4 ms·

That's an interesting theory. Do you have data?

by chaz72 11y ago

filoeleven 11y ago
I do! But it's from the article and it supports the opposite conclusion: > Longer-term research into anti-poverty interventions is rare, but it exists for cash transfers. A 2013 study in Uganda found that people who received cash enjoyed a 49 percent earnings boost after two years, and a 41 percent increase after four years, compared to people who hadn't gotten a transfer. Another study in Sri Lanka found rates of return averaging 80 percent after five years. In Uganda, not only were the cash recipients better off, but their number of hours worked and labor productivity actually increased.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >and it supports the opposite conclusion The opposite conclusion in a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways to give money. The way the US does it in some cases, where earning 5K more in a given year can cost 10K in benefits, does creates a perverse incentive. The way this charity does it, you get 1K and that's it; it does not create perverse incentives. Consider the following example. In one example, a person receives X a week to help, but the aid rolls back when they get a job, M dollars less of aid for each dollar earned. So a job comes along where they can earn Y dollars for 40 hours of work. We could call M the means testing coefficient or something fancy like that. Say that M is 1, and Y < X. In this case, they will now spend 40 hours of their week for no immediate benefit. Having a job may lead to possible longer term benefits (say beginning a career where eventually Y > X), but the cost of 40 hours of their life a week for such little possible benefit would make not working the better choice. If X > Y, but only by a small amount, and M is 1, then they will see some small benefit, but spread over 40 hours it may still not make the job worth it. And if M > 1 and Y < X, it would actually be harmful to get a job. On the other hand, say that M was .25. In this case, taking the job would almost always be beneficial, despite the relationship between X and Y. As for this charity in question, M is 0 (but the aid lasts only for a year). It is the least likely to cause any such harm to getting a job (except for when M is negative, which is to say the more you earn, the more aid you get, which oddly enough happens in some cases of corporate welfare).
- chaz72 11y ago
  Yeah, I saw that conclusion, and I've seen several like it before. :) The question was my way of suggesting that the comment I was referencing was probably unsubstantiated - while still giving him a chance to come up with data if he happened to have any.

That's an interesting theory. Do you have data?

by chaz72 11y ago

That's an interesting theory. Do you have data?

I do! But it's from the article and it supports the opposite conclusion: > Longer-term research into anti-poverty interventions is rare, but it exists for cash transfers. A 2013 study in Uganda found that people who received cash enjoyed a 49 percent earnings boost after two years, and a 41 percent increase after four years, compared to people who hadn't gotten a transfer. Another study in Sri Lanka found rates of return averaging 80 percent after five years. In Uganda, not only were the cash recipients better off, but their number of hours worked and labor productivity actually increased.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>and it supports the opposite conclusion The opposite conclusion in a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways to give money. The way the US does it in some cases, where earning 5K more in a given year can cost 10K in benefits, does creates a perverse incentive. The way this charity does it, you get 1K and that's it; it does not create perverse incentives. Consider the following example. In one example, a person receives X a week to help, but the aid rolls back when they get a job, M dollars less of aid for each dollar earned. So a job comes along where they can earn Y dollars for 40 hours of work. We could call M the means testing coefficient or something fancy like that. Say that M is 1, and Y < X. In this case, they will now spend 40 hours of their week for no immediate benefit. Having a job may lead to possible longer term benefits (say beginning a career where eventually Y > X), but the cost of 40 hours of their life a week for such little possible benefit would make not working the better choice. If X > Y, but only by a small amount, and M is 1, then they will see some small benefit, but spread over 40 hours it may still not make the job worth it. And if M > 1 and Y < X, it would actually be harmful to get a job. On the other hand, say that M was .25. In this case, taking the job would almost always be beneficial, despite the relationship between X and Y. As for this charity in question, M is 0 (but the aid lasts only for a year). It is the least likely to cause any such harm to getting a job (except for when M is negative, which is to say the more you earn, the more aid you get, which oddly enough happens in some cases of corporate welfare).
chaz72 11y ago
Yeah, I saw that conclusion, and I've seen several like it before. :) The question was my way of suggesting that the comment I was referencing was probably unsubstantiated - while still giving him a chance to come up with data if he happened to have any.