Comments on: Interesting article on cash incentives

By: LeisureGuy

LeisureGuy — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:40:43 +0000

Sorry—my tone was grumpy, I see in re-reading my post. Here’s a relevant passage from the article:

The $50-million project is an ambitious and risky undertaking, especially for mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has backed it politically and with his own money. What works in Latin America may not transfer to the Bronx, where life is tough but poverty is not life-threatening in the same way as it is in the slums of Mexico City. Yet Bloomberg can draw confidence from incentive experiments that have targeted very different groups to those in Mexico, and achieved similarly impressive successes.

In any event, within a year or two, evidence should be available about what in the program works and what does not. That will be very interesting indeed.

Bloomberg has had some excellent successes. The “311″ idea was a stroke of genius and it’s working like a charm. So maybe he’ll be right on this one, too. We can hope.

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:21:41 +0000

The last time I checked, the UK wasn’t a third world country.

In fact, at two quid per dollar (a 33% increase in value over the last four years) they are doing quite well economically.

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:59:20 +0000

Mike…all I’m saying is that this hasn’t actually been applied to the US yet. It works in Latin American countries where the circumstances of poverty are much different, and families respond in different ways depending on the availability (or lack thereof) of public and private programs, handouts, etc. The underclass in the US can already subsist on these things to a greater extent than the underclass in Mexico. I might be horribly confused as to what things are actually like, but in my head I see a poor Mexican family that doesn’t have to send their child to work if they can replace the income in some way. So that kid gets to go to school and it all works out. In the US… I’m just not so sure the circumstances are like that.

And I’m not trying to be indignant… I just don’t see the evidence that this works in the USA. I hope I didn’t piss you off in this or an earlier reply.

By: LeisureGuy

LeisureGuy — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:49:02 +0000

Well, I was struck by the fact that it works. Expectations that it will not work surely run aground on evidence that it does. And some people have not developed sufficient social responsibility and can’t see the (long-term) benefit of cleaning up their act. What this approach offers is a way to mitigate significantly a problem society faces, and a way to help people learn social responsibility and reap some long-term benefits. In particular, by ensuring that the children are schooled, fed, and get medical care, the new generation may avoid the problems their parents had.

Evidence is always useful. Where is the evidence that people are developing a deeper and deeper sense of entitlement? How do you measure such a thing, anyway? The bad things you suggest might happen might also not happen. The program in New York will be studied closely and then we will have facts rather than fears to use in evaluating the program.

I’m sorry, but life is based on facts, not indignation. There is an underclass in the US, and this is an approach to dealing with that problem. I think it deserves a chance, based on the evidence to date.

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:38:01 +0000

How would a liberal necessarily see the accrual of social benefits (this is the USA we’re talking about, not Mexico)? In a country where across the board, people are developing a deeper and deeper sense of entitlement, this is a terrible idea. Simply passing out incentives will not guarantee the intended social benefit — what happens if families seek out loopholes, start abusing crystal meth to lose weight, and force their already uninterested and uninspired kids to school every day just to pad their handout check? “Welfare babies,” anyone?

I’m sorry, but life is tough. This is akin to paying your child a allowance for just keeping his room clean. That’s expected behavior. It almost makes more sense to revoke entitlements if someone neglects the most basic of social responsibilities. Society doesn’t need to be in the business of providing “instant gratification replacement therapy” for people who’d be better served if they’re left to take their own initiative.