SoylentNews is people
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:29AM
That's pretty simple, but the end result would not be Capitalism as you know it.
Translation: Avaricious hellbound c-suites making decisions.
Why did Epipens get so ridiculously expensive again? One single super-cunt that could only see dollar signs, and she didn't give a FUCK about children, or anyone else needing these truly miraculous and life saving devices.
Why has rent gone up over 400% in Sonoma County (Northern California)? That's right. Greedy fuckers that we should track down and brutally kill.
What everyone misses about basic market economics is the human aspect of it. When you have sociopathic fucking dirtbags like Trump running the show, they will quite easily act in their best interests, even when they know the results of what they're doing are going to REALLY HURT the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Which is incidentally the definition of Evil; Performing actions that will knowingly cause harm to another, that only result in the benefit of the actor. It's all game theory, and you MUST evaluate the actors accordingly, and honestly. Assign power levels, and then assign intent.
After a lot of simulations and testing you will find that commodity prices raise (beyond inflation) because of Greed. It's truly that simple.
What we need are the terrible unAmerican, pinko-fucking Communist regulations. With regulations you can prevent rent increases like that. You could also mandate that no single person or corporation can own more than 5% of real property in a given county. Rent control is another method, but making sure that ownership is extremely well diversified, will result in those Capitalistic forces actually working for the common man. Rents go down when one of the owners blinks and is willing to lower the price. When you have megadouches buying up distressed property (which exactly defines our entire fucking country for the last 15 years), often in criminal collusion with banking executives who were supposed to renegotiate terms, you end up in a situation in which those megadouches can start asking for 200% of prevailing rent. What's the term for this? Price Fixing?
Basically, you need to prevent extremely powerful actors from ever arising, or if they do, prevent them from pooling to much power and control in one place. Additionally, prevent them from colluding with other actors to do the same thing. You need to balance the game, lest you end up with rampant inequality, which is what we have today.
We DO NOT NEED UBI. We just need some fucking equality and the ability to negotiate work offers that fucking make sense for once. People working for less than living wage, without being subsidized, ARE VICTIMS. It really is the c-suites and the Elites manipulating markets, manipulating employement levels, outsourcing (deliberately making us compete with impossibly suppressed wages), that causes all of our problems. Now if automation truly becomes that big of a problem, we now have a large workforce ready for a massive project. Something like brand new infrastructure for transit, or something humanitarian. We would have the time. In that situation, maybe you need UBI, maybe you don't. I dunno.
My idea is not UBI, but meeting the basic needs of a person to the extent they do not devolve into an animal that we have to deal with. Give a single person one of those tiny houses they're making for cheap, and intended for the homeless. I mean the very basics, but not much more. Encourage them to grow their own gardens and vegetables to supplement their food, allow them to raise some chickens in their backyard. When they want something more, be ready with job training, or help with job placement. The other benefit of this is, that employers would naturally have to start offering a living wage. These people would already have what they need to LIVE, but perhaps not what they WANT. The employer needs a worker, and that's where you have a negotiation for a a fair work offer. Primarily, because the person receiving assistance won't work for less than what they're getting. They'd need to afford everything they need to live, plus a little bit more to get what they WANT, and ideally to start building up wealth. Preventing homelessness, and the fears associated, results in more equal bargaining positions.
I think Subsentient is correct in that in the end, our costs would actually be less than the social programs. Let's call those social programs what they are too! Wage subsidy programs because shareholders, c-suites, and the fucking board members plead poverty and need to be dragged out into the street and shot.
TL;DR; - Kill the 1%, or cull all the sociopaths on the planet that are in charge. You would be pleasantly surprised when the people that are left start actually serving their fellow men and women, instead of the almighty dollar. Solutions would follow.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.