasible? Do they change the way you think about human nature?

9x39 1y ago

Every time I read explorations into basic income or cash transfers, I look for any signs that recipients' models of how money or wealth work are changing, and I don't see it. Thus, it seems to me like an evergreen source of naivete where the directors of cash expect the structural problems from not understanding those concepts to erode, but never do. I wonder about the possibility of a graduated financial literacy scale for participants that studies can use. For example, I have too many connections to the financially struggling to not ask for the receipts when they complain to me. Well, they demur, the cost of living is expensive. Okay, but can I see your spending? Typically never, but when I do, it's bad loans, unrestrained taxis-for-your-burritos and impulse purchases that fritter their income away $5-50 at a time indefinitely. There is no saving. There is no wealth. Only impulsivity. Nor is there change or recognition. New or bigger income sources only change one variable of their equation while their spending behaviors are fixed, and the outcomes are the same.

spaceguillotine 1y ago

money does nothing without stable housing and community

IAmBroom 1y ago
BINGO! Money is a metric. Life is qualitative, with quantitative pieces.
timbit42 1y ago
It also does nothing for those with physical or mental ailments. Public healthcare would help those.

throw0101c 1y ago

Contra, "The First $10,000 [of Net Worth] is the Most Important": > What’s the smallest amount of money that you would consider “life-changing”? Some might say $100,000. Others over $1 million. If you had asked me this question a few years ago, I would have told you something similar. > But today, I’m convinced that the most life-changing amount of money is $10,000—in particular, the first $10,000. […] > Why? Because getting out of Level 1 fundamentally changes how you experience life. You go from focusing on your next paycheck and dreading your next bill to enjoying your time without worry. Getting out of Level 1 frees your mind so that you can focus on other things. That first $10,000 can bring: Stability […]; Confidence […]; Momentum […]; Mental freedom. * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-first-10000-is-the-most-important/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-first-10000-is-the-most-imp... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44931836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44931836

IAmBroom 1y ago
My fundamental belief: Money doesn't bring happiness, but the lack of it brings unhappiness.
- throw0101c 1y ago
  The author of https://ofdollarsanddata.com/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/ has a new book that has a couple of chapters that go into this: * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-wealth-ladder/ https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-wealth-ladder/ The research he cites finds that happiness starts levelling out at Levels 3-4 of his framework. Some of his posts on the subject: * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/?s=happiness https://ofdollarsanddata.com/?s=happiness

tastyface 1y ago

I believe this was previously flagged and has now been unflagged by the mods. I wonder why they chose to unflag this and not, for instance, “Brennan Center for Justice Report: The Campaign to Undermine the Next Election,” which is far better journalism and had a lot more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 They say they don’t make moderation decisions for political reasons, but I am finding it harder and harder to see.