Reduction in child poverty

[nebo113]

1.  Does anyone know how the effects of the Alaska oil payouts compare to the Cherokee payouts?

2.  Would access to health/dental care substantially affect child poverty?

3.  If businesses such as Walmart paid a "living wage" (whatever that is) would it decrease the number of children in poverty?

I am not an economist, so I may not even be asking reasonable questions.

[onthefringe]

1.  Does anyone know how the effects of the Alaska oil payouts compare to the Cherokee payouts?

2.  Would access to health/dental care substantially affect child poverty?

3.  If businesses such as Walmart paid a "living wage" (whatever that is) would it decrease the number of children in poverty?

I am not an economist, so I may not even be asking reasonable questions.

My understanding is that the Alaska permanent fund payouts are even smaller, but do seem to have an effect on some social issues without apparently affecting labor force participation.  The Cherokee tribe payouts make a really nice natural experiment because they suddenly changed the status of people who were enrolled in an ongoing study, but to the best of my limited understanding nothing from studies of the Alaska fund is in conflict with the studies of the Cherokee payments.

I'm also not an economist and don't know of actual studies addressing your points 2 and 3, though I assume there must be some (and my gut feeling is that the answer to both would be "yes", though I know economic results can be quite counterintuitive).

[Caracal]

I encourage everyone to look at the effects when the Eastern Band of Cherokees started paying out casino profits to enrolled tribe members who happened to also be part of the ongoing Great Smoky Mountains Study of Youth. (hint — huge decreases in childhood emotional, behavioral, and psychiatric issues, with no impact on labor participation publications here and here and here)

Lovely, fringe, I like!  If these researchers want to show that having more income is a good thing, that's fine. However,  I never had any doubt that having higher income is a good thing. What is interesting here is in the third link, which mentions the conditions under which the extra income was distributed:

A portion of the profits from this  new  business  operation  is  distributed  every  six  months  on  an  equalized,  per capita basis to all adult tribal members regardless of employment status, income, or other household characteristics.

No conditions! If one works more, the cash is not taken away:

Therefore, it  appears  that  households  affected  by  cash  transfers  are  not  reducing  their  labor force participation.

Wonderful.

While I realize the outcome that more income is better is in some ways a trivial finding, what impresses me is that a comparatively small amount made this big a difference. Over the course of the study the annual payout ranged from $4000 to $6000 per tribal member, and payments to minors are held in trust and can't be used by their household until they are 18. These aren't amounts big enough to stop working, or even to buy that much more leisure. It's enough money that the transmission going out on your car might not lead to a choice between transportation and heat, or enough that you might be able to turn down one overtime shift to see your kid play soccer sometimes.

Often, the trick to understanding poverty seems to be to think of poor people as people like everyone else, who just don't have much money. When I was in grad school, I received a smallish inheritance. It was somewhere in the vicinity of 50k, I think. A decent bit, but not enough to change the way I thought about my long term prospects or my career or anything like that.

That money made my life much easier, however, through grad school. I kept it in a separate place, and basically just used it to fill the gaps between the not particularly extravagant lifestyle I lived, and the really crummy stipend I received. It wasn't like I was going on expensive vacations, or living in palatial splendor. I just could live in a decent apartment, I didn't need to have a roommate, and I didn't have to worry about every penny, all of which made my life a lot less stressful and more pleasant. It also meant I never had to take out loans and I didn't have any credit card debt. As a result, once I was out of grad school, my wife and I  could fully contribute to the retirement fund even though we weren't making much money, which has probably helped us at a better spot long term than we otherwise would be.

That was all true even though my use of the money was sort of medium in terms of responsibility. I didn't blow it all on cocaine and ponies, but I did use it so I could hang out at the bar more. So of course, that relatively small amount of money would make even more difference for people who are actually close to poverty-and their use of it doesn't have to optimal for it to have huge benefits.

[jimbogumbo]

Perhaps an unfortunate coda:https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/28/poor-kids-just-dont-matter-in-american-politics-00059018

[kaysixteen]

Do you agree with Greenfield's analysis as to the reasons why the Democrats are not campaigning on the issue of restoring these programs that explicitly aid poor kids this year, and, if so, what could be done about changing their minds on these issues?