Poor people have too little money. So why don’t we just give them more money, instead of giving them many specific things? The main theory in the literature is paternalism: The traditional justification for in-kind transfers has been “paternalism.” … If members of society care about the consumption patterns of the poorest rather than their utility, then the unconstrained choices of the poor may create negative externalities for those who care about them. … while income inequality per se may be acceptable, all individuals should receive adequate food, medical service, and housing. … Parents may not take full account of the utility of their children when making decisions, or they may neglect to factor in externalities. … attempt to redistribute from parents to children within the family. … a sense that the poor cannot be trusted with cash. … it is hard to escape the conclusion that paternalism remains a fundamental underlying rationale for in-kind transfers. (
The "idea" of that German program is stated as "enabling you to rent on the market a.s.a.p.". Which is probably just talk. Anyways, very interesting program, similar to Hanson`s proposal (except for the crazier parts ;) ), but only in Hamburg and, of course, not nearly enough places to cover all. ( I would join, if single. Had a super-basic-room as a student, 100$ a month, loved it.)
But not enough work organised by the dorm to take place outside the dorm to generate some income and enable the dorm to substantially raise its quality?
Wartime Britain set out to solve the food problem with very basic restaurants. Had some success, I think, but did not outlast the War by much; it's plausible that they were run at a loss.
So the dorms might need cops, and surveillance cameras, to protect the poor from those who would prey on them (or recruit them). Such measures would probably have to be mandated, since dorms management wouldn't see much of a return from them.
"Measures of human flourishing" are not the same as "life satisfaction". People who approve of various Scandinavian programs construct the former with the aim of ranking such countries higher.
Under my competitive supply proposal, helping with local chores would be fine as a condition that some suppliers require. Residents could go elsewhere if they don't like it.
Do you see a way for providers to include a requirement for residents to do some work - standard work to go with the standard everything else, cleaning for example?
It sounds like North Korea, but with a legal accessible way out, less oppression, and better quality.
Singapore exists in a different equilibrium where they are on the punish fast/often/lightly spectrum which appears to be dramatically better as a deterrent and cost an order of magnitude less than the slow/infrequent/heavy punishment end of things.
My understanding is that it is fairly trivial to help around 80% of the homeless. Programs for them pay for themselves by getting people back off the street and reducing the costly externalities of that. E.g. the programs seen in some countries where they are just given housing. The reason those programs don't happen in the US is that do gooders have made it difficult or illegal in various ways to separate out for benefit at the discretion of on the ground social workers those people who would thus benefit and instead keeps them mixed together with the 20% who create the huge externalities. Think serious drug and mental health problems. I see this as one of the four major energy sinks of our current ideology. Because of various upstream metaphysical assumptions (eg responsibility and freedom), we're incapable of thinking clearly about education, medicine, housing, and paternalism. Thus it is illegal to discriminate along most dimensions other than ability to pay, and we are surprised when this results in some things seeming to become expensive for no obvious reason related to the cost of its supply.
I was recently thinking about a similar proposal. It would make very small and stark apartments available to anyone for free. I described them as not as nice as the apartment on the set of Jacky Gleason's "The Honeymooners". Few people would want to live there so you wouldn't need to means test. Also I thought you could make some very simple cheap food available for free. Fortified hardtack.I like your idea better.
The German one /is/ mostly about housing but there are some points that seem to match your "shared dorm" aspect:
- no free choice of the specific rooms- the assignment to rooms fosters a mix of cultures - rooms come with basic equipment- common rooms, washing machine are provided
Also there are other programs that fall into the wider category, some providing food, some proving just temporary accomodation (e.g. in Winter).
PS. Google translate works pretty well with German normally.
"[A] 2010 paper … makes a strong case that in fact the outcome of life satisfaction depends on the incomes of others only via income rank."
Doesn't this fail simple sanity checks? It implies e.g. that if we multiply everyone's distance from the mean income by any factor 0 < f < 1 (thus keeping the books balanced), not only would your favorite measure of aggregate satisfaction stay unchanged, but *each individual's* satisfaction would be unchanged as well.
As if that weren't crazy enough, we could instead simply multiply everyone's income by 0 < f < 1, again preserving everyone's rank and thus life satisfaction, but as f approaches 0 we have an increasingly huge revenue stream which could presumably be used for something good. Come to think of it, this is kind of like the Scandinavian countries, isn't it? And they perennially top most measures of human flourishing. Hmm, maybe I need to rethink this..
The "idea" of that German program is stated as "enabling you to rent on the market a.s.a.p.". Which is probably just talk. Anyways, very interesting program, similar to Hanson`s proposal (except for the crazier parts ;) ), but only in Hamburg and, of course, not nearly enough places to cover all. ( I would join, if single. Had a super-basic-room as a student, 100$ a month, loved it.)
But not enough work organised by the dorm to take place outside the dorm to generate some income and enable the dorm to substantially raise its quality?
I don't see why we would prevent that. As long as new residents know what they are getting into.
Wartime Britain set out to solve the food problem with very basic restaurants. Had some success, I think, but did not outlast the War by much; it's plausible that they were run at a loss.
How would you prevent, or would you prevent, pseudo-religious cults from establishing dorms, and expelling those who won't serve the Leader?
So the dorms might need cops, and surveillance cameras, to protect the poor from those who would prey on them (or recruit them). Such measures would probably have to be mandated, since dorms management wouldn't see much of a return from them.
"Measures of human flourishing" are not the same as "life satisfaction". People who approve of various Scandinavian programs construct the former with the aim of ranking such countries higher.
I very much want the dorms to be able to discriminate on who they take. Make a separate less-attractive program for those who all dorms reject.
Under my competitive supply proposal, helping with local chores would be fine as a condition that some suppliers require. Residents could go elsewhere if they don't like it.
Do you see a way for providers to include a requirement for residents to do some work - standard work to go with the standard everything else, cleaning for example?
It sounds like North Korea, but with a legal accessible way out, less oppression, and better quality.
Singapore exists in a different equilibrium where they are on the punish fast/often/lightly spectrum which appears to be dramatically better as a deterrent and cost an order of magnitude less than the slow/infrequent/heavy punishment end of things.
My understanding is that it is fairly trivial to help around 80% of the homeless. Programs for them pay for themselves by getting people back off the street and reducing the costly externalities of that. E.g. the programs seen in some countries where they are just given housing. The reason those programs don't happen in the US is that do gooders have made it difficult or illegal in various ways to separate out for benefit at the discretion of on the ground social workers those people who would thus benefit and instead keeps them mixed together with the 20% who create the huge externalities. Think serious drug and mental health problems. I see this as one of the four major energy sinks of our current ideology. Because of various upstream metaphysical assumptions (eg responsibility and freedom), we're incapable of thinking clearly about education, medicine, housing, and paternalism. Thus it is illegal to discriminate along most dimensions other than ability to pay, and we are surprised when this results in some things seeming to become expensive for no obvious reason related to the cost of its supply.
I was recently thinking about a similar proposal. It would make very small and stark apartments available to anyone for free. I described them as not as nice as the apartment on the set of Jacky Gleason's "The Honeymooners". Few people would want to live there so you wouldn't need to means test. Also I thought you could make some very simple cheap food available for free. Fortified hardtack.I like your idea better.
The German one /is/ mostly about housing but there are some points that seem to match your "shared dorm" aspect:
- no free choice of the specific rooms- the assignment to rooms fosters a mix of cultures - rooms come with basic equipment- common rooms, washing machine are provided
Also there are other programs that fall into the wider category, some providing food, some proving just temporary accomodation (e.g. in Winter).
PS. Google translate works pretty well with German normally.
I can't read the 2nd one, and the 1st one seems to be only about housing.
"[A] 2010 paper … makes a strong case that in fact the outcome of life satisfaction depends on the incomes of others only via income rank."
Doesn't this fail simple sanity checks? It implies e.g. that if we multiply everyone's distance from the mean income by any factor 0 < f < 1 (thus keeping the books balanced), not only would your favorite measure of aggregate satisfaction stay unchanged, but *each individual's* satisfaction would be unchanged as well.
As if that weren't crazy enough, we could instead simply multiply everyone's income by 0 < f < 1, again preserving everyone's rank and thus life satisfaction, but as f approaches 0 we have an increasingly huge revenue stream which could presumably be used for something good. Come to think of it, this is kind of like the Scandinavian countries, isn't it? And they perennially top most measures of human flourishing. Hmm, maybe I need to rethink this..