4 ms·

Sadly, some people absolutely need to be told to buy their kid a jacket vs. a large bag of cocaine.

femto 13y ago
The point of the study is that these cases are a minority, and that it works to initially assume that the money will be used to buy a jacket.
_delirium 13y ago
I agree! This is why I've long argued that companies should be required to pay a portion of their employees' paychecks in nontransferable vouchers. If parents want to blow their I-Bank or Google paychecks on MacBooks, cocaine, and hookers, after responsibly buying jackets and healthy food for their kids, that's their prerogative. But the first $n0,000 should be paid out in restricted vouchers to make sure they provide for their kids first.
- derefr 13y ago
  Another way to do this would be to have a Basic Income that pays out to minors separately from their parents, but into an account/card that, for minors, is restricted to certain products/services (somewhat like how foodstamps work, but more generally toward childcare/food/clothing/education-type products.) The parents would have power over the child's account, just as parents do today, but only given the same restrictions.
e12e 13y ago
Really? Any data to back that up? (On a side note, a "large bag of cocaine" sounds like a business investment, investing in the highest return commodity available to the investor... not that I condone it, but it is somewhat different from what I assume you intended, namely buying recreational drugs for personal use rather than providing for one's children).
- code_duck 13y ago
  I need data to back up my vague assertion that 'some' people but drugs rather than care for their children?
  - e12e 13y ago
    Well, "data" might not have been the best choice of words. I was thinking back to the times I've seen, interacted with, or heard second-hand of drug addicts (or read studies) -- and I couldn't think of any cases where the statement hold true. The only context I could see it as true, was as an (unfounded) prejudice. So, I was really just wondering if you've ever had any first or second-hand indication that your assertion isn't just bullshit.
tothebatfax 13y ago
I think this is feeding into a prevalent and false narrative that persons in poverty are all drug addicts or welfare queens. Christian Parenti really sums it up well when he describes American views on poverty in his book, The Soft Cage: "In a society that denies the true causes of poverty—low wages and structural unemployment—the poor necessarily show up as objects of mystery to be examined, measured, interrogated, and indexed, or as James C. Scott would put it, made “legible.” In a society that hides the real mechanics of exploitation and sees all social phenomena through the lens of individualism, it is assumed that the poor—their genetics, their habits, or their culture—must be the true cause of poverty."[1] Specifically with respect to your point about drugs: "Reports such as the National Survey of Drug Use and Health suggest drug abuse among welfare recipients is hardly widespread. Many states have tried drug testing for welfare recipients with practically nobody testing positive. In Arizona, for example, in 2012, after three years and 87,000 screenings, one person had failed a drug test. Utah's drug screening program spent $30,000 on testing and only 2.5% of recipients turned out positive for illicit drugs. Florida's program had the same results. "In all cases, the testing -- which assumes all welfare recipients are druggies -- cost much more than the savings in welfare payments."[2] We need to stop acting paternalistically toward the poor and, instead, treat them as people who are capable of making their own decisions. [1] http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593829M/The_Soft_Cage http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593829M/The_Soft_Cage [2] http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/opinion/granderson-michigan-welfare-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7 http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/opinion/granderson-michigan-we...
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  This is silly - the poor are not unemployed, structurally or otherwise. To be unemployed one must be looking for work, which most American poor are not. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf Your source [2] also disagrees with you. When Florida implemented drug testing, they spent $46k to identify 108 drug users (presumably taking them off the welfare rolls). Unless welfare costs less than $425/person, that's a net savings. Further, according to the article linked to by [2] (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012%E2%80%9403%E2%80%9418/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/53620604/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story...), the actual number in Florida is closer to 2000 people since 2000 people withdrew their welfare applications when they reached the drug testing stage. (The comparable number in Utah was $2000/person, if we assume Utah's program had no deterrent effect whatsoever. Arizona's program seems less effective, likely because the drug tests were easy to avoid - just don't tell the welfare clerk you do drugs and you can skip the test.)

femto 13y ago

The point of the study is that these cases are a minority, and that it works to initially assume that the money will be used to buy a jacket.

_delirium 13y ago

I agree! This is why I've long argued that companies should be required to pay a portion of their employees' paychecks in nontransferable vouchers. If parents want to blow their I-Bank or Google paychecks on MacBooks, cocaine, and hookers, after responsibly buying jackets and healthy food for their kids, that's their prerogative. But the first $n0,000 should be paid out in restricted vouchers to make sure they provide for their kids first.

derefr 13y ago
Another way to do this would be to have a Basic Income that pays out to minors separately from their parents, but into an account/card that, for minors, is restricted to certain products/services (somewhat like how foodstamps work, but more generally toward childcare/food/clothing/education-type products.) The parents would have power over the child's account, just as parents do today, but only given the same restrictions.

e12e 13y ago

Really? Any data to back that up? (On a side note, a "large bag of cocaine" sounds like a business investment, investing in the highest return commodity available to the investor... not that I condone it, but it is somewhat different from what I assume you intended, namely buying recreational drugs for personal use rather than providing for one's children).

code_duck 13y ago
I need data to back up my vague assertion that 'some' people but drugs rather than care for their children?
- e12e 13y ago
  Well, "data" might not have been the best choice of words. I was thinking back to the times I've seen, interacted with, or heard second-hand of drug addicts (or read studies) -- and I couldn't think of any cases where the statement hold true. The only context I could see it as true, was as an (unfounded) prejudice. So, I was really just wondering if you've ever had any first or second-hand indication that your assertion isn't just bullshit.

tothebatfax 13y ago

I think this is feeding into a prevalent and false narrative that persons in poverty are all drug addicts or welfare queens. Christian Parenti really sums it up well when he describes American views on poverty in his book, The Soft Cage: "In a society that denies the true causes of poverty—low wages and structural unemployment—the poor necessarily show up as objects of mystery to be examined, measured, interrogated, and indexed, or as James C. Scott would put it, made “legible.” In a society that hides the real mechanics of exploitation and sees all social phenomena through the lens of individualism, it is assumed that the poor—their genetics, their habits, or their culture—must be the true cause of poverty."[1] Specifically with respect to your point about drugs: "Reports such as the National Survey of Drug Use and Health suggest drug abuse among welfare recipients is hardly widespread. Many states have tried drug testing for welfare recipients with practically nobody testing positive. In Arizona, for example, in 2012, after three years and 87,000 screenings, one person had failed a drug test. Utah's drug screening program spent $30,000 on testing and only 2.5% of recipients turned out positive for illicit drugs. Florida's program had the same results. "In all cases, the testing -- which assumes all welfare recipients are druggies -- cost much more than the savings in welfare payments."[2] We need to stop acting paternalistically toward the poor and, instead, treat them as people who are capable of making their own decisions. [1] http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593829M/The_Soft_Cage http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593829M/The_Soft_Cage [2] http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/opinion/granderson-michigan-welfare-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7 http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/opinion/granderson-michigan-we...

yummyfajitas 13y ago
This is silly - the poor are not unemployed, structurally or otherwise. To be unemployed one must be looking for work, which most American poor are not. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf Your source [2] also disagrees with you. When Florida implemented drug testing, they spent $46k to identify 108 drug users (presumably taking them off the welfare rolls). Unless welfare costs less than $425/person, that's a net savings. Further, according to the article linked to by [2] (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012%E2%80%9403%E2%80%9418/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/53620604/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story...), the actual number in Florida is closer to 2000 people since 2000 people withdrew their welfare applications when they reached the drug testing stage. (The comparable number in Utah was $2000/person, if we assume Utah's program had no deterrent effect whatsoever. Arizona's program seems less effective, likely because the drug tests were easy to avoid - just don't tell the welfare clerk you do drugs and you can skip the test.)