Hacker News Reader

When I saw that the argument was based on the outcomes at an Indian reservation I became very, very skeptical of the findings. Reservations are not an ideal arrangement, and there's plenty of evidence that many of their problems came out of "free cash" from the government or casinos. I personally think that over a large enough population free cash undermines the motivation to seek education or employment. Many of the youth there have severe drug and alcohol problems, far greater than global statistics that their rural demographic would suggest.

As a counter point, you could look at the success of Native American tribes that receive government grants or casino payouts, vs those that don't, such as the Lumbee Indians. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/business/features/2470-...

In the case of the Lumbee, there's still a strong sense of helping out folks that need it, but the help is at the discretion of the tribe, not a government (or casino). Furthermore, they've built that system without much federal help.

Note that I'm not arguing for an all or nothing approach here, I think it's reasonable for the federal government to help the tribe financially. I don't think it's reasonable to have the government give money directly to individuals in the tribe.

> I don't think it's reasonable to have the government give money directly to individuals in the tribe.

Well, in some tribes there is economic inequality due to local corruption. So this isn't really a one-size-fits-all solution. It works out well when the local government is actually working for the people (vs. just for itself + relatives).

Will the average Cherokee child consume $80k of police/court/prison services during their lifetime? That's breakeven. Assuming "massive win" means another $80k of cost savings, that means that absent this intervention, the average Cherokee will cost society $160k over their lifetime.

Is this really true? Is the average Cherokee a criminal who spends 3 years in prison (google suggests prison costs a bit under $50k/year)?

Agreed that it seems unlikely an average child would grow up to use $80k less in police/court/prison services, but much more persuasive to me would be a case that they produce $80k more value to the rest of society, from less use of such services to paying more taxes, to being better neighbors, employees, employers, and citizens.

80k is roughly the cost of jailing one US adult for two years.

"In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

That analysis is too linear. As a basic rebuttal, supposing some small percentage of Cherokee children is averted from a path of violent crime, the reduction in violent crime brings an outsized benefit (especially to would-be victims) which is worth the cost. You're looking at the middle of curve, and ignoring the narrowing of the extreme bottom. And presumably the entire curve is shifting to the right, so there's gradual gains at the extreme top as well.

First, I don't think "cost to society" is something that can currently be precisely calculated by a balance sheet. What's the "cost" or "savings" from x hours of y humans suffering (or not)?

Secondly, going on math alone, you're missing many variables: the (taxed) income of the free individual, hours volunteered, money donated, "positive influence" ripple effect, etc.

According to Wikipedia US human lives are valued at 50-100k a year so if it provides the equivalent of 2 good years above what they would have otherwise it's plus.

Will the average Cherokee child consume $80k of police/court/prison services during their lifetime? That's breakeven

You can't talk about "breakeven" without considering opportunity cost of not taking the choice - in this case, taxes and other returns that better outcomes would produce. It doesn't take much increase in outcomes to arrive with a benefit worth $80k over a whole lifetime.

> The point is that bringing up children in poverty creates a worse outcome for society as a whole.

I see your point, but it’s important to note that the authors still haven’t established causation, but are planning a follow-up to do so. The authors aren’t making quite as strong of a claim as you’re making here -yet.

Point taken, but causation is hard if not impossible in this kind of area (we're not dealing with physics here), and do you want to wait 20 years to see the results?

The immediate problem is that the costs of US courts and prisons are extremely high (1) and they are still growing quite rapidly. Jailing one criminal for three years costs over $100,000 (aside from the other social costs that other people have pointed out), which would cover a substantial amount of intervention.

Further, US prisons hold very large numbers of poor people, because poor people have the biggest motive to commit crimes (nothing to lose), and the least ability to pay for bail, lawyers or other treatments (eg for mental illness). I'll take correlation if it shows that interventions help poor children to avoid this fate.

(1) Quoting Wikipedia: "Judicial, police, and corrections costs totaled $212 billion in 2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2007, around $74 billion was spent on corrections according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics."

"In 2014, among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the average cost of incarceration for federal inmates in fiscal year 2014 was $30,619.85."

"In California in 2008, it cost the state an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a state prison. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual cost increased by about $19,500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

Is correlation, causation? Perhaps if you're taking good care of your children, a) they will have bigger brains and b) you probably had more resources to take good care of your children than people who don't, which means you probably have more family income.

The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd, and yet, it seems to be a cornerstone in Millennial thinking. We do everyone a disservice when we pretend that all of our problems stem from not giving everyone free money. Maybe we are too far removed from the Soviet era for the whippersnappers to understand how very not-well these strategies turned out 30+ years ago. Stop worshipping money.

Correlation is not causation. What, pray tell, is the direct link that causes a child's brain size to increase in relation to the parents' bank account? Perhaps the reason wealthier children are healthier is because their parents have discipline and work hard to provide a safe, healthy, stimulating environment for their children, which includes retaining steady gainful employment and using the proceeds from that employment to provide food, shelter, and education for the children. This will not magically happen among poor children if you give the parents some baseline income.

I'm not speaking in absolute terms; there is definitely some crossover with good parents who are down on their luck and bad parents who have way too much money. But boiling the problem down to "give poor people more money to fix kids' brain structures" is too lazy, and preaching this about like it's some fundamental righteous principle is highly distasteful.

What I'm hearing you say is this (correct me if I'm wrong):

You are resistant to early, empirical results that poverty causes negative outcomes for children, and you will require stronger evidence to overcome this resistance.

Fair I suppose, but it says a lot about your politics. And I'll leave it there.

A more charitable interpretation would be that while poverty is one thing that harms children (and that can be fixed by giving them cash) there's a bunch of other stuff that harms children, and these don't seem to be fixable with cash. EG parents with addiction to alcohol doesn't seem to be something that's fixed with cash hand outs.

The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd

Yes, that argument nobody is making is indeed absurd.

Perhaps the reason wealthier children are healthier is because their parents have discipline and work hard to provide a safe, healthy, stimulating environment for their children, which includes retaining steady gainful employment and using the proceeds from that employment to provide food, shelter, and education for the children. This will not magically happen among poor children if you give the parents some baseline income.

Did you RTFA? The improvements happened after families started gaining an extra $4k from a new casino that was opened in the area.

So yes, it did magically happened after the parents got a baseline income increase.

> The argument that all a kid needs to turn out OK is money is absurd, and yet, it seems to be a cornerstone in Millennial thinking.

I don't know; your argument seems to be actually the typical response, the kind of thing most people say when they see something that can be pattern-matched to "give money".

There are of course many non-material things that are important to growth of a children, but why dismiss this one so easy? Is it because it "sounds too simple"? Personally, I think we seriously overstate effectiveness of methods appealing to virtues, morality and "if only people would...". A lot of things in life are indirectly related to material wealth, you can improve pretty much anything by throwing more money at it. And we also know that things like "hard work" and "discipline" are overrated; people usually behave the way they do because of the environment they're in, and you can manufacture discipline by a mix of glucose and (in more extreme cases) some anti-ADHD medication.

I think we're as a society ignoring the obvious because it's easier to blame someone's lack of virtue than actually invest resources into solving their problems.

Repeated actual peer reviews studies are showing the same thing namely that poor people are poor not because of their moral failing but because they don't have any money.

So you argue that instead of actually using the results of research we should focus our welfare using understanding based upon 19th century moralizations.

> poor people are poor not because of their moral failing but because they don't have any money.

My parents put together made less than $4,000 a year when I was born. Yet, today they are not poor and neither am I. Nobody gave them any free money, why wouldn't I be skeptical of these studies?

Why would you assume you're representative?

Why would you assume he isn't?

Because most people that start life poor end life poor and most people that start life rich end life rich.

I'm not assuming either way.

Your parents were lucky. They are probably also hard working and intelligent but unless they were lucky they could not have escaped from the poverty you describe (unless you're missing some details like having helpful rich friends or family etc). It's too easy for something to go wrong e.g. an illness or injury, a car accident, a broken appliance or two and your knocked back down again and if you have no money and no income you can't recover.

They didn't even have a car or appliance to break...

My parents were poor because they were born in a shitty country with a shitty economic system and there wasn't anything they could do except leave. That's bad luck.

If you're born healthy in the US you start with opportunity and have to actively fuck it up.

> My parents were poor because they were born in a shitty country with a shitty economic system and there wasn't anything they could do except leave. That's bad luck.

Ahh so $4000 had rather more purchasing power than in the US then. I wondered about a salary that low.

I don't understand your reference to the soviet era. When I think of what characterized the Soviet Union, "giving everyone free money" is not what comes to mind at all, especially since one of the major things that did characterize it was crushing poverty and shortages for many.

Exactly! Unfortunately people are quick to react to short term costs ($4,000 a year to improve society) rather than seeing that the long term benefits far outweigh them.

Also, people are quick to weasel out by assuming someone's problems are caused by their lack of virtue ("if only they worked harder", "had more discipline", etc.) instead noticing the environmental factors that can actually be improved.