Hi, thanks for sharing this. I’ve long supported GiveDirectly’s global programs, and agree that your work can help inform better policy in high-income countries as well. While I don’t think direct transfers to Americans would come close to the GiveWell bar, I’d be interested in cost-effectiveness analyses of advocacy for policy reform. Some of the other comments on this post could also be useful for constructing such a BOTEC, and so I wanted to add some clarifications as well:
The linked study, titled “Novel Estimates of Mortality Associated With Poverty in the US,” does not make a causal claim like this. Here’s what it says:
In 2019, among those aged 15 years or older, 6.5% (95% CI, 4.1%-9.0%) of deaths and 183 003 deaths (95% CI, 116 173-254 507 deaths) were associated with current poverty, and 10.5% (95% CI, 6.9%-14.4%) of deaths and 295 431 deaths (95% CI, 193 652-406 007 deaths) were associated with cumulative poverty.
The causal effect is likely smaller. Furthermore, the study defines poverty as income below half the median income in each year, meaning it’s not assessing the association between absolute living standards and mortality.
In 2022, the U.S. had the second highest poverty rate of any wealthy country [...]
Like the above study, the OECD defines poverty as income below half the median. So this is really a measure of inequality.
[...] poverty persists here despite the U.S. spending more on social programs than the average (see below).
My understanding is that the vast majority of that 22.7% of GDP is Social Security and Medicare. It also ignores the effect of taxes, and non-refundable credits like the bulk of the US Child Tax Credit, both of which can significantly affect low-income people (European countries rely more on consumption taxes, for instance).
Another way of assessing this is how much a country’s inequality changes before and after taxes and transfers. Here the OECD ranks the US 31st of 37th in inequality reduction through redistribution.
Between 2020 and 2021, [...] More than two-thirds of adults said they could cover an unexpected cost of $400, the highest rate recorded in the survey’s history.
This result mostly extends a long, steady trend of improvement.
Over a quarter of Americans living in deep poverty (again, less than half of the federal poverty line) are not enrolled in any federal safety net program. That means individuals making less than $3,600 a year are receiving no assistance from the government.
A few things here:
The federal poverty line is $15,060 for a one-person household, so this describes people who are making less than $7,530 a year, not $3,600.
That study uses data from 2012-14; many states have since expanded SNAP, for instance to remove asset limits.
The study only considered six programs: SNAP, SSI, housing subsidies, TANF, WIC, and CCDF. Some people in deep OPM poverty may still receive Medicaid, Social Security, refundable tax credits, LIHEAP, state and local assistance programs, etc.
SSI and TANF count as income when classifying people in poverty (and deep poverty) for the OPM, so this result is partly circular: people who, in part by virtue of not receiving those programs, are classified as in deep poverty, are tautologically less likely to receive those programs.
Again, I greatly appreciate the work you all do, and agree that US antipoverty advocacy is at least understudied in EA. As one example, the Baltimore Baby Bonus ballot measure campaign seems plausibly cost-effective, given the enormous returns to reducing infant poverty (as also motivates RxKids), and their lean, scalable operation. My nonprofit, PolicyEngine, provides free open-source software for analyzing antipoverty policies, and we’d be glad to help in any endeavor to study the impact of reforms. I hope my comments can expedite some work for an enterprising EA to dig further into this important area.
Hi, thanks for sharing this. I’ve long supported GiveDirectly’s global programs, and agree that your work can help inform better policy in high-income countries as well. While I don’t think direct transfers to Americans would come close to the GiveWell bar, I’d be interested in cost-effectiveness analyses of advocacy for policy reform. Some of the other comments on this post could also be useful for constructing such a BOTEC, and so I wanted to add some clarifications as well:
The linked study, titled “Novel Estimates of Mortality Associated With Poverty in the US,” does not make a causal claim like this. Here’s what it says:
The causal effect is likely smaller. Furthermore, the study defines poverty as income below half the median income in each year, meaning it’s not assessing the association between absolute living standards and mortality.
Like the above study, the OECD defines poverty as income below half the median. So this is really a measure of inequality.
On a more absolute measure—the threshold of income marking the poorest decile, after taxes and benefits—the US ranks 9 of 35 OECD countries evaluated:
My understanding is that the vast majority of that 22.7% of GDP is Social Security and Medicare. It also ignores the effect of taxes, and non-refundable credits like the bulk of the US Child Tax Credit, both of which can significantly affect low-income people (European countries rely more on consumption taxes, for instance).
Another way of assessing this is how much a country’s inequality changes before and after taxes and transfers. Here the OECD ranks the US 31st of 37th in inequality reduction through redistribution.
This result mostly extends a long, steady trend of improvement.
A few things here:
The federal poverty line is $15,060 for a one-person household, so this describes people who are making less than $7,530 a year, not $3,600.
That study uses data from 2012-14; many states have since expanded SNAP, for instance to remove asset limits.
The study only considered six programs: SNAP, SSI, housing subsidies, TANF, WIC, and CCDF. Some people in deep OPM poverty may still receive Medicaid, Social Security, refundable tax credits, LIHEAP, state and local assistance programs, etc.
SSI and TANF count as income when classifying people in poverty (and deep poverty) for the OPM, so this result is partly circular: people who, in part by virtue of not receiving those programs, are classified as in deep poverty, are tautologically less likely to receive those programs.
Again, I greatly appreciate the work you all do, and agree that US antipoverty advocacy is at least understudied in EA. As one example, the Baltimore Baby Bonus ballot measure campaign seems plausibly cost-effective, given the enormous returns to reducing infant poverty (as also motivates RxKids), and their lean, scalable operation. My nonprofit, PolicyEngine, provides free open-source software for analyzing antipoverty policies, and we’d be glad to help in any endeavor to study the impact of reforms. I hope my comments can expedite some work for an enterprising EA to dig further into this important area.