6 ms·

I think the context is super important here. "gave cash to groups of young people so they could learn a trade and start their own businesses." In Uganda. These

I think the context is super important here. "gave cash to groups of young people so they could learn a trade and start their own businesses." In Uganda. These people were pretty much starving before. “These were mostly farmers who had work 10 to 20 hours a week and earned about $1 a day," With different people, culture, attitudes, environment the effect might be completely different in America, for example.

KatherineJMoses 13y ago
uptil I looked at the receipt which had said $9272, I didn't believe that my mom in-law woz realie bringing in money in there spare time on there computar.. there friends cousin haz done this 4 only about eighteen months and recently cleard the mortgage on their place and bourt a great opel. additional info ========================== http://WWW.WORKS23.COM http://WWW.WORKS23.COM
breischl 13y ago
In addition... <blockquote>To get the cash, applicants had to form a group with others in their village and submit a proposal showing how they planned to use the money</blockquote> It's not clear how selective they were, but it does sound more involved than just "fill out this form and get your cash." So it's a group of people that were selected, or at least self-selected, for some minimum amount of initiative and ambition. The title of the article invites comparisons to social safety net programs in the developed world, but this sounds more like a combination of the educational and small business grant programs. It also seems like it would not be broadly applicable - you couldn't just carpet an area with $400 grants and expect the same kind of success rate.
- ma2rten 13y ago
  In addition... The simple fact that someone came after those people to check what they did with their money, for the purpose of the research, probably influenced the result (at least if they knew or suspected that beforehand). If they said they would use the money for business, but then instead spend it alcohol and gambling, that would be very embarrassing. If on the other hand, a program like exists this for a long time and everyone knows nobody will check what you do with the money, abuse would become very likely, imo.
  - waps 13y ago
    I think you've just hit the nail on the head. Gifts in this program have the same function as loans would traditionally have : they are supposed to be invested in improving one's life. They were obviously not free, the money was traded for promises that carry a social cost if one doesn't deliver. A basic income would have no such effect. If it's enough to live on, why would everyone invest it in becoming a better and more capable individual ? (note the question is not "anyone", but "everyone". The aggregate effect of free money is what will determine the outcome. Not what exceptional individuals might achieve with it, but what a lazy drunkard would achieve with it matters)
    - klenwell 13y ago
      Ah yes, the undeserving poor. Alfred P. Doolittle gave a pretty good accounting of what they might do with it in Shaw's Pygmalion: I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: "You're undeserving; so you can't have it." But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything... Don't you be afraid that I'll save it and spare it and live idle on it. There won't be a penny of it left by Monday: I'll have to go to work same as if I'd never had it. It won't pauperize me, you bet. Just one good spree for myself and the missus, giving pleasure to ourselves and employment to others, and satisfaction to you to think it's not been throwed away. You couldn't spend it better.
    - karlmdavis 13y ago
      Don't this: > The aggregate effect of free money is what will determine the outcome. And this: > Not what exceptional individuals might achieve with it, but what a lazy drunkard would achieve with it matters) Contradict each other? The "aggregate effect" = "lazy drunkards" + the effect of "exceptional individuals" + the effect of everyone else. So it really isn't the lazy drunkards that matter; it's the overall effect that does. If, on average, it improves society then isn't that a win? Very often, when talking about basic incomes and similar programs, people seem to say things like "twice as many people will take advantage of the system and be lazy." To me, that's not a sufficient criticism: it all depends on the percentages. If a program increases the percentage of bottom feeders from 1% to 2%, say, but also doubles the quality of life of everyone else, that would be a huge win to me. Obviously, the numbers I chose in my example are probably unrealistic, which just further illustrates how important it is to actually determine what the numbers are/will be.
- Freeboots 13y ago
  The selection process is usually along the lines of 'the poorest of the poor'. Organizations such as this identify an area or ethnic group, then a village, then a family. The recipients are selected, then approached, in such a way that minimizes self selection. The idea is to bring a poor family up to the standard of their slightly less poor neighbours. Then the village up to the standard of other villages. then the province. etc. I personally dont see the invited comparison, at least not directly in the title, given the context of a 'Global Impact' article. This could be simply my lens, and yours. I work in development field (mostly cambodia), so i automatically apply it to what i see here. You seem more involved with the situation in US(?) an rightly say that it would not apply in the same way.
thrownaway2424 13y ago
I don't think it's that different from the situation we have here in America. A lot of people are working low-wage dead-end jobs because they their kids or siblings need to eat. With only a little bit of extra money those people could stop working their jobs, learn new skills, and get better jobs.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  People are not starving in America.Please visit poor countries before drawing parrallels.
  - up_and_up 13y ago
    Sorry, but people are starving in America: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow-steady-starvation/story?id=14328390 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow... Are you aware that many kids in America grow up without access to even a basic grocery store and decent nutrition? Starvation can be slow and steady.
    - cjbprime 13y ago
      Yes, but the starving child in Boston in your article went to a nearby world-class hospital where he was given free food. Poverty exists in the US; extreme poverty (living under the purchasing power equivalent of USD $1.25 per day) is extremely rare (<0.5%) in the US, whereas it describes 50% of people in subsaharan Africa. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/chapter2.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/chapter2.pdf
      - up_and_up 13y ago
        Extremely rare? 313900000 * 0.005 = 1,569,500 people living on $1.25/day in the USA?
        jlgreco 13y ago
        That seems like a reasonable definition of "extremely rare". Platinum is extremely rare, several hundred tons of it are mined every year. (A number that sounds incredibly heavy, but pales in comparison to the numbers of common metals.) Half a percentage is "extremely rare" compared to numbers like 50%. Most people in America have absolutely no experience with the sort of poverty that is nearly inescapable in many underdeveloped counties. If you can't get over the "~1.5 million” thing, just consider that this is comparable to the poplulation of The Bronx.
Freeboots 13y ago
ikr, people in this thread seem to be reading this into the context of the 'living wage' idea floating around. But its nothing like that. These are one off grants to people living in completely different circumstances. In developing countries whose governments are not able to provide basics most developed countries take for granted. The living wage is an income, not a one off. And its being talked about in terms of developed countries whose government would distribute said income. The difference is easy to see when you consider what you would do in each situation. Situation A) You are given 6 months pay to increase your standard of living. Many/most people would invest such a windfall. They would pay debts, buy land, stocks. Many would treat themselves to a nice car or something, but i dont think people who NEED that money would do so. Situation B) You are told that from now on you will get $1000/m. Forever. Welp. Im going to cut my hours and go for a drink. Again, many people would treat this as a windfall to be saved. But some (more than situation A) would spend it, knowing they will get more next month.
hannibal5 13y ago
In America, increasing the minimum wage would help the majority of poor who are working poor.
- swasheck 13y ago
  Not necessarily. The accompanying effects (things like the impact on the standard of living, cumulative expenses for the employer) may actually make their situation worse. If their employer must have the role fulfilled, then their costs increase which means decisions such as raising the price of the good/service, reducing operational costs (lower quality, or fewer workers), outsourcing, etc. I'm all for people being paid a fair wage, but just think that a solution that focuses on one symptom may only make things worse. I think that the real problem is that, for the most part, the economy is so sick that decision-makers are either too afraid or too incapable of doing a proper RCA and triage of the problem. It feels like we've been treating symptoms and not the problem(s).
brownbat 13y ago
Context is definitely relevant. In 1832, Georgia held a lottery to allocate all of its unclaimed land. Almost everyone in the state participated. The value of each parcel of land was immense, life-changing for most of the people in the lottery. Families who won the lottery reverted to the mean in a generation or two: http://home.uchicago.edu/~bleakley/Bleakley_Ferrie_Intergen.pdf http://home.uchicago.edu/~bleakley/Bleakley_Ferrie_Intergen.... (To be fair, educational attainment and lifetime earnings of offspring are a different measure of success though, so that probably accounts for some of the discrepancy in the results as well.)
- davidwoof1 13y ago
  Umm, I seriously doubt that "almost everyone" in the state of Georgia in 1832 was eligble to participate in this lottery. Families who won the lottery reverted to the mean in a generation or two A small event known in the US as the Civil War, which completely decimated the economy of Georgia, just might have had something to do with this.
  - mertd 13y ago
    Almost everyone was indeed eligible. Freakonomics did an episode on it, and there is a study on this affair since it was pretty well documented.
    - repiret 13y ago
      From the abstract of the article: "...which had nearly universal participation among adult white males." White males is a lot less than almost everyone. Its not even most people.
  - brownbat 13y ago
    > Umm, I seriously doubt that "almost everyone" in the state of Georgia in 1832 Touche. My point was that participation was extensive and varied. It remains to be seen whether or not this effect holds for women or minorities, but even if it didn't, that would only support my main point: context matters. > A small event known in the US as the Civil War... just might have had something to do with this. The authors address the Civil War in the piece. It would indeed have been a weird oversight for economic historians studying the pre-war South if they hadn't, if that just never occurred to them as relevant.

KatherineJMoses 13y ago

uptil I looked at the receipt which had said $9272, I didn't believe that my mom in-law woz realie bringing in money in there spare time on there computar.. there friends cousin haz done this 4 only about eighteen months and recently cleard the mortgage on their place and bourt a great opel. additional info ========================== http://WWW.WORKS23.COM http://WWW.WORKS23.COM

breischl 13y ago

In addition... <blockquote>To get the cash, applicants had to form a group with others in their village and submit a proposal showing how they planned to use the money</blockquote> It's not clear how selective they were, but it does sound more involved than just "fill out this form and get your cash." So it's a group of people that were selected, or at least self-selected, for some minimum amount of initiative and ambition. The title of the article invites comparisons to social safety net programs in the developed world, but this sounds more like a combination of the educational and small business grant programs. It also seems like it would not be broadly applicable - you couldn't just carpet an area with $400 grants and expect the same kind of success rate.

ma2rten 13y ago
In addition... The simple fact that someone came after those people to check what they did with their money, for the purpose of the research, probably influenced the result (at least if they knew or suspected that beforehand). If they said they would use the money for business, but then instead spend it alcohol and gambling, that would be very embarrassing. If on the other hand, a program like exists this for a long time and everyone knows nobody will check what you do with the money, abuse would become very likely, imo.
- waps 13y ago
  I think you've just hit the nail on the head. Gifts in this program have the same function as loans would traditionally have : they are supposed to be invested in improving one's life. They were obviously not free, the money was traded for promises that carry a social cost if one doesn't deliver. A basic income would have no such effect. If it's enough to live on, why would everyone invest it in becoming a better and more capable individual ? (note the question is not "anyone", but "everyone". The aggregate effect of free money is what will determine the outcome. Not what exceptional individuals might achieve with it, but what a lazy drunkard would achieve with it matters)
  - klenwell 13y ago
    Ah yes, the undeserving poor. Alfred P. Doolittle gave a pretty good accounting of what they might do with it in Shaw's Pygmalion: I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: "You're undeserving; so you can't have it." But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything... Don't you be afraid that I'll save it and spare it and live idle on it. There won't be a penny of it left by Monday: I'll have to go to work same as if I'd never had it. It won't pauperize me, you bet. Just one good spree for myself and the missus, giving pleasure to ourselves and employment to others, and satisfaction to you to think it's not been throwed away. You couldn't spend it better.
  - karlmdavis 13y ago
    Don't this: > The aggregate effect of free money is what will determine the outcome. And this: > Not what exceptional individuals might achieve with it, but what a lazy drunkard would achieve with it matters) Contradict each other? The "aggregate effect" = "lazy drunkards" + the effect of "exceptional individuals" + the effect of everyone else. So it really isn't the lazy drunkards that matter; it's the overall effect that does. If, on average, it improves society then isn't that a win? Very often, when talking about basic incomes and similar programs, people seem to say things like "twice as many people will take advantage of the system and be lazy." To me, that's not a sufficient criticism: it all depends on the percentages. If a program increases the percentage of bottom feeders from 1% to 2%, say, but also doubles the quality of life of everyone else, that would be a huge win to me. Obviously, the numbers I chose in my example are probably unrealistic, which just further illustrates how important it is to actually determine what the numbers are/will be.
Freeboots 13y ago
The selection process is usually along the lines of 'the poorest of the poor'. Organizations such as this identify an area or ethnic group, then a village, then a family. The recipients are selected, then approached, in such a way that minimizes self selection. The idea is to bring a poor family up to the standard of their slightly less poor neighbours. Then the village up to the standard of other villages. then the province. etc. I personally dont see the invited comparison, at least not directly in the title, given the context of a 'Global Impact' article. This could be simply my lens, and yours. I work in development field (mostly cambodia), so i automatically apply it to what i see here. You seem more involved with the situation in US(?) an rightly say that it would not apply in the same way.

thrownaway2424 13y ago

I don't think it's that different from the situation we have here in America. A lot of people are working low-wage dead-end jobs because they their kids or siblings need to eat. With only a little bit of extra money those people could stop working their jobs, learn new skills, and get better jobs.

ekianjo 13y ago
People are not starving in America.Please visit poor countries before drawing parrallels.
- up_and_up 13y ago
  Sorry, but people are starving in America: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow-steady-starvation/story?id=14328390 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow... Are you aware that many kids in America grow up without access to even a basic grocery store and decent nutrition? Starvation can be slow and steady.
  - cjbprime 13y ago
    Yes, but the starving child in Boston in your article went to a nearby world-class hospital where he was given free food. Poverty exists in the US; extreme poverty (living under the purchasing power equivalent of USD $1.25 per day) is extremely rare (<0.5%) in the US, whereas it describes 50% of people in subsaharan Africa. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/chapter2.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/chapter2.pdf
    - up_and_up 13y ago
      Extremely rare? 313900000 * 0.005 = 1,569,500 people living on $1.25/day in the USA?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        That seems like a reasonable definition of "extremely rare". Platinum is extremely rare, several hundred tons of it are mined every year. (A number that sounds incredibly heavy, but pales in comparison to the numbers of common metals.) Half a percentage is "extremely rare" compared to numbers like 50%. Most people in America have absolutely no experience with the sort of poverty that is nearly inescapable in many underdeveloped counties. If you can't get over the "~1.5 million” thing, just consider that this is comparable to the poplulation of The Bronx.

Freeboots 13y ago

ikr, people in this thread seem to be reading this into the context of the 'living wage' idea floating around. But its nothing like that. These are one off grants to people living in completely different circumstances. In developing countries whose governments are not able to provide basics most developed countries take for granted. The living wage is an income, not a one off. And its being talked about in terms of developed countries whose government would distribute said income. The difference is easy to see when you consider what you would do in each situation. Situation A) You are given 6 months pay to increase your standard of living. Many/most people would invest such a windfall. They would pay debts, buy land, stocks. Many would treat themselves to a nice car or something, but i dont think people who NEED that money would do so. Situation B) You are told that from now on you will get $1000/m. Forever. Welp. Im going to cut my hours and go for a drink. Again, many people would treat this as a windfall to be saved. But some (more than situation A) would spend it, knowing they will get more next month.

hannibal5 13y ago

In America, increasing the minimum wage would help the majority of poor who are working poor.

swasheck 13y ago
Not necessarily. The accompanying effects (things like the impact on the standard of living, cumulative expenses for the employer) may actually make their situation worse. If their employer must have the role fulfilled, then their costs increase which means decisions such as raising the price of the good/service, reducing operational costs (lower quality, or fewer workers), outsourcing, etc. I'm all for people being paid a fair wage, but just think that a solution that focuses on one symptom may only make things worse. I think that the real problem is that, for the most part, the economy is so sick that decision-makers are either too afraid or too incapable of doing a proper RCA and triage of the problem. It feels like we've been treating symptoms and not the problem(s).

brownbat 13y ago

Context is definitely relevant. In 1832, Georgia held a lottery to allocate all of its unclaimed land. Almost everyone in the state participated. The value of each parcel of land was immense, life-changing for most of the people in the lottery. Families who won the lottery reverted to the mean in a generation or two: http://home.uchicago.edu/~bleakley/Bleakley_Ferrie_Intergen.pdf http://home.uchicago.edu/~bleakley/Bleakley_Ferrie_Intergen.... (To be fair, educational attainment and lifetime earnings of offspring are a different measure of success though, so that probably accounts for some of the discrepancy in the results as well.)

davidwoof1 13y ago
Umm, I seriously doubt that "almost everyone" in the state of Georgia in 1832 was eligble to participate in this lottery. Families who won the lottery reverted to the mean in a generation or two A small event known in the US as the Civil War, which completely decimated the economy of Georgia, just might have had something to do with this.
- mertd 13y ago
  Almost everyone was indeed eligible. Freakonomics did an episode on it, and there is a study on this affair since it was pretty well documented.
  - repiret 13y ago
    From the abstract of the article: "...which had nearly universal participation among adult white males." White males is a lot less than almost everyone. Its not even most people.
- brownbat 13y ago
  > Umm, I seriously doubt that "almost everyone" in the state of Georgia in 1832 Touche. My point was that participation was extensive and varied. It remains to be seen whether or not this effect holds for women or minorities, but even if it didn't, that would only support my main point: context matters. > A small event known in the US as the Civil War... just might have had something to do with this. The authors address the Civil War in the piece. It would indeed have been a weird oversight for economic historians studying the pre-war South if they hadn't, if that just never occurred to them as relevant.