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

[ksen]

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.

 

[dystopian]

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!"

 

[bleubird]

I deal with SNAP a lot at work.
Very interesting idea.Maybe people would shop wiser if they had cash instead of a debt card.
Sure would be worth more study.

 

[ksen]

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!"

If you think about it just giving people cash is a more free market solution than choosing what food to give them.

Also, I wonder how much money is wasted by the government on food that people don't/won't use? But I mean who doesn't like a tall glass of powdered milk to go with your powdered eggs and powdered potatoes?

 

[dystopian]

Also, I wonder how much money is wasted by the government on food that people don't/won't use? But I mean who doesn't like a tall glass of powdered milk to go with your powdered eggs and powdered potatoes?

You know, I don't even know where you'd get powdered milk around here; much less those other two (are those even fucking real? Tell me they're not)

 

[ksen]

Also, I wonder how much money is wasted by the government on food that people don't/won't use? But I mean who doesn't like a tall glass of powdered milk to go with your powdered eggs and powdered potatoes?

You know, I don't even know where you'd get powdered milk around here; much less those other two (are those even fucking real? Tell me they're not)

Oh, they're real alright.

powdered eggs

powdered potatoes

Only in 'Murica!

 

[Nexus]

Powered eggs are the best source of protein and I resent it when people insult it.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

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.

 

[ksen]

Well, I guess a few anecdotes are enough to put this study to bed.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, I wonder how much money is wasted by the government on food that people don't/won't use? But I mean who doesn't like a tall glass of powdered milk to go with your powdered eggs and powdered potatoes?

You know, I don't even know where you'd get powdered milk around here; much less those other two (are those even fucking real? Tell me they're not)

Oh, they're real alright.

powdered eggs

powdered potatoes

Only in 'Murica!

While I've never eaten either I've seen the potatoes on the supermarket shelf many times.

The eggs are obvious for backpackers and preppers. Remember, when you're backpacking everything must be shelf stable. Eggs actually are stable enough but fragile--they can survive fairly well in an egg carrier meant for backpacking but you'll have occasional breaks anyway (especially if you have an egg that's not exactly the normal size), they can be messy and you have the extra weight of the egg carrier.

Personally I preferred to go with food that didn't need cooking (which means no need for cooking gear) but most people I have been with had their own stove & pan.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Does this disprove the study?

 

[Celldweller]

Good for Mexico. A study with n=200 poor villagers isn't as compelling as say, a U.S. study of 200 randomized into:

A) Poor to homeless with addiction
B) Poor to homeless without addiction
C) A with kids
D) A without kids
E) B with kids
F) B without kids

Exclusionary criteria would be con artists.

 

[bilby]

A similar thing was tried in Kenya, also with very good results.

I think the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that poor people in Mexico and Kenya get a great benefit from being given cash donations, but that poor people in the USA will only spend them on manicures, because the free market simply doesn't work in the USA - Americans need to be told by the government what to spend money on, and letting them decide for themselves is basically Communism.

Everyone in the US who holds up a 'will work for food' sign is a mooching millionaire, and most likely had his hard working Mexican servants draw up the sign so he could fleece hard working Real Americans^TM of their savings.

 

[gmbteach]

A similar thing was tried in Kenya, also with very good results.

I think the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that poor people in Mexico and Kenya get a great benefit from being given cash donations, but that poor people in the USA will only spend them on manicures, because the free market simply doesn't work in the USA - Americans need to be told by the government what to spend money on, and letting them decide for themselves is basically Communism.

Everyone in the US who holds up a 'will work for food' sign is a mooching millionaire, and most likely had his hard working Mexican servants draw up the sign so he could fleece hard working Real Americans^TM of their savings.

Don't forget was Kevin Rudd did for Australians with the stimulus package as well.

 

[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.

 

[dystopian]

Depends on the person who gets it.

No, it doesn't. You don't get to decide what people "should" spend their money on.

Furthermore, your anecdotes mean absolutely nothing to me or anyone else looking at the topic objectively. Coming up with some personal anecdote (which often isn't even necessarily what *actually* happened just what the person *thinks* happened) like the ones you're throwing out is something that rightwingers almost always do in order to prop up support for their positions. But anecdotes do not represent anything more than anecdotes; they're not evidence of some actual trend and they're not even evidence of the anecdotes themselves being anything more than your possibly biased misinterpretations of the events the anecdotes talk about it. They won't convince anyone.

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.

Even if true (and neither I nor you have any reason to believe your co-worker wasn't full of shit); what exactly would this prove? It wouldn't prove that the woman and her kids weren't homeless and needed money for food. It is entirely possible that most of the money they gained begging was spent on food. Should a homeless person not spend whatever money they come into beyond what they need for necessities not spend it on a manicure? Who are you to decide that? Could it not be possible that she was using the manicure in order to improve her appearance so she'd have more luck on job interviews? Who would hire someone who looks like a homeless person, after all. Or for that matter, isn't it possible your co-worker confused her with someone else?

In other words; even if this anecdote described an event that actually happened; it doesn't support your interpretation just cause.

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.

Again; why should I believe your ex-BF wasn't full of shit? And again, even if true; so what? Homeless people throughout history have known that coming up with stories like that makes them more likely to get money than just straight up asking. It doesn't mean they're not in serious dire financial straits and need the money.

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.

While the other two anecdotes at least sound like stories that could've happened; this one does not. It sounds exactly like the sort of story that is made up on the spot to prop up an ideology. I have little reason to believe it is based on anything real. Even if I did; it is still an anecdote and not an argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A similar thing was tried in Kenya, also with very good results.

I think the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that poor people in Mexico and Kenya get a great benefit from being given cash donations, but that poor people in the USA will only spend them on manicures, because the free market simply doesn't work in the USA - Americans need to be told by the government what to spend money on, and letting them decide for themselves is basically Communism.

Everyone in the US who holds up a 'will work for food' sign is a mooching millionaire, and most likely had his hard working Mexican servants draw up the sign so he could fleece hard working Real Americans^TM of their savings.

I think it comes down to why they are poor.

When they are truly denied opportunity (ie, Kenya etc) providing cash is a big help.

The ones on welfare but who are not disabled have pretty much already shown they can't manage money. Is it any surprise they fare poorly when given money without strings? (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.)

 

[ksen]

A similar thing was tried in Kenya, also with very good results.

I think the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that poor people in Mexico and Kenya get a great benefit from being given cash donations, but that poor people in the USA will only spend them on manicures, because the free market simply doesn't work in the USA - Americans need to be told by the government what to spend money on, and letting them decide for themselves is basically Communism.

Everyone in the US who holds up a 'will work for food' sign is a mooching millionaire, and most likely had his hard working Mexican servants draw up the sign so he could fleece hard working Real Americans^TM of their savings.

I think it comes down to why they are poor.

When they are truly denied opportunity (ie, Kenya etc) providing cash is a big help.

The ones on welfare but who are not disabled have pretty much already shown they can't manage money. Is it any surprise they fare poorly when given money without strings? (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.)

when has that happened?

you really need to stop presenting your conjectures as incontrovertible facts.

just sayin'

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[dystopian]

The ones on welfare but who are not disabled have pretty much already shown they can't manage money.

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.

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

(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?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

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

(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 have to understand

In "moderate libertarian" land, a tree is known by its fruits and if that fruit is poverty, well obviously the tree grew that way because it is that way. The tree has a poverty of spirit, of intellect and morality. Hence the tree shows the fruit of poverty.

People of course aren't apples of pears or oaks or pines or trees of any kind so this has nothing to do with how social forces impose poverty on entire populations through institutional hierarchies predicated on inheritance and prejudice and privilege; but it makes life simpler and less stressful for some members of privileged groups to treat people like they are trees or some other metaphor. Not like we should treat people like, well, people.