http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/22/more-lessons-from-paying-people-to-be-less-poor/ A slice of lime in the soda Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:01:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/22/more-lessons-from-paying-people-to-be-less-poor/comment-page-1/#comment-31267 zotdoc Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10137#comment-31267 Unfortunately for our "poor", the govt has lavished enough benefits such that they will "loose" if they get a minimum wage job. Unfortunately, the only incentive for the uneducated to do the right things, like get an education, is the prospect for a life of minimum wage jobs that would be suitable for the uneducated and uninterested. That incentive has been taken away by our govt with food stamps, health care, housing, and welfare payments, all of which would be lost if these folks get a job, or an education. Unfortunately for our “poor”, the govt has lavished enough benefits such that they will “loose” if they get a minimum wage job. Unfortunately, the only incentive for the uneducated to do the right things, like get an education, is the prospect for a life of minimum wage jobs that would be suitable for the uneducated and uninterested. That incentive has been taken away by our govt with food stamps, health care, housing, and welfare payments, all of which would be lost if these folks get a job, or an education.

]]> http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/22/more-lessons-from-paying-people-to-be-less-poor/comment-page-1/#comment-31247 RNfirst Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:55:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10137#comment-31247 It's called welfare. It’s called welfare.

]]> http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/22/more-lessons-from-paying-people-to-be-less-poor/comment-page-1/#comment-31183 klagge Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:35:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10137#comment-31183 The evaluative criteria you propose seem strange. Wouldn't "reducing material hardship and instability" and "increased stability and resources lead[ing] to better long-term planning and goal attainment" be just as well served, if not better, by *unconditional* cash transfers? I would think evaluation of CCTs should focus more on the behaviors that their distinguishing feature--their conditionality--is designed to encourage. The evaluative criteria you propose seem strange. Wouldn’t “reducing material hardship and instability” and “increased stability and resources lead[ing] to better long-term planning and goal attainment” be just as well served, if not better, by *unconditional* cash transfers? I would think evaluation of CCTs should focus more on the behaviors that their distinguishing feature–their conditionality–is designed to encourage.

]]>