Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 18, 2019

The automation revolution is coming for American jobs and this Democratic 2020 candidate believes a "Freedom Dividend" will help us cope with the fallout In a year when the progressive Democratic platform is coalescing around variations of Medicare-for-All, free college and the Green New Deal, presidential candidate Andrew Yang stands apart -- with a bold proposal to provide a "Freedom Dividend" of $1,000 a month to every adult in America.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Yang, 44, wants to cushion Americans from the pain of this technological revolution by creating a form of universal basic income, which would give Americans money in their pockets as a right of citizenship, alleviating poverty and stagnant wages, while stimulating Main Streets from coast to coast.

He'd pay for it with a Value Added Tax (common in Europe) that captures 10 percent of the value of each transaction in the economy.

The idea of a universal basic income is actually a throwback. The House of Representatives passed a basic income bill during the Nixon administration. And Yang points to Alaska, where residents receive an annual dividend based on the state's oil-extraction income, as a proof of concept.

The petroleum dividend there, he argues, has created jobs, improved children's health, reduced income inequality and is wildly popular -- even among conservatives.

"Technology is the oil of the 21st century," Yang says. "And what we've done in Alaska we can do for everyone in America."

The son of Taiwanese immigrants, Yang is a Columbia-educated lawyer who pivoted to the tech world, sold a GMAT test-prep company, and then launched a non-profit, Venture For America, which fosters young entrepreneurs to start businesses in struggling cities like Detroit and St. Louis." more at the link

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-17 08:18 PM | Reply

I am actually working on a project to evaluate the effects of a Basic Income Guarantee. It will be interesting to see if there are unintended consequences.

Society has to figure something out because the robots are going to eliminate jobs at a scale never seen before.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2019-01-18 12:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

That's bold. $250,000,000,000 per month.

"Freedom Dividend" of $1,000 a month to every adult in America.

I would say that there would have to be some dividing line so it would only go to the people that would need it.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-01-18 08:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would say that there would have to be some dividing line so it would only go to the people that would need it.

There we go again with that word "Need". A very subjective word.

And rest assured, everyone is going to want that high of a "universal" income. Some rural places can live high on the hog with $1K a month. To only give certain people $1000 a month from the treasure isn't fair and it's not going to go over well.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-18 03:16 PM | Reply

**Treasury***

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-18 03:17 PM | Reply

- To only give certain people

You mean like giving certain people who have passive income a lower tax rate?

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-18 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


You mean like giving certain people who have passive income a lower tax rate?

#6 | Posted by Corky

Stop being jealous of people with passive incomes, Corky.

At least their income isn't coming out of my taxes.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-18 03:28 PM | Reply

"At least their income isn't coming out of my taxes."

Every time a corporation pays its employees so little that they qualify for food stamps its income, and the income of its shareholders, comes out of your taxes.

That's just one example.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-01-18 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

lol... I'm one of them... maybe two or three. But like many liberals, I don't think it's all about me.

And yes, what we don't pay, you pay. And people who make 500 times what you do.... many like Trump because they were born on 3rd base, can afford to buy the folks who wrire their tax laws.

See how that werks?

Here, take one of these, and post me in the morning:

www.drudge.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-18 03:33 PM | Reply

"You mean like giving certain people who have passive income a lower tax rate?'

2018 tax returns:

Single filer making $50,000 in profits: Federal taxes due = $10,133

Single filer making $50,000 in dividends from Proctor & Gamble: Federal taxes due = zero.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-18 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

who write

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-18 03:34 PM | Reply

Yang/Ying 2020!

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-18 03:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"At least their income isn't coming out of my taxes."

Of course it is. A smaller piece of the tax pie from them equates to a larger piece of the tax pie from you and me.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-18 03:36 PM | Reply

"Stop being jealous of people with passive incomes"

So when you said everyone should pay the same tax rate, you meant only SOME should pay the same tax rate?

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-18 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"At least their income isn't coming out of my taxes."
Of course it is. A smaller piece of the tax pie from them equates to a larger piece of the tax pie from you and me.

#13 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Lets not forget corporate welfare. Trump made a ton on it. And we paid it.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-01-18 03:52 PM | Reply

There we go again with that word "Need". A very subjective word.

Turns out governing is complicated and requires you to think. If that makes your head hurt, feel free to withdraw yourself from the process.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-18 04:07 PM | Reply

I remember this guy announced he was running back in 2017. The way he talks about AI and big data is unsettling the same way Elon Musk talks about it; as if its already too late to prevent catastrophe.

#17 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-18 04:23 PM | Reply

Well, AI and Big Data is how Russia influenced the election, so...

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-18 04:37 PM | Reply

Tax the living s#!+ out of the 1%, CEO's and executive class to pay for it.
Might cut into Fat Andy Matress' allowance he gets from his father, but @&$# Andy!

#19 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-01-18 04:45 PM | Reply

lol... so we are just going to out and out pay for votes now?

Well, I am in California. I want at least $5,000 for my vote.

Thank you.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-18 04:56 PM | Reply

#17 It may be too late. Machine learning and big data are here. They give a lot of power to those that control them. Those that control them will be/are rich.

The rich will get more power, more money and then they will use their money to change the rules so the rich get more power....

If regular people want to defend their rights, they need to vote to protect them before they have none left.

#21 | Posted by bored at 2019-01-18 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Well, I am in California. I want at least $5,000 for my vote."

Joke's on you, since your vote is worth much less than someone in Kentucky.

#22 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-18 05:12 PM | Reply

"I would say that there would have to be some dividing line so it would only go to the people that would need it."

Then it's just welfare. And that already exists. The whole point is that it's a benefit that's available to all.

"Every time a corporation pays its employees so little that they qualify for food stamps its income, and the income of its shareholders, comes out of your taxes."

And we should be glad that employer is there to help the taxpayers subsidize the existence of low value labor...otherwise we the taxpayers would have to pay the full amount.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 01:32 AM | Reply

I like this guy.

I think Dems should take note. He's one of the first progressives I've seen that advocates for a program that appears to be progressive, but does so objectively and without relying almost solely on emotion. I'm listening.

I don't know how well it will go over with progressives though, because it's not being sold as a means of achieving some sort of progressive ideological end-state. No mention of inequality, or social justice...he didn't even use the term "'working poor." Not once.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 01:38 AM | Reply

"Well, I am in California. I want at least $5,000 for my vote."

You'll certainly be paying more in California. Or rather a dollar earned and spent in CA doesn't go as far as a dollar earned in CA and spent in Mississippi.

The Red States say thank you in advance

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 01:41 AM | Reply

"but does so objectively and without relying almost solely on emotion."

You routinely make emotional arguments like "And we should be glad that employer is there to help the taxpayers subsidize the existence of low value labor...otherwise we the taxpayers would have to pay the full amount."

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 01:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Red States say thank you in advance"

Emotional.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 01:44 AM | Reply

The Red States say thank you in advance

#25 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

In advance?

They should be continually thanking blue states for their existence above 3rd world status.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 02:40 AM | Reply

"You routinely make emotional arguments like "And we should be glad that employer is there to help the taxpayers subsidize the existence of low value labor...otherwise we the taxpayers would have to pay the full amount."

No emotion at all. That's a fact. Unless you know some other way that those who are not funding their own existence are going to be taken care of. There are really only two options. They do it themselves, or someone else does.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:44 AM | Reply

"They should be continually thanking blue states for their existence above 3rd world status."

Really?

You're convinced that without California, North Dakota would look like a chillier version of Venezuela?

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:45 AM | Reply

What do you think about this guy's proposition JPW?

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:45 AM | Reply

"You're convinced that without California, North Dakota would look like a chillier version of Venezuela?"

More like without California, Mississippi would look like a more backwater, less educated...Mississippi.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 02:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Really?
You're convinced that without California, North Dakota would look like a chillier version of Venezuela?

#30 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I wouldn't be that myopic.

I think that without the west coast and New England (and Texas) largely red flyover states wouldn't be nearly the "success" they are now. Their economic policies wouldn't be buttressed by the very states they love to hate and we'd see far many more failures than Kansas.

What do you think about this guy's proposition JPW?

#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I think it's necessary...if you want to avoid economic inequality setting us back a few centuries.

I would probably (don't have specific numbers, just gut feeling here) increase the amount to $2,000 to $2,500 a month for the lowest earners and scale it down as you move up the income scale.

In the end this is glorified welfare, right? If our consumerism-driven economy is going to survive then we need to make sure we have consumers.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 03:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"we'd see far many more failures than Kansas."

Kansas wasn't a bad economic equation until Brownback. But after shooting themselves in the foot, a re-elected Brownback balanced things by...shooting Kansans in the other foot.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 03:20 AM | Reply

"No emotion at all. That's a fact."

Gratitude is an emotion.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 04:24 AM | Reply

"Unless you know some other way that those who are not funding their own existence are going to be taken care of."

Musta worked back before money was invented.
Seems rather likely it ought to work again.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 04:26 AM | Reply

...those who are not funding their own existence...
#29 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Working 40 hours for a major company that makes billions in profit should be enough to fund their existence.

#37 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-01-19 04:41 AM | Reply

MadB it's interesting that you like this guys ideas but have always argued against me when I throw out a UBI argument.

#38 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-01-19 07:25 AM | Reply

The whole point is that it's a benefit that's available to all

That's what i don't like about it. IMO the point of a basic income should be to help lift people out of poverty and correct decades of imbalanced economic policy. If someone earns $500,000/year i fail to see the benefit to making it $501,000.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-19 08:49 AM | Reply

Tangentially related, recent literature indicates that "increasing direct cash transfers to guardians of children in low income households would be the single most effective way to lower child poverty rates in the United States."
niskanencenter.org

"Using the official poverty metric, I found that, all else equal, a $300/mo child allowance would cut child poverty by 42 percent.
www.demos.org

And yes, I realize the second link is advocating a universal child allowance, but I sincerely doubt that cash payments to the upper segments of our society will have an impact on child poverty. I think effectively targeting programs like this is the best use of our tax dollars.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-19 08:58 AM | Reply

"I think it's necessary...if you want to avoid economic inequality setting us back a few centuries."

How does economic inequality set anyone back. The greatest inequality in this country exists within the top 1%. Do you feel like the highest income earner in the top 1% owes something to the lowest income earner in that demographic?

"In the end this is glorified welfare, right?"

Not if it's given to everyone it's not...that's the whole point.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:36 PM | Reply

"How does economic inequality set anyone back."

Like this:
From "When Whites Just Don't Get It" by Nicholas Kristof
www.nytimes.com
• The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.
• The black-white income gap is roughly 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967.
• A black boy born today in the United States has a life expectancy five years shorter than that of a white boy.
• Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students. They are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, setting them up for educational failure.
• Because of the catastrophic experiment in mass incarceration, black men in their 20s without a high school diploma are more likely to be incarcerated today than employed, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Nearly 70 percent of middle-aged black men who never graduated from high school have been imprisoned.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Musta worked back before money was invented. Seems rather likely it ought to work again."

That's true.

No one is going to force you to trade your labor for income.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:45 PM | Reply

Given to everyone?

Oh, so it's General Welfare.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 02:47 PM | Reply

"MadB it's interesting that you like this guys ideas but have always argued against me when I throw out a UBI argument."

I think you may have me confused with someone else...I feel like I've been receptive to the general concept. I know you've made some good arguments in favor of it previously.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:54 PM | Reply

"And yes, I realize the second link is advocating a universal child allowance, but I sincerely doubt that cash payments to the upper segments of our society will have an impact on child poverty. I think effectively targeting programs like this is the best use of our tax dollars."

How do you affect child poverty with cash payments? Do you give the money to the kids? Maybe give the parents enough money to satisfy thier own wants while still having some left over for the children.

You're addressing poorly planned, progressive "feel-good" programs. I don't see this as one of those. If that's all it were, I wouldn't support it.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 02:57 PM | Reply

#42.

So redistribution is going to increase the number of black people graduating from high school, or make them live longer, or put more money into savings? Most of what you're pointing out is behaviorally driven. Do you think winning the lottery is somehow going to drive better behavior? For anyone of any color?

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 03:01 PM | Reply

If you have something that shows a black male teacher making less than a white counterpart, or a black airline pilot making less than a white pilot...that's still not representative of income inequality. Racism, maybe. But a Black Airline Pilot is still going to make more than a white fry cook.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-19 03:03 PM | Reply

You asked how economic inequality set anyone back.

I gave you an example.
Do you disagree that economic inequality sets people back?
Let's say next year you only earned minimum wage. Would that set you back? Of course.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 04:16 PM | Reply

"If you have something that shows a black male teacher making less than a white counterpart, or a black airline pilot making less than a white pilot...that's still not representative of income inequality."

Setting aside that you're wrong, what would show it?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 04:17 PM | Reply

How does economic inequality set anyone back. The greatest inequality in this country exists within the top 1%. Do you feel like the highest income earner in the top 1% owes something to the lowest income earner in that demographic?

There is so much ridiculousness in this sentence I don't even know where to begin.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 06:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The greatest inequality in this country exists within the top 1%."

It kinda can't, but whatever.

The difference between the hugest income and the lowest income to be in the top 1%... is necessarily not as large as the inequality between the hugest income and the lowest income to be in the top 2%.

But it's funny how you always try to say, when you look at relative inequality, the rich have it worse.

Why do you do that?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 08:56 PM | Reply

"How do you affect child poverty with cash payments? "

Read my links, you absolute idiot.

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-19 08:57 PM | Reply

"Let's say next year you only earned minimum wage. Would that set you back? Of course."

Poverty and income inequality are two different things. Income inequality is when one rich man is richer than another rich man. Or it could be that one poor man is richer than another poor man. The concept of income inequality alone has nothing to do with one being able to see to their own financial needs, particularly in the US, where it is just a question of whether one rich man should be allowed to be richer than another.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-20 01:19 AM | Reply

Income inequality is when one rich man is richer than another rich man. Or it could be that one poor man is richer than another poor man.

You left out the one where one rich man is richer than 100 million poor men.

#55 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-01-20 01:23 AM | Reply

"Setting aside that you're wrong, what would show it?"

White teachers or pilots unconditionally making more money than their black counterparts would show it.

"It kinda can't, but whatever."

It kinda does.

"But it's funny how you always try to say, when you look at relative inequality, the rich have it worse."

No, I said their less equal...but I also said that's not worse. It really doesn't matter. I would rather live in a country where there was an enormous gap between rich and poor, but a high median income, than I would a more equal country with a lower median income.

"Read my links, you absolute idiot."

I read them. I just don't understand how cash transfers are going to benefit children, unless their parents use that money for their benefit. In reality, those parents would simply buy more of the stuff they wanted. Like I said, maybe you could do huge cash transfer, so the parents could buy the booze and cigs and cars and TVs, with still enough left over to buy the kids some food and clothing.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-20 01:25 AM | Reply

"There is so much ridiculousness in this sentence I don't even know where to begin."

Every journey has a first step my friend. Ready...go!

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-20 01:26 AM | Reply

Like I said, maybe you could do huge cash transfer, so the parents could buy the booze and cigs and cars and TVs,

You are falling into the welfare queen fallacy. I have been dirt poor and I would go to bed hungry at night to make sure my kids ate. 300 a month would have made a huge difference to my kids back then and most of the poor parents I have known were more like me than like the deadbeats you seem to think they are.

I feel like I've been receptive to the general concept.

Maybe but it seems like you trotted out a similar line to the the booze and cigs and cars and tv's you just accused poor parents of. I do remember you at one point being interested enough that I referred you to C.H. Douglas. (did you ever read his stuff?)

In the end this is glorified welfare, right? -JPW

Yes. However as the proposal is to give it to everyone it's not welfare in the sense most people think of welfare. Calling it welfare is a sure fire way to make sure not a single conservative will support it.

One thing it could be by stripping out all the qualifications and giving it to everyone would be a super efficient way to distribute traditional welfare. My thought has always been with a UBI to phase out all other forms of welfare and roll them all into one payment.

#58 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-01-20 08:09 AM | Reply

I wouldn't get too excited over Yang's proposal. It sounds a lot like vote bait. If Yang ever assumes the throne and has to deal with budgets, appropriations and Republicans the first thing he'll get is a reality pie in the face.

#59 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-01-20 08:12 AM | Reply

I read them. I just don't understand how cash transfers are going to benefit children

It diesn't matter if you understand how it works. The data shows that it does work, and if you were actually curious you'd go learn more about it.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-20 10:10 AM | Reply

The sad reality is much of the money handed out would be squandered on drugs and other vices.

Perhaps it would just be better to distribute that money in the form of vouchers or just simply paying utility bills.

#61 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-01-20 11:34 AM | Reply

However, that wouldn't stop people from then using the extra income derived from not having to pay their electric bill on drugs.

Spending money wisely is a learned skill just like anything else.

The more you think about it, the more futile it seems.

#62 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-01-20 11:44 AM | Reply

"I just don't understand how cash transfers are going to benefit children"

We believe you.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-20 03:40 PM | Reply

"You are falling into the welfare queen fallacy. I have been dirt poor and I would go to bed hungry at night to make sure my kids ate. 300 a month would have made a huge difference to my kids back then and most of the poor parents I have known were more like me than like the deadbeats you seem to think they are."

If the concern is to take care of the children (this is not something this plan addresses explicitly), a better option would be to provide food or clothing directly. And you'd by lying is if you said that a significant number of parents wouldn't spend the money on their children.

"It diesn't matter if you understand how it works. The data shows that it does work, and if you were actually curious you'd go learn more about it."

The data doesn't show anything, because the data doesn't assess how those cash transfers would be used. It simply says that if parents had more cash in their pocket, they would have more cash to potentially spend on their children. But since it's cash, it can be spent on anything.

"Spending money wisely is a learned skill just like anything else."

Most poor people aren't poor because they're wise.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-21 09:42 AM | Reply

Most rich people aren't rich because they are wise. They probably inherited wealth like Donald Trump. Are you pretending he is wise?
My biggest problem with this guy's idea of $1000.00 for each adult is that property owners would just raise the rents in a comparable way. A better proposal would be to deal with rising rents. Why can't landlords get a "homestead exemption" as do homeowners, renters are paying that landlord's property tax and at a much higher rate than homeowners. Taking steps to limit rent increases would help the poor in a more effective manner than just throwing money at them. That money will just further enrich the already rich.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-21 09:53 AM | Reply

It simply says that if parents had more cash in their pocket, they would have more cash to potentially spend on their children. But since it's cash, it can be spent on anything.

That's literally not what it says at all, but thanks for confirming you don't know how to read.

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-21 09:56 AM | Reply

"Most rich people aren't rich because they are wise. They probably inherited wealth like Donald Trump."

Some do. Around between 10-20% of those you would consider rich were born that way, or grew up during the time thier parents were making their fortune.

"That money will just further enrich the already rich."

It certainly would do that.

"That's literally not what it says at all, but thanks for confirming you don't know how to read."

So what do you think it says?

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-21 12:09 PM | Reply

"The data doesn't show anything, because the data doesn't assess how those cash transfers would be used."

Your mythology says that when people spend, they spend on what's best for themselves.

So what do you need any data for?

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-21 03:20 PM | Reply

So what do you think it says?

It's not about what i "think" the data says. This isn't open to interpretation. And i'm not going to read it to you.

The theoretical case for the positive effects of income transfers is strongest for very young children because the developing brain is more sensitive to environmental influences, both enrichment and adversity, in the first years of life (Center on the Developing Child 2016; Duncan, Magnuson, and Votruba-Drzal 2014). A recent study of an unconditional prenatal income supplement in Canada found it to be associated with a number of positive outcomes at birth (Brownell et al. 2016). Further evidence comes from a study matching the timing of the rollout of the Food Stamp Program across U.S. counties in the 1960s and 1970s to data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which finds an association between food stamp availability and reduced risk of ill health in adulthood as well as positive impacts (for females only) on educational attainment and other indicators of economic self-sufficiency (Hoynes, Schanzen-bach, and Almond 2016). The largest adult impacts were associated with the availability of food stamps prior to birth, and the outcomes gradually declined as the age at food stamp introduction increased from birth to age five. Anna Aizer and her colleagues also find long-run improvements in children's health associated with maternal receipt of social benefits early in life -- in this case from the Mother's Pension program established in the early part of the twentieth century (2016).
Although some forms of in-kind benefits have also been shown to improve the lives of poor families, cash transfers may be more effective because cash is fungible, allowing families more freedom to efficiently allocate benefits to address their specific needs (Hammond and Orr 2016; Muennig et al. 2016; Edin and Shaefer 2015). In-kind transfers may lead to unintended changes in behavior as families over-consume based on what benefits are available (Hammond and Orr 2016).
In sum, a number of evaluations using a variety of associational and quasi-experimental methods suggest that cash or near-cash transfers in a variety of forms can be an effective and cost-effective way to improve the health and material well-being of poor families across a number of domains (Akee et al. 2010; Brownell et al. 2016; Butcher 2016; Halpern-Meekin et al. 2015; Muennig et al. 2016; Wolfe et al. 2012). Added to this is experimental evidence from developing countries that find cash transfer can be an effective method of social support (Banerjee et al. 2015; Haushofer and Shapiro 2016).
muse.jhu.edu

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-21 03:24 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort