SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Poverty-alleviation programs like food stamps (SNAP), Social Security, and other "welfare" programs are broadly effective at reducing poverty, a new study from University of Chicago researchers found.
The study, performed by researchers Bruce Meyer and Derek Wu, conducted a more comprehensive analysis than most studies, because it used administrative data from the programs' payment records, not just survey data of recipients from the Census Bureau.
[...] For the elderly, Wu said the research found that Social Security benefits "single-handedly slashes poverty by 75%." Social Security's overall effect on all poverty is also enormous, responsible for by far the largest poverty reduction among all these programs, the study said.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Study: Public Assistance Programs Lessen Poverty
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
We must believe that it is the darkest before the dawn of a beautiful
new world. We will see it when we believe it.
-- Saul Alinsky
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:39AM (13 children)
Here in the UK, the minimum wage went up 4.7% on 1st April. For a business owner, it's 1/3 each for wages, overheads and profit. If wages increase at 4.7%, your prices must increase around 14%. Do you see how it works?
Proposals for helicopter money to fix the instabilities caused by government interference in the market are a doubling down on economic illiteracy. The Finnish report cannot come soon enough [businessinsider.com] although we know the argument that UBI defenders will spin this failed experiment: "not real communism".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @12:11PM (9 children)
That's probably true for small businesses, so one negative argument one could make is that small businesses will suffer from UBI, but large businesses are not as likely to instantly raise prices to match, perhaps even ever, because they have deep pockets. They'll surely increase them some, but it's not likely it'll be a full compensation.
That said, there's another problem that is quite severe.
In the near future, a UBI will be *necessary* to prevent *mass destitution*, as there will NOT be enough jobs for everyone. There will be no alternative, except perhaps some extreme form of communism. I'm comfortable with medium-well done socialism myself.
UBI is necessary. There will be no alternative in the future. Labor costs will skyrocket, no doubt, because it will take much more to convince someone to do a certain job since it's no longer necessary to survive, but here's where the other part of the plan comes in: Automation.
Until now, it's been a boogeyman. When this comes to pass, there will be a much stronger incentive to automate most jobs. That will, once implemented, essentially *eliminate* most labor costs. I can see a bell curve with prices happening here.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:19PM (5 children)
Oh no, there's a far more likely alternative than UBI as far as I can see.
It will start with civil unrest from the destitute, move on to all-out uprisings and civil wars, causing ever increasing refugee streams, which put other countries' resources under unsustainable pressure, causing their populace to rise up, spreading the damage further and further. The resulting mayhem will cause severe food shortages, causing certain countries to seize the only remaining option - military annexation of remaining agricultural areas, regardless of national borders, prompting full-on wars until that too becomes impossible from the food & resource shortage. At the end of this shit-storm the human population will have been reduced to something that's actually sustainable, and there'll be no shortage of hard work for everyone.
You know, I hope I'm wrong, but when it comes to humanity at large, I'm still betting on greed and screwing over "the small people". Oh, and on Musk getting to Mars.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:28PM (1 child)
Likely? Yes. Favorable? No. The whole point of UBI is to produce a more favorable outcome, of course. :^)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:53PM
Given the prevalence of Greed, Greed & Greed, Inc. I only see UBI as hastening the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @02:13PM
How can there in the end be no shortage of hard work for everyone if we start with the premise that all the hard work is eliminated as too expensive?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
You speak of this as though it is coming some time in the future. There are some who note that today we have the largest population of refugees in the world since WWII. [rescue.org]
Yeah, culling the herd tends to do that. Pretty nasty for those who have to endure it, though.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:23AM
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
And well, it's pretty nasty for those who don't live to endure the aftermath too...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:36PM
Automation would have had little effect; aging population (falling cost of living) and steady GDP. Mass immigration has fucked all that up and will make Basic Income a political impossibility. [euronews.com] Look at the numbers of homeless in major cities and tell me mass destitution isn't already real, and the more people you invite the poorer everyone will be. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by dak664 on Tuesday May 29 2018, @02:54PM (1 child)
A no-money alternative was presented in the 1930s, ration joules equally and let a free market operate. Most "jobs" consume excess joules to build "wealth" in the form of money, ultimately to purchase a diminishing supply of future energy.
Interesting how bitcoin parallels the doomed capitalist model.
http://www.technocracyinc.org/ [technocracyinc.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 29 2018, @04:39PM
Joules would be the new money.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:18PM (2 children)
The 1/3 thing is a rule of thumb. If you're too stupid as a business owner to realize that an increase in wages need only result in raising prices to cover the actual increase, you deserve to be beaten by those who can figure that out. I guess you must have determined that market forces have failed utterly.
Or perhaps you're just desperately clutching at excuses and that's the best you could come up with.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:58PM
It is a rule of thumb, but the rule was not as stated:
A more realistic version of the rule is 1/3 direct labor, 1/3 direct material, and 1/3 overhead. Note that this doesn't include profit, because this is a rule of thumb for determining costs only. Alternatively, the stated rule of thumb could be using the idea of 'gross profits', but that implies that a significant portion of that 1/3 would go toward paying expenses, such as overhead.
Overall, though, it's a rule of thumb, and as such can't really be used to prove economic truths.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:30PM
Your suppliers don't raise their prices to compensate for the wage increase? All we're doing here is inflation, nobody ends up better off unless they are servicing zero or fixed-interest debt.
From the Weimar Republic to Venezuela, the combination of high government debt, redistributive policies and printing money has lead to hyperinflation. It wont affect people living hand to mouth [cnn.com] only those holding assets. [wikipedia.org] Does that better explain the problem for you?