1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Would People Do with Free Money?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by qtlaw, Oct 14, 2019.

  1. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not saying that they spent the money on "drugs, alcohol, gambling etc." because I have no clue what the effect really was. But I found that article very frustrating, because either the researchers (and whoever wrote the article) have no clue either, or they are not saying.

    You give people $500 a month preloaded onto a debit card. And you find that 40 percent went to food, 24 percent was spent at Walmarts, Dollar stores, etc. 12 percent on utility bills and 9 percent on car related expensives. And another 40 percent taken as cash.

    But that doesn't really tell you what you are now concluding, because presumably those people were already eating, going to Walmart and Dollar Store and paying utility bills, etc., at least most of the time, even if they didn't have as much to spend on those things.

    And if 40 percent of the money is being taken as cash, presumably those "staple" or non-discretionary expenses really amounted to $300 a month prior to the UBI handouts.

    The question then would be what happened to the money they already were spending on those things? Because now that is discretionary income, which very well could be going to drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc (not saying it is, but it COULD be).

    What that experiment may be demonstrating is:
    1) There arepeople who had only $300 a month and were spending everything on food, items at Walmart, a utility bill and car related expenses.
    2) A program tha tgives those people $500 on top of it.
    3) And having no clue where that $500 is ending up being spent.

    Empirically, looking at something similar, in NYC there is an underground industry in which people receive preloaded EBT cards (food stamps) averaging about $125 a month, and some of those people turn around and sell them to bodegas for a percentage of the total value, say 50 cents on the dollar. The bodega owner than redeems it from the government for full value of the card. And the people who sold the cards walk away with cash in their pocket worth half the food they could have gotten with it. Presumably they are doing it because they are meeting their food expenses without the EBT card, and the cash -- which could be being spent on anything, good or bad -- is more valuable to them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
  3. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Look I’m not attacking you but you use the terms “could” and “some” which many take to mean “majority”; that’s my issue. Sure some do, or could, but how many? If 5% do; should we penalize the 95%? Or even the 60% who do not?
     
  4. Vombatus

    Vombatus Well-Known Member

    You covered drugs and alcohol, but left out hookers.
     
    Elliotte Friedman likes this.
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not using should and could as terms or euphamisms to mean anything except what they mean. I am saying that you can't determine anything from what you posted, the way you seem determined to.

    Your 5 percent number is just a made up number. You don't know, have no evidence, etc.

    It would be interesting if there was anything empirical actually demonstrating something. But as I said, that story was frustrating, because it offered nothing like that.

    Things we do actually know, empirically, are that poor people are more suscepible to addiction, and gambling rates are something like twice the rates in poor neighborhoods than they are in wealthier ones. That isn't a moral failing, the conversation you seemed determined to steer me into, and which I am not having.

    It's just a reality. Harder lives lead to those things. Unless that $500 a month is lifting those people out of poverty, and even if it isn't, there is a chance a bigger chunk of it than you realize is going to things you are determined to conclude the money isn't going to.
     
  6. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    This is a generic comment, not directed at Ragu.




    Presumably this is a pilot program to replace or supplement a program like EBT.

    Here's some of what EBT doesn't cover:

    vitamins, medicine, diapers, pet food, soap, paper products, household supplies

    Diapers are a huge expense.

    But yeah, it's all going to go for lottery tickets and vodka.
     
  7. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Yes my 5% was made up; admittedly I don't know. What data was available in the article was that the participants were using it for essentials.

    I think we're at the same place, where would the $$ go? I'm just saying that this shows a hint that its not to the terrible things that people jump to to kill such a program. Here's my observation though, I've seen the unknown more likely to kill a program than fund a program. IMHO that's disappointing;
     
  8. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    You can't stop people from finding ways to abuse to abuse virtually any program. Some percentage of people will grift. That said, I think most people will spend most of such money on things of use to them, which is also human nature.

    I know that if I got an extra $500 a month I'd be boosting my local economy.
     
    garrow, wicked and sgreenwell like this.
  9. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    You also can't use that to buy toothpaste, deodorant, tampons or pads or shampoo.
     
  10. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Exactly.

    SNAP/TANF/EBT/WIC vary a little from locality to locality, but they never pay for everything.

    And we haven't even talked about routine medical expenses, because at that income level very few of these folks will be eligible for Medicaid.

    It's also hugely time consuming and complex to enroll in and maintain eligibility for these programs. The "welfare" bureaucracy is extraordinary. Not uncommon for people to lose an entire day in the waiting room down at the Social Services office - and then have to repeat the process the next month.

    Also worth remembering that this isn't only happening to some stranger in an inner city somewhere.

    This is happening to your underemployed neighbors.
     
    Inky_Wretch likes this.
  11. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    There’s only so much Kix cereal you can eat. Food stamp programs love that shit.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page