Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanrasmussen | Hacker News Reader

which is what you would normally expect, on the other hand following the conservative narrative on these kinds of things my parents definitely would have spent it on gambling, drugs, and alcohol.

View on HN

Spending on kids increased. I expect spending also increases on gambling, drugs, alcohol, etc.

It’s not surprising that with more money, people spend more. People with kids spend on kids. But not kids exclusively.

The question that wasn’t answered was whether this was an efficient intervention. If our goal is to help kids then there are likely other interventions that are better than cash to everyone, including non-parents (ie, daycare, school lunches, library programs, etc)

> higher-income households were also more likely to spend payouts on nondurables, which he speculates may be “lavish” spending, I find that expenses on recreation or lessons do not increase among parents across the socioeconomic spectrum and that only middle-income and, particularly, low-income families’ spending on education is responsive to payouts in the short term. This last result is aligned with a series of studies suggesting that lower-income parents may use cash transfers to “catch up” with their more affluent counterparts.

From the paper, linked in the article. Quite disingenuous to assume that low income families must be wasting money on substances, while the statistics always show that richer individuals obviously can afford and do spend more.

It seems obvious that richer families spend more. They have more to spend.

I am assuming that everyone just spends more on stuff. The part of interest, that I don’t see in the paper, is if the ratios change with added income. Not the absolute amounts.

What is of interest to me is that if someone spent 10% of their disposable income on education, do they spend 10% of their extra cash on education? Or is it different. Likewise for substances. What’s the baseline percent and the percent spent of extra cash.

And then compare across socioeconomic classes.

It’s frustrating to see such bonehead statements like people who get money spend money without describe other things of interest. I don’t think anyone debates that rich people spend more than poor people.

> It’s frustrating to see such bonehead statements

Please be civil and consider whether you’re actually trying to have a good-faith discussion.

> people who get money spend money without describe other things of interest

Did you read the passage I quoted? And the table in the paper nearby? They clearly show the effects of the benefit on different categories of spending split across income groups, just like you’re asking.

I did read your comment and the table and that’s why I commented. There’s questions but no answers.

I wasn’t referring to you as being boneheaded and don’t want you to think that you’re targeted. I’m commenting on the paper and other discussion on the topic that seem to be cherry picking parts of data without questioning or digging into. Then I explained why as I think basic questions are missed and non-significant findings are presented as if they are significant.

How about avoiding strawmanning people and instead argue with people’s actual opinions as they show up here?

I’m sorry to use anecdotal evidence, but I have to strongly disagree this is a straw man. I spent the first 20 years of my life surrounded by strong conservative influences and the belief that people getting assistance are addicts and stupid with money is key to the conservative platform. Most of conservative economic beliefs rely on the idea that poor people are poor because they’re stupid or lazy.

I would argue that the conservative economic view is not that poor people are stupid or lazy, rather government subsidy incentives (welfare/UBI) can motivate people to act stupid or lazy which ultimately only promotes the need for more government intervention. An endless cycle which ultimately results in enriching the government bureaucracy itself.

I would entertain that notion if they would apply that logic more evenly. But they don't, so I won't.

Because when it comes to government subsidy incentives, the argument is made that it encourages businesses and the wealthy.

That was a fine position to have prior to say 2000 when we didn't have a lot of good data and ways to analyze it. We now have data and incredible analysis tools, that outcome is not representative of what actually happens.

Can you site a source? The current employment participation rates would seem to indicate that the unemployment subsidies have a big effect. The participation rate of males 25-54 is near all time lows back to 1960.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S

It that causation held, then the opposite would also hold, that is, removing the UI subsidies would have a large effect on the employment participation rates. That turns out to not be the case:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to-unemployment-benefit...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/business/economy/unemploy...

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

UI subsidies may only be a contributing cause, I would guess there are multiple factors. What do you think is causing the terrible participation rates?

1. Labor participation rates have been expected to decline and has been forecasted for quite a while now.

2. The pandemic acted as a forcing function on those who could retire or were close to retiring into retiring.

3. The pandemic has forced change in care services, forcing workers, mostly woman, to fill in the gap and care for their children and other family members, preventing their return to the workforce.

4. People don't want to work for what amounts to slave wages with no hope of professional advancement and higher wages.

5. About 100 other things that I can't think of right now that make up our complex economic system and inform people's actions other than monetary subsidies.

Things must be pretty good if folks can choose to retire before the age of 54. That also seems at odds with folks quitting due to "slave wages". Which is it? No hope of professional advancement and higher wages seems unsupportable in this country. Why do so many want to migrate here for such a grim outlook? Regarding #3 I don't think there is a massive move of male primary caregivers for children. Your examples are not a compelling explanation for the participation dip in males 25-54.

>Why do so many want to migrate here for such a grim outlook?

1. People make mistakes, they think the bad outcomes will not apply to them. Anecdotally, it seems many European software developers move to the U.S for some years and then move back, that is to say earn a large amount of money and move back when it is time for the kids to grow up in a better environment.

2. Coming from an autocratic regime without hope of professional advancement makes the U.S look pretty good.

3. Getting killed where you are makes working all day for no money in the U.S look pretty good.

Well then, go and argue with those people where they are. Don’t come here with your stereotyping and anecdotes, hoping for an echo chamber of “yes, we sure all hate those other people who are bad, and surely none of them would be among us, the good and right-thinking people”. This place is for actual discussions, where we treat each other with consideration, respect, and nuance.

I know you're upset; and I know the parent comment above you is upset, as well. This is an exhausting argument on all sides because no one sees eye to eye and it really seems obvious to everyone why the other side is wrong.

The conservative argument is that it’s theft.

And that it would be spent in rent.

I have a symmetric opinion: rent is theft.

The argument that taxation is theft is a libertarian one. Some conservatives are libertarian and some libertarians are conservative; but, it is not an exclusive stance.

No, conservatives think transfer payments are theft. It’s not that it’s simply taxation.

Yeah, I really think it depends on more factors than how much money they make. There's so many socioeconomic variables that influence behaviors. But, I do think it could be valuable to try certain models out to learn more about what affects spending.

Conservatives != conservative politicians != conservative donors.

UBI is incredibly popular amongst conservatives, except for 2 particular groups: conservative pols and their rich conservative donors.

There is a big contingent that believes UBI would only increase "laziness". How are you supposed to staff an incredibly shitty low paying job if people aren't literally starving? Offering more money or better working conditions is a nonstarter, they would rather just move the work offshore.

I can't tell if this is satire, so I'll respond to it as though it is not.

> How are you supposed to staff an incredibly shitty low paying job if people aren't literally starving?

Why should anyone be forced to do that shitty of a job? Why can't the wage be increased and/or the quality of treatment be increased?

> Offering more money or better working conditions is a nonstarter, they would rather just move the work offshore.

This works for things like software developers, but not for the majority of food & service industry.

> Why should anyone be forced to do that shitty of a job? Why can't the wage be increased and/or the quality of treatment be increased?

Because if you did that we wouldn't have billionaires.

> Because if you did that we wouldn't have billionaires.

that sounds like a good thing

Also a strong contingent that believes it makes poor macroeconomic sense as it simply increases inflation with no gains (but probable losses) in net societal standard of living.

This is of course ridiculous. UBI money is much more likely to be spent increasing the velocity of money in the economy than if it were spent bailing out companies. It's very hard to run a consumer economy whilst making the consumers too poor to afford to spend much.

> the conservative narrative

Are you sure there's just one "conservative" narrative on the issue?

Even if we limited the discussion to considerations that only conservatives find compelling, I suspect we'd see at least 2-3 distinct issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com