Share this page!

Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
Twitter logo
16 Mar, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Too Online.

Don't let it happen to you.
(referring to the "many countries have issued monthly checks" claim)
I think a better understanding of how the US response differs from other countries leads to different policy implications.

For example, reforming the UI system so it is easier for people to access benefits.
Worth noting his Very Good response here (and in other threads)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇

Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @besttrousers

Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
2 Mar
I never understand this argument.

1.) There are psycho-social benefits to work beyond a paycheck.
2.) Therefore we should design anti-poverty programs to push people into work

I'd draw the exact opposite conclusion. If people want to work we do not *need* to push them to do it! Image
The only thing that makes sense to me is that people believe that there are psycho-social benefits to work, but poor people are *unaware* of them.

I don't think that makes much sense.
Some folks are pointing out that another possibility is that people are present-biased, and may not be willing to pay the sort term costs of working, even if the long-term benefits are strong.
Read 6 tweets
Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
5 Feb
I'm going to disagree with Ezra here.

Saying "incentives matter" doesn't have to imply anything negative about people living in poverty. In general, the idea that people are very sharp and goal-oriented (which is what I generally understand 'incentives matter' to mean) is good.
That said, I think this language is often sort of crudely appropriated and used in a misleading way.
This is particularly the case with discussions of welfare reform, where people use this kind of language to make the exact opposite claim that "incentives matter" should tell us.
Read 7 tweets
Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
5 Feb
A big problem with #2 is that the aggregate data is messy enough that it is easy to paint any picture you want. Was 1990-era increases in labor participation due to:

1- Continued secular trends
2- Welfare reform
3- A hot business cycle
4- EITC expansion

Hard to disaggregate!
#1 helps us. For example, to the extent that higher LFPR was driven by welfare reform, you'd expect to see similar effects from similar policies.
A good example is state-level work requirements for SNAP or Medicaid, which are best on the same theory as TANF (but have well defined control).
Read 9 tweets
Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
4 Feb
This is a good example of a failure to use economic reasoning.

Who cares if families are "enabled" to not work? People make labor force entry decisions at the margin.
No one makes, say, $15k a year and decides "Hey, this is barely sustainable. Let's just coast here for a while."
(and a $300/month benefit is *substantially* less than that!)
Read 6 tweets
Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
4 Feb
A lot of folks are talking about how the Romney child benefits incentivize having more kids, and I think that that just fundamentally misunderstandings the costs and benefits of being a parent.
Being a parent has a utility-equivalent benefit of something like $1,000,00 a year (SD $100,000) and a cost of something like $900,000 a year (SD $100,000).
The costs AND benefits are just MASSIVE, and I can't see $300/month making a big difference for many people.
Read 4 tweets
Matt Darling 🌐💸🌇 Profile picture
4 Feb
As work disincentives from benefits programs are generally small, this is the right approach.

It's good that @NiskanenCenter is keeping up with the literature, unlike the other think tanks.
A lot of what *looks like* disincentives are often caused by program *phase-outs*, not the programs themselves. I've talked to people who have refused promotions that would mean they lose Medicaid eligibility, for example.
The economics 101 approach has a lot of insight here. People make decisions at the margin, and getting a flat child support payment has at worst a small impact on the decision from that perspective. ideas42.org/wp-content/upl…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @besttrousers has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @besttrousers!

Read all threads by @besttrousers