Enthusiastic Reader > Recent Status Updates

105 - “Besides being blind to lots of good things, the GDP also benefits from all manner of human suffering. Gridlock, drug abuse, adultery? Goldmines for gas stations, rehab centers, and divorce attorneys.”

105 - “In the US, the potential contribution of breast milk has been estimated at an incredibly $110 BILLION A YEAR—about the size of China’s military budget… Our computers, cameras, and phones are all smarter, speedier, and snazzier than ever, but also cheaper, and therefore they scarcely figure.”

(continued) However, as economist Diane Coyle notes, ‘generally official statistical agencies have never bothered–perhaps because it has been carried out mainly by women.’”

104 - “And that’s to say nothing of all the unpaid labor that doesn’t even qualify as part of the black market, from volunteering to childcare to cooking, which together represents more than half of all our work… Adding all this unpaid work would expand the economy by anywhere from 37% (Hungary) to 74% (UK). (continued)

104 - “Some countries do factor in an estimate of their shadow economies. The Greek GDP spiked 25% when statisticians dove into the country’s black market in 2006, for instance.” Um. Yay?

104 - “take Wikipedia. Supported by investments of time rather than money [well, mostly], it has left the old Encyclopedia Britannica in the dust – and taken the GDP down a few notches in the process.”

103 - “The GDP is the sum of all goods and services that a country produces, corrected for seasonal fluctuations, inflation, and perhaps purchasing power… [but] You’ve overlooked a huge part of the picture. Community service, clean air, free refills on the house – none of these things make the GDP an iota bigger.”

97 - “Capitalist or communist, it all boils down to a pointless distinction between two types of poor, and to a major misconception that we almost managed to dispel some forty years ago – the fallacy that a life without poverty is a privilege that you have to work for, rather than a right we all deserve.”

...that a depression is sufficiently bleak, and that chances of getting hired are sufficiently slim. Otherwise your benefits are cut.”

ME: Let’s be clear: conservatives claim that BENEFITS produce dependence, while the evidence shows that RED TAPE is what does that. It demands that claimants demonstrate fault with THEMSELVES when the problem that led to their need for support may very well NOT BE WITHIN THEM.

96 - “conservative criticism of the old nanny state hits the nail on the head. The current tangle of red tape keeps people trapped in poverty. It actually PRODUCES dependence. Whereas employees are expected to demonstrate their strengths, social services expects claimants to demonstrate their shortcomings; to prove over and over that an illness is sufficiently debilitating...

90 - “On entering the workhouse, spouses were separated and children taken away from their parents, never to be seen again. Women were starved as a precaution against pregnancy. Charles Dickens achieved fame with his portrayal of the plight of the poor at this time… Far from helping the poor, it was this specter of the workhouse that enabled employers to keep wages so miserably low.”

88 - “Their approach could not have been more different than that of the rigorous experiments conducted in Canada and the US… Those experiments had been groundbreaking and meticulous but had almost no influence at all, whereas the Royal Commission Report was based on bogus science yet still managed to redirect President Nixon’s course of action 150 years later.”

(continued) "And almost none of the people interviewed were actual beneficiaries. The evidence, such as it was, came mostly from the local elite, and especially the clergy, whose general view was that the poor were only growing more wicked and lazy.”

87 - “In the 1960s and 1970s, historians took another look at the Royal Commission Report on Speenhamland and discovered that much of the text had been written before any data was even collected. Of the questionnaires distributed, only 10% were ever filled out. Furthermore, the questions were leading, with the answer choices all fixed in advance."

(continued) "Every euro invested in fighting and preventing homelessness in the Netherlands enjoys DOUBLE OR TRIPLE returns in savings on social services, police, and court costs.”

72 - “The resulting report tallied the costs against the benefits of relief for the homeless (including free shelter, assistance programs, free heroin, and prevention services) and concluded that investing in a street sleeper offers the highest return on investment around."

70 - “Giving away free housing, it turned out, was actually a windfall for the state budget. State economists calculated that a drifter living on the street cost the government $16670 a year (for social services, police, courts, etc.). An apartment plus professional counseling, by contrast, cost a modest $11000.”

67 - “even rich people suffer when inequality becomes too great. They, too, become more prone to depression, suspicion, and myriad other social difficulties.”

67 - “money is a very effective stimulus.” Yes, but is it the MOST effective? Especially given its other negative consequences. And WHY is it effective?

67 - “society can’t function WITHOUT some degree of inequality.” (Uh. Source???)

66 - “Countries with big disparities in wealth also have more bullying behavior, because there are bigger status differences… This undercuts the quality of relationships (manifested in a distrust of strangers and status anxiety, for example). The resulting stress, in turn, is a major determinant of illness and chronic health problems.”

The "mental bandwidth" data was in something else I've read recently. Probably Bullshit Jobs.

"Parents who were lifted out of poverty now reported having more time for their children."

OH, YA THINK? REALLY? GEE, WHAT A SURPRISE.

"One finding... grabbed everybody's attention: The number of divorces had jumped more than 50%. Interest in this statistic quickly overshadowed all the other outcomes, such as better school performance and improvements in health. A basic income, evidently, gave women too much independence.

Ten years later, a reanalysis of the data revealed that a statistical error had been made... there had been no change."

"The researchers wanted answers to three questions: (1) Would people work significantly less if they receive a guaranteed income? (2) Would the program be too expensive? (3) Would it prove politically unfeasible?

The answers were no, no, and yes."

Y'all, my heart hurts a lot right now.

"When President... Johnson declared his 'War on Poverty' in 1964, Democrats and Republicans alike rallied behind fundamental welfare reforms... Tens of millions of dollars were budgeted to provide a basic income for more than 8500 Americans in [NJ, PA, IA, NC, IN, WA, and CO] in what were also the first-ever large-scale social experiments to distinguish experimental and control groups."

Talking about Mincome in Canada.

"According to a study by [MIT], GiveDirectly's cash grants spur a lasting rise in incomes (up 38%...), and also boost homeownership and possession of livestock (up 58%), while reducing the number of days that children go hungry by 42%. Furthermore, 93% of every donation is placed directly in the hands of recipients."

"Michael Faye, founder of GiveDirectly.... doesn't give people fish, or even teach them to fish. He gives them cash, in the conviction that the real experts on what poor people need are the poor people themselves."

While not all 13 were off the streets after a year and a half, all had made progress toward self-sufficiency.