Before I read about the results of the study, my a priori assumptions were that the money wouldn’t help because of bills but that some kind of benefit must come out of it.
Without a reliable source of income, even if they did not have many bills, it is hard to see how even $2,000 could help in the longterm.
To me, it seems that an unconditional cash transfer that helps temporarily but not in a longterm way might make people feel worse by perception of the counterfactual of being better off becoming more vivid. The $500 or $2,000 unconditional cash transfer brings them somewhat closer to the reality of being better off, but not close enough.
I wonder if there is a minimum length of subsistence that can be established for unconditional cash transfer so that it helps people universally, regardless of the wealth of their country.
Part of the trap is that once you’re in the trap trying and failing to get out of it doesn’t help you much, so traits that would help in abundance don’t have a hill they can climb.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn’t follow you after you wrote “so traits that would help in abundance don’t have a hill they can climb.”
Part of the trap is that once you’re in the trap trying and failing to get out of it doesn’t help you much, so traits that would help in abundance don’t have a hill they can climb.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn’t follow you after you wrote “so traits that would help in abundance don’t have a hill they can climb.”
I think maybe you meant that appreciation of the worth of money is valuable only until you fall into the trap of spending too much of it. Once you fall into that trap, appreciation of its worth won’t helpful to you.
Before I read about the results of the study, my a priori assumptions were that the money wouldn’t help because of bills but that some kind of benefit must come out of it.
Without a reliable source of income, even if they did not have many bills, it is hard to see how even $2,000 could help in the longterm.
To me, it seems that an unconditional cash transfer that helps temporarily but not in a longterm way might make people feel worse by perception of the counterfactual of being better off becoming more vivid. The $500 or $2,000 unconditional cash transfer brings them somewhat closer to the reality of being better off, but not close enough.
I wonder if there is a minimum length of subsistence that can be established for unconditional cash transfer so that it helps people universally, regardless of the wealth of their country.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn’t follow you after you wrote “so traits that would help in abundance don’t have a hill they can climb.”
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn’t follow you after you wrote “so traits that would help in abundance don’t have a hill they can climb.”
I think maybe you meant that appreciation of the worth of money is valuable only until you fall into the trap of spending too much of it. Once you fall into that trap, appreciation of its worth won’t helpful to you.