Comments on: Testify!

By: Alex Blaze

Alex Blaze — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:26:56 +0000

Good arguments. This isn’t a dig at you, but it’s sad to me that with over 8% unemployment, the inefficiency that Congress is really worried about is if people are forgoing stable employment to keep a few dollars in free food.

Let’s see, I could take on a real job, move out from my parents’ place, eat better, get a car, feel independent and productive while having a chance to move up in the world… but then I’d lose my source of free spaghetti! Clearly I’m going to pass up on the job.

By: Misaki

Misaki — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:23:17 +0000

It sounds like a good argument.

But Congress members are likely to assume either that “more education will fix it”, or that people without jobs are somehow inherently unqualified for work (maybe their hands don’t move fast enough) and so… there’s like, no reason to be upset about the current situation or something. Or the fact that people are still watching TV is proof that they don’t really care about unemployment.

http://peerreviewedbymyneurons.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/the-social-psychology-explaination-for-congressional-disfunction/
http://peerreviewedbymyneurons.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/social-psychology-explains-congressional-dysfunction-part-ii/

And people don’t even think it’s due to ill intent by either party, more like simple incompetence. (Polls like Aug 2011 …) The % of “angry” about what’s going on in Washington DC went from 17% to 28%, but much more people were just “dissatisfied” at 56%. And while 74% said that most members of Congress don’t deserve re-election, it has yet to be seen whether this will be seen during elections and it doesn’t give data for previous years. 85% thought the two parties should compromise…

People generally thought Republicans had compromised too little on the debt ceiling (15% too much, 52% too little), while there was only a slight leaning toward too little compromise by O and co (26% vs 34%).

By: Auros Harman

Auros Harman — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:28:14 +0000

This is perhaps not a high-priority research topic compared to simply making sure we reduce poverty, but when we think about “positive generational effects of safety net programs on later education and earnings outcomes of children from families that received such benefits”, I’m wondering what the comparison is. Other families with similar economic situations and demographics (native English language use, situation relative to discrimination against people of color, etc) who didn’t get the benefits? The problem with that is that it may not be random; parents who are simply less dedicated and skillful at dealing with the bureaucracy may fail to secure benefits to which they and their children are entitled, and simultaneously be less able to help their kids navigate the education system and become more-successful adults.

I definitely think evidence and common sense supports the idea we’re talking about here, but it’s quite difficult to sift the data to definitively support it.

In any case, the two most important points are probably the basic ethics of making sure families get food, shelter, and medicine — none of our citizens should be simply abandoned to the elements — and the effects on Aggregate Demand that we get by transferring money from those who have what they need (and thus don’t spend much of their marginal dollar) to those who don’t.