Experiment finds that giving people cash helps more than giving them food

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5845258/mexico-tried-giving-poor-people-cash-instead-of-food-it-worked

Think of it as lots of little block grants given to individuals/families.

So if you disagree with the study, should you start giving the IRS payments in food?

 

[ksen]

goog god, I must owe the irs about 9,000 chickens!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[credoconsolans]

The term 'duh' comes to mind. I suppose people with rightwing/conservative tendencies (who would be the ones to voice opposition) labor under the self-imposed delusion that if you just give poor people money without any strings in regards to how they spend it attached, that they'll then spend it on things that they "shouldn't".

"Don't give your money to that homeless person, he'll just spend it on drugs!"

"Don't give your money to that welfare mom, she'll just spend it on fashion!"

Depends on the person who gets it.

A co-worker gave money to a woman who was standing on a street corner with her little kids. Said they were homeless, needed money for food.

A week later, she sees the woman again...sitting next to her at the salon, getting a manicure.

A ex-BF ran across a man at a strip mall. Wife and kids in the car. They were trying to get to the next town over, but were having car trouble. Could he donate to help them with cab fare? He did.

Two weeks later, my ex- goes back to the shop at the strip mall and there is the guy again, asking him for money, telling him the exact same story he told them two weeks before.

A church member sees two guys standing on the street corner holding signs "Will work for food". He thinks, great timing. He drives over, offers the guys a ride to his church where they are repainting the buildings. For honest work, they will be serving food.

They turn him down, they only want money.

You realize your anecdotes buttress the conclusion of that study that giving people money makes them better off than giving them food.

No, it buttresses the idea that most of those begging for money are con artists, not really people in need.

 

[laughing dog]

The term 'duh' comes to mind. I suppose people with rightwing/conservative tendencies (who would be the ones to voice opposition) labor under the self-imposed delusion that if you just give poor people money without any strings in regards to how they spend it attached, that they'll then spend it on things that they "shouldn't".

"Don't give your money to that homeless person, he'll just spend it on drugs!"

"Don't give your money to that welfare mom, she'll just spend it on fashion!"

Depends on the person who gets it.

A co-worker gave money to a woman who was standing on a street corner with her little kids. Said they were homeless, needed money for food.

A week later, she sees the woman again...sitting next to her at the salon, getting a manicure.

A ex-BF ran across a man at a strip mall. Wife and kids in the car. They were trying to get to the next town over, but were having car trouble. Could he donate to help them with cab fare? He did.

Two weeks later, my ex- goes back to the shop at the strip mall and there is the guy again, asking him for money, telling him the exact same story he told them two weeks before.

A church member sees two guys standing on the street corner holding signs "Will work for food". He thinks, great timing. He drives over, offers the guys a ride to his church where they are repainting the buildings. For honest work, they will be serving food.

They turn him down, they only want money.

You realize your anecdotes buttress the conclusion of that study that giving people money makes them better off than giving them food.

No, it buttresses the idea that most of those begging for money are con artists, not really people in need.

Actually, it does no such thing, since con artists can be people in need. Moreover, it points out that, like the study, people are better off getting money rather than in-kind donations (the offer of food in your anecdote).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, they haven't. Is it really so hard for you to accept the basic fact that the idea that everyone can be successful if they just try hard enough is a *myth*? There are a million and one reasons why people on welfare might be on welfare, and only one of those reasons is them not being able to manage money.

Is it any surprise they fare poorly when given money without strings?

Yes, that *would* be a surprise since there isn't a single study that shows that but several that show the exact opposite.

Except those studies all have been in areas where the problem was in the whole area, not just individuals in it.

Not to mention, you know, basic common sense: "Oh no! Someone gave me free money without any strings attached! Now everything will suck!"

Does it ever occur to you that we provide most welfare money as in-kind rather than $--because we've seen that when it's provided as $ it's misused.

(And the disabled aren't going to show any substantial benefit because they don't have the ability to use it to better their situation even if they know how to.)

Excuse me? I happen to be on disability, and I can guaran-fucking-tee you that I'd better my situation if I was given more money.

What, do you imagine disabled people are unable to do things like use that money to buy better quality food, clothes, pay medical bills, or just generally improve the quality of their life?

You can make a short term improvement in your standard of living. You can't better your position for the future.

 

[bilby]

No, they haven't. Is it really so hard for you to accept the basic fact that the idea that everyone can be successful if they just try hard enough is a *myth*? There are a million and one reasons why people on welfare might be on welfare, and only one of those reasons is them not being able to manage money.

Is it any surprise they fare poorly when given money without strings?

Yes, that *would* be a surprise since there isn't a single study that shows that but several that show the exact opposite.

Except those studies all have been in areas where the problem was in the whole area, not just individuals in it.

Not to mention, you know, basic common sense: "Oh no! Someone gave me free money without any strings attached! Now everything will suck!"

Does it ever occur to you that we provide most welfare money as in-kind rather than $--because we've seen that when it's provided as $ it's misused.

Does it ever occur to you that this uniquely US quirk is the result of exactly the flawed reasoning you are presenting; or that in the civilised world, welfare payments are made in cash, and there is no evidence that 'misuse' is more widespread than in the US - for any reasonable definition of 'misuse'.

It does strike me as more than a little odd that somebody who describes himself as a libertarian (however moderate) can accept the possibility that a person choosing for themselves how to spend their income is 'misuse', if they make a choice that is not in line with the preference of third parties.

 

[EricK]

Does it ever occur to you that this uniquely US quirk is the result of exactly the flawed reasoning you are presenting; or that in the civilised world, welfare payments are made in cash, and there is no evidence that 'misuse' is more widespread than in the US - for any reasonable definition of 'misuse'.

Although we do provide healthcare as a benefit rather than as money to purchase insurance; and similarly we provide education rather than money to purchase it privately.

It does strike me as more than a little odd that somebody who describes himself as a libertarian (however moderate) can accept the possibility that a person choosing for themselves how to spend their income is 'misuse', if they make a choice that is not in line with the preference of third parties.

But one could argue that in the libertarian world, this (taxation to be used as welfare) wouldn't happen anyway. And people voluntarily giving welfare to others are free to do what they want - give it as food, give it as money to be spent freely, or even, I suppose, give it as money but get them to sign a contract saying that they will spend it on the food of their choice, and then sue them for breach of contract if they choose to spend it on something else.

 

[dystopian]

No, it buttresses the idea that most of those begging for money are con artists, not really people in need.

Newsflash; anecdotes can't prop up claims regarding what 'most' people do/are: cause they're *anecdotes* and not you know, statistical facts, scientific studies, trendlines, or indeed anything that warrants more than a 'cool story bro'.

 

[dystopian]

Except those studies all have been in areas where the problem was in the whole area, not just individuals in it.

Is this really the best you can come up with? Do you realize your argument now is basically:

"Well uh yes, I suppose giving poor people who live in poor regions money is going to help them. BUT! That doesn't mean that giving money to poor people who live in rich regions is going to help them!"

Does it ever occur to you that we provide most welfare money as in-kind rather than $-

No we don't. Maybe *your* country does, I don't know; but my country... does not. And the people here who receive that welfare in the form of euros do NOT, as a rule, misuse it.

because we've seen that when it's provided as $ it's misused.

No we haven't; stop making shit up.

You can make a short term improvement in your standard of living. You can't better your position for the future.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you SERIOUSLY think disabled people are unable to better their position for the future the same way non-disabled people can? What the fuck? Disabled people can't get themselves additional schooling to learn skills that can put them onto the jobmarket? Disabled people can't invest or save money for their retirement? I can think of plenty of ways in which extra money in my pocket would translate to improving my position for the future; the fact that *you* can't does nothing except demonstrate that you lack any and all ability to put yourself into a disabled person's shoes. And more than that, your underlying implication, that the reason disabled people shouldn't be given money is because they can only make a 'short term' improvement in their standard of living is evidence of a seriously sociopathic mindset; one that lacks basic human empathy.

 

[laughing dog]

Although we do provide healthcare as a benefit rather than as money to purchase insurance; and similarly we provide education rather than money to purchase it privately.

In the USA, we certainly don't provide healthcare as a benefit for everyone. There are other reasons for providing education as benefit: the spillover effect of education and possible economies of scale.

But one could argue that in the libertarian world, this (taxation to be used as welfare) wouldn't happen anyway. And people voluntarily giving welfare to others are free to do what they want - give it as food, give it as money to be spent freely, or even, I suppose, give it as money but get them to sign a contract saying that they will spend it on the food of their choice, and then sue them for breach of contract if they choose to spend it on something else.

But we don't live in a libertarian world, and are highly unlikely to live in it in the near term. More importantly, libertarians champion the freedom of choice for the individual so it does seem more than a bit incongruous for a self-proclaimed libertarian to make judgments about the choices of others.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The term 'duh' comes to mind. I suppose people with rightwing/conservative tendencies (who would be the ones to voice opposition) labor under the self-imposed delusion that if you just give poor people money without any strings in regards to how they spend it attached, that they'll then spend it on things that they "shouldn't".

"Don't give your money to that homeless person, he'll just spend it on drugs!"

"Don't give your money to that welfare mom, she'll just spend it on fashion!"

Depends on the person who gets it.

A co-worker gave money to a woman who was standing on a street corner with her little kids. Said they were homeless, needed money for food.

A week later, she sees the woman again...sitting next to her at the salon, getting a manicure.

A ex-BF ran across a man at a strip mall. Wife and kids in the car. They were trying to get to the next town over, but were having car trouble. Could he donate to help them with cab fare? He did.

Two weeks later, my ex- goes back to the shop at the strip mall and there is the guy again, asking him for money, telling him the exact same story he told them two weeks before.

A church member sees two guys standing on the street corner holding signs "Will work for food". He thinks, great timing. He drives over, offers the guys a ride to his church where they are repainting the buildings. For honest work, they will be serving food.

They turn him down, they only want money.

You realize your anecdotes buttress the conclusion of that study that giving people money makes them better off than giving them food.

No, it buttresses the idea that most of those begging for money are con artists, not really people in need.

You know I once heard from a coworker that she knew a guy who knew a banker who seemed on the up-and-up. He was later caught embezzling money from client accounts. This just proves that most bankers are con artists who embezzling money from clients and not upstanding, honest members of society.

 

[doubtingt]

So I am unclear what data is being used to support the OP claim that "cash helps more than giving them food".

What the article actually shows is that the quantity of food consumption was the same, but the quality of the food consumed was higher in the food than the cash group.

Cunha does find evidence that consumption of micro-nutrients like vitamin C and zinc is higher for mothers and children getting the food than those getting the cash

IOW, those who got cash bought less nutritious food.

 

[dystopian]

So I am unclear what data is being used to support the OP claim that "cash helps more than giving them food".

What the article actually shows is that the quantity of food consumption was the same, but the quality of the food consumed was higher in the food than the cash group.

Cunha does find evidence that consumption of micro-nutrients like vitamin C and zinc is higher for mothers and children getting the food than those getting the cash

IOW, those who got cash bought less nutritious food.

Don't you think you're being a little disingeneous here? Let's take a look at the actual paragraph you quotemined:

"There are two possible interpretations here. One is that the government is misidentifying what food people want and thus wasting money that could be better spent by the people themselves. The other is that the government is steering people toward better foods. But there's cause for skepticism there. Cunha does find evidence that consumption of micro-nutrients like vitamin C and zinc is higher for mothers and children getting the food than those getting the cash, but no evidence of differences in actual health."

So what we actually have is: 1) evidence that food consumption is the same for both groups; and 2) NO evidence for any differences in actual health (just cause someone is getting more vitamins doesn't mean that they're healthier, vitamins don't work that way); coupled with the rest of the study which shows that it costs the government considerably more to give them food than it does to give them money (which really, is a fact that should convince conservatives to just give the poor money and shut up about what they're spending it on)

 

[credoconsolans]

The term 'duh' comes to mind. I suppose people with rightwing/conservative tendencies (who would be the ones to voice opposition) labor under the self-imposed delusion that if you just give poor people money without any strings in regards to how they spend it attached, that they'll then spend it on things that they "shouldn't".

"Don't give your money to that homeless person, he'll just spend it on drugs!"

"Don't give your money to that welfare mom, she'll just spend it on fashion!"

Depends on the person who gets it.

A co-worker gave money to a woman who was standing on a street corner with her little kids. Said they were homeless, needed money for food.

A week later, she sees the woman again...sitting next to her at the salon, getting a manicure.

A ex-BF ran across a man at a strip mall. Wife and kids in the car. They were trying to get to the next town over, but were having car trouble. Could he donate to help them with cab fare? He did.

Two weeks later, my ex- goes back to the shop at the strip mall and there is the guy again, asking him for money, telling him the exact same story he told them two weeks before.

A church member sees two guys standing on the street corner holding signs "Will work for food". He thinks, great timing. He drives over, offers the guys a ride to his church where they are repainting the buildings. For honest work, they will be serving food.

They turn him down, they only want money.

You realize your anecdotes buttress the conclusion of that study that giving people money makes them better off than giving them food.

No, it buttresses the idea that most of those begging for money are con artists, not really people in need.

You know I once heard from a coworker that she knew a guy who knew a banker who seemed on the up-and-up. He was later caught embezzling money from client accounts. This just proves that most bankers are con artists who embezzling money from clients and not upstanding, honest members of society.

That analogy makes no sense.

Since when does anyone think a banker is in need? That is who we're talking about, Nice. Try to stay on subject.

 

[doubtingt]

So I am unclear what data is being used to support the OP claim that "cash helps more than giving them food".

What the article actually shows is that the quantity of food consumption was the same, but the quality of the food consumed was higher in the food than the cash group.

Cunha does find evidence that consumption of micro-nutrients like vitamin C and zinc is higher for mothers and children getting the food than those getting the cash

IOW, those who got cash bought less nutritious food.

Don't you think you're being a little disingeneous here? Let's take a look at the actual paragraph you quotemined:

"There are two possible interpretations here. One is that the government is misidentifying what food people want and thus wasting money that could be better spent by the people themselves. The other is that the government is steering people toward better foods. But there's cause for skepticism there. Cunha does find evidence that consumption of micro-nutrients like vitamin C and zinc is higher for mothers and children getting the food than those getting the cash, but no evidence of differences in actual health."

So what we actually have is: 1) evidence that food consumption is the same for both groups; and 2) NO evidence for any differences in actual health (just cause someone is getting more vitamins doesn't mean that they're healthier, vitamins don't work that way); coupled with the rest of the study which shows that it costs the government considerably more to give them food than it does to give them money (which really, is a fact that should convince conservatives to just give the poor money and shut up about what they're spending it on)

No, you have been disingenuous the entire thread by claiming the cash group did better and never once noting that one of the more critical DVs showed worse outcomes for the cash group. I highlighted the DV of vitamins and mineral intake for 2 reasons: 1) it shows a difference rather than a null result and null results are less meaningful since they are often the result of unreliable measures of the variables; 2) the nutrition results contradicts the claims you and others here have been taking on blind faith and I am not making a claim of better or worse either way; 3) the nutrition measures are by far the most valid of the DV with respect to the claim that the people are doing better.
Shere amount of consumption is irrelevant since many so called "foods" are nutritionless and contain more things that harm health than help them. Amount of nutrition is what actually matters, and the cash group got less nutrition. The lack of health differences do not mean much unless they measured every possible health related outcome over many years, which I bet dollars to donuts (get it?) that they did not. When you are dealing with a sample of desperately poor and undernourished people, greater intake of nutrients and vitamins is essentially guaranteed to improve their health. Well nourished people getting a bit more vitamin C may not matter for health, but that isn't what we are talking about. A mountain of prior evidence supports the impact of nutrition of the health of the chronically undernourished, so the lack of effect on these researchers incomplete, short term, and probably poorly measured health outcomes is highly likely due to the invalidity of their health measure rather than that the known nutrient differences had zero impact on health.

 

[dystopian]

No, you have been disingenuous the entire thread by claiming the cash group did better and never once noting that one of the more critical DVs showed worse outcomes for the cash group.

It doesn't show worse outcomes at all.

I highlighted the DV of vitamins and mineral intake for 2 reasons: 1) it shows a difference rather than a null result and null results are less meaningful since they are often the result of unreliable measures of the variables; 2) the nutrition results contradicts the claims you and others here have been taking on blind faith and I am not making a claim of better or worse either way; 3) the nutrition measures are by far the most valid of the DV with respect to the claim that the people are doing better.

People getting more vitamins in their food is NOT the same as them getting more healthier food. I already told you that vitamins don't work that way. Nutrition doesn't work that way. The study showed that there were NO differences health wise; and no mention was made of how many more vitamins some people on the food program were getting.

Shere amount of consumption is irrelevant since many so called "foods" are nutritionless and contain more things that harm health than help them. Amount of nutrition is what actually matters, and the cash group got less nutrition.

More vitamins does not necessarily equate more nutrition. That's the sort of ignorance that leads people to buying vitamin supplements that don't do anything.

Well nourished people getting a bit more vitamin C may not matter for health, but that isn't what we are talking about.

Actually, it *is* what we're talking about. You're trying to suggest that the group on the food program is better off because some (not even all) are getting 'more' vitamins; and that this is somehow more meaningful than it is for non-poor people because of the impact of nutrition on the health of the chronically undernourished; conveniently ignoring a number of important facts:

• Who says these people are 'chronically undernourished'? You have no basis for that claim. They're poor people, but that does not automatically equate to being undernourished, much less chronically so.
• The 'mountain of prior evidence' you mentioned shows that a healthy diet requires a good *balance* of nutrients, not simply 'more' of stuff that the supplement industry has convinced you is healthy.
• The study merely mentioned *a* increase in zinc and vitamin C intake; it didn't mention how much. It could even be *too* much (yes, getting too many vitamins can be seriously bad for your health).
• There is no reason to suspect the foods they are buying themselves are unhealthy; all we know is that they contain less zinc and vitamin c; which could mean anything from a completely healthy diet to eating cardboard.

 

[fromderinside]

Aw shit.

Health care is necessary for well being. Education is necessary for informed citizenship. Both are deemed necessary for the maintenance of our social contract. Money be damned.