Hacker News Reader

Comment by mymacbook | Hacker News Reader

Link to actual study: http://emiguel.econ.berkeley.edu/assets/miguel_research/88/G...

The originally linked article is quite misleading regarding the multiplier:

> But this study found a much bigger impact: Every $100 given directly to the poorest households was generating between $250 and $270 in GDP. That’s a fiscal multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 2.7 [...]

The paper itself states 2.6 +/- 1.5 which is a huge range of possible values. It sounds like the article is instead quoting the central estimates for income and expenditure.

The paper says that they're sure the multipliers are greater than 0 only at the 10% significance level.

So thanks for linking to the paper!

Maybe instead of doing share buybacks to transfer .9% of the value to shareholders, major conglomerates could just give money to poor people to spend on their products.

Or rich software engineers who consider themselves to be socially progressive, should give their money to the poor, instead of into 401Ks. Because, who knows if the company managing the the 401K is backing share buyback programs of the Apples of the world

I can help 2, maybe 3 people, and retire without any assets. Not saying buybacks are the root of all evil, but if companies could give a crap about their employees or communities they might increase wages.

Broadly, 20% of GDP already goes on welfare [1]. Government tax take is about 40% of GDP [2], so about half the taxes that corporations "pay" [3] already go to poor people to spend on their products in some sense (if we neglect benefits-in-kind).

I'm sure companies would love to be able to give poor people vouchers rather than paying their taxes but I don't think that's a great idea. This study is primarily saying that cash is great because it's fungible.

[1]: https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm

[2]: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-revenue.htm

[3]: scare quotes are because all taxes ultimately fall on human beings, whether that be through shareholdings (pensions), suppressed wages or higher prices.

That 20% includes a lot of social spending that isn't necessarily spent on the poor like social security and medicare.

Yeah. In the UK about a third goes on actually poor people. I hope that doesn't invalidate my point: we already have a mechanism where corporations give money to poor people.

Thanks for the study, getting pay walled. Will have to read this later.

Side note: on mobile, the papers in line citations are anchored to the individual reference (tapping the citation redirects user to reference). This is a pretty neat feature. Hope more people start to use it.

That's a PDF which has been compiled by LaTeX.

Yes hope more people start using latex.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com