The poor need more than a safety net

A helping hand - just cash or also values?

What could be worse than a losing lottery ticket? Almost certainly, according to one study: a winning one.

In a 2009 paper published in the Review of Economics and Statistics, economists from the University of Kentucky, University of Pittsburgh, and Vanderbilt University attempted to determine what happens when people in financial straits are given large lump payments. “The Ticket to Easy Street? The Financial consequences of Winning the Lottery” aimed to assess the most basic approach used by policymakers to assist those in financial trouble – giving hefty cash transfers.

The longitudinal study utilized a large, linked database of Florida lottery winners and bankruptcy records. The findings were stunning – big winners (those receiving $50,000 to $150,000), while less likely to go bankrupt than small winners within  two years, were actually more likely to file three to five years later. In other words, the large infusion of cash had no lasting effect, and, in fact, a corrosive one. This in spite of the fact that the median prize ($65,000) was larger than the average unsecured debt ($49,000) owed by the player: these winners should have had a fresh financial start.

Is this a significant finding to policymakers fighting intransigent poverty? Does it suggest that cash transfers are ineffective, or perhaps even an example of pathological altruism (well meaning but harmful policies)? It is often said that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, so perhaps this sample is biased to select those with poor financial skills.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could conduct an experiment where a large group of people were randomly endowed with significant wealth. There would be no sample bias and those not selected would act as a control group, and they could all be observed over many years to determine multigenerational effects. A very expensive experiment to be conducted over a fifty year time frame seems extremely unlikely.

Almost unbelievably, that experiment has been done.

In 1832, the state of Georgia conducted the Cherokee Land Lottery in which winners received 160 acres of land with no strings attached. It could be farmed or sold or traded. The value received was close to the extant median level of wealth (roughly $50,000 in today’s dollars), vaulting winners immediately into a higher wealth strata. The study, “Shocking Behavior: Random Wealth in Antebellum Georgia and Human Capital Across Generations,” was performed by economists Hoyt Bleakley, University of Chicago, and Joseph P. Ferrie of Northwestern University, published in the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2010 (updated in 2013).

(“Shocking” is not used in a horror movie sense, but meaning that the economic impact of winning was a shock to the winner’s financial status, bouncing them to a new level.)

Bleakley and Ferrie’s findings were surprising: “Although winners had slightly more children than non-winners, they did not send them to school more. Sons of winners have no better adult outcomes (wealth, income, literacy) than the sons of non-winners, and winners’ grandchildren do not have higher literacy or school attendance than non-winners’ grandchildren.”

From a policymaking point of view, this is highly disappointing. Large infusions of wealth to families did not “catch fire” but rather petered out. This brings us to a key question: what is more important to enabling social mobility: financial constraints or the household’s culture and values? How can we most effectively address multigenerational stagnation?

Bleakley and Ferrie refer to a 2007 study published by Gregory Clark in which he found that the “characteristics associated with better economic outcomes – patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education – persisted and spread within family lines…” The family’s characteristics, or values  infrastructure, is more likely to be passed on from generation to generation and is more highly correlated to mobility and success than is wealth alone. Apparently, wealth accretes from values and not vice versa.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the cash equivalent of federal means-tested spending on households in poverty is over $60,000 per year. There is no doubt that this money is useful to support these families and their children. But is it enough? Will it engender social mobility and multigenerational change? The sad truth from the aforementioned studies is that, most likely, it is not.

So, it seems, as we prescribe programs to help our poor, to enable them to rise to and through the middle class dream of America, we must pay equal mind to cultural values as we do to cash. For without these, the effects of gifted cash alone are ephemeral and, perhaps, even harmful.

There is enough harm in the world without us adding to it, however well intended.

On wooden ships and foxhole radios

Foxhole radio - c. 1942

We commemorated the two-hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie a few weeks ago. On September 10, 1813, a rag-tag group of American sailors led by Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry beat the British fleet at Put-in-Bay, Ohio. This decisive battle was a major factor in resolving the War of 1812. Perry is memorialized in his home state of Rhode Island and at Presque Island, Pennsylvania, where six of his nine-ship fleet were built by hand, from their keels up.

In a seemingly unrelated event, National Public Radio recently aired an appreciative retrospective about AM radio. Listeners called in and recounted tales of making crystal radios from scratch. Veterans of World War II remembered building “foxhole radios” which used a razor blade and pencil as a detector to pull music and comedy skits from the ether, cheering an otherwise grim battlefield.

These disparate observations illustrate an important point. For nearly all of humankind’s existence, we lived in close proximity to our various technologies. You could either weave cloth from wool yourself or knew someone who could. And at the very least, you were certainly capable of understanding how it was done. Nearly anyone could become a blacksmith or learn to grow and reap a crop of wheat. Or build a wooden ship, or a radio.

It is only in the past fifty years or so, the briefest tick of human existence, that our technologies have become so complex, so remote.

Former backyard mechanics joke that one now needs a double degree in mechanical and computer engineering to build a car. But the joke is true. Fifty years ago, we could adjust the point gap and timing, change the carburetor jets, and really understand what was happening. Today, we look at our shiny new iPhone and haven’t a clue that it uses quantum tunneling effects to store our silly cat video, a concept that bedeviled Albert Einstein himself (quantum tunneling, that is, not the cat videos, but one wonders what he would have thought of them).

This evolution of complexity and technological remoteness will accelerate, and it will do so exponentially. Our children and their children will live in a world far removed from crystal radios and backyard brake jobs. This isn’t a bad thing. Technology has given us wonderful advances leading to notably longer human life spans.

But, yet, a wedge is being driven into our humanity, separating us from the world that nurtures us. It’s not that we shouldn’t celebrate the advent of autonomous (driver-less) cars and nano-engineered robots, but we need to retain our connectedness to Mother Earth. It is important to know how to grow a tomato and how to make your own sauce. While enjoying the constant chatter of Facebook, you must write an actual letter, in your own hand, to express your love to a distant elderly relative.

So let’s revel in this wild ride we're all on together, but don’t forget to take that quiet walk in the woods with the iPhone shut off. The silly cat video can wait a bit. 

Heart vs. Brain... a most difficult struggle

It is so terribly difficult to be objective. Our throbbing hearts feel so strongly that our cool, rational heads just don’t stand a chance. 

Case in point – the ACLU is preparing to sue Northeastern University in Boston on behalf of the Students for Justice for Palestine (SJP). The university stands accused of violating the free speech rights of the pro-Palestinian students who disrupted a lecture being given by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) representatives.

WGBH radio describes the incident as such:

“Back in April, the group Students for Justice in Palestine staged a walkout of a presentation by Israeli soldiers inside a lecture hall at Northeastern. Their goal, they say, was to protest human rights abuses in the Middle East. More than 20 students marched out. Some captured video with their smartphones. Others heckled the soldiers, calling them criminals.”

"They’re not welcome on our campus," some shouted. "Free! Free! Palestine!"

The Boston Globe, WGBH, and the blogosphere are alight with outrage over Northeastern’s sanctions which include putting the SJP on probation and asking them to draft a civility statement. The common theme is that the university’s actions constitute a “chilling effect on free speech." Apparently the free-speech rights of the SJP protestors trump those of the IDF presenters and the interested folks in the lecture hall.

Why is it so tempting to side with the SJP protestors? Because they are small and Northeastern is large? Because the Palestinians for whom they toil are few and Israel is many? Is there no application of logic to balance a knee-jerk sympathy?

Let’s take this situation and tweak the actors a bit. In a hypothetical situation, imagine New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as head of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, presenting a lecture at Northeastern University. As he begins a full-throated call for increased gun control, an assemblage of Student Republicans stand to shout him down, waving signs which depict Bloomberg as a modern-day Hitler. The university sanctions the student group, putting them on probation and asking them to draft a civility statement. What will the ACLU do? Where do you stand?

Or this…

Planned Parenthood is delivering a policy lecture at Northeastern University. Within moments, a delegation of Catholic pro-life students rise up, displaying signs depicting aborted fetuses and decrying the murder of children. The university sanctions the student group, putting them on probation and asking them to draft a civility statement. What will the ACLU do? Where do you stand?

Freedom of speech does not depend on the popularity of various positions. It is not limited to only aggrieved groups. In the foregoing real and hypothetical examples, it extends to not only the protestors, but to the presenters and the audiences (yes, the freedom to listen is part of free speech). So before maligning and suing Northeastern University, perhaps the principles being applied should be elevated over political sympathies.

It is so terribly difficult to be objective. But we must try.

First, do no harm

Belisarius begging for alms

“Primum non nocere,” (first, do no harm) is a fundamental law drilled into medical practitioners and emergency medical technicians around the world. The principle dictates that, when faced with an existing issue, one must carefully select an action that does not cause more harm than good, even if that means doing nothing. It is intended to make the practitioner consciously consider the harm that any given action might cause.

A core principle of medical ethics, this dictum is equally applicable to a wide range of governmental policies and husbandry (the management and conservation of resources). A prime example: for many years we had a zero-tolerance policy regarding wildfires. Smokey Bear warned us to be careful and all fires were fought to a standstill. As a result, the natural process of undergrowth thinning was thwarted resulting in larger and more dangerous “crowning” fires. Further, certain species require fire as part of their lifecycle, the Giant Sequoia being a case in point. When it was observed in the 1960s that no new Sequoias were germinating due to fire suppression, it was determined that our fire suppression policies were causing harm. A more open-minded view now has us allow fires to proceed as a natural ecological process except where human lives or property are threatened.

In the political arena, we are not nearly as enlightened. Many government policies have been shown to inflict harm on the very constituencies they were intended to help. Some famous examples include housing policy which fueled the Great Recession of 2009, college grants and subsidies which fund a roaring inflation rate of tuitions, and generous welfare benefits which have led to a spectacular breakdown of the nuclear family, especially within the urban poor. These programs were all well intentioned; it is simply that the negative consequences were not adequately factored into the political calculus.

Why might this be? In a thought-provoking paper published earlier this year (“Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2013), researcher Barbara Oakley describes the concept of pathological altruism, that is, behavior that is intended to help but results in foreseeable harm. At root, as should be no surprise, is our very human desire to help combined with an almost innocent neglect of potentially harmful side effects.

We are wired to be empathetic, altruistic; the desire to help is in our DNA (with the exception of a relatively rare number of sociopaths amongst us). Early human clans survived more readily when they assisted each other. Altruism, therefore, is a natural tendency reinforced by evolution and subsequently enshrined in religious values. (Christianity, as one example, extols philanthropy and is well-known for its many charities).

But when it comes to the political process, when programs to help the poor or subsidize this group or that are debated, we tend to be overtaken by the emotional need to help and neglect the cold, scientific analysis of the reverberations our actions will actually create. Further, this altruism bias causes us to demonize anyone who dares suggest such an analysis. But in the end, it is the greatest good with the least harm that must be our goal, and reasoned analysis, without recourse to ad hominem attacks, is the only way to achieve that end.

Pathological altruism can be very dangerous. Dr. Oakley refers to the tens of millions of deaths caused in the twentieth century by appeals to altruism (Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all cynically garnered support for their policies in that manner). She closes by proposing that pathological altruism is of such import that it should be the subject of focused scientific research. It is hard to disagree with that.

A Duty to Retreat

Sir William Blackstone, 1723-1780

Florida has been taking it on the chin. In addition to luxury vacation condos collapsing into giant sink holes, it seems that the media and political left are piling on because of Florida’s “stand your ground” law.  Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to the NAACP, stated that such laws “sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods” and “undermine public safety.”

Unlike Alinskyites, whose strategy it is to capitalize on heightened emotions, it might be good to step back and take a breath.

The right to self-defense is a time-honored legal precept. Sir William Blackstone, the great English jurist, traced the concept of justifiable and excusable use of deadly force from Roman and Judaic law and codified it into English common law (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765-1769). Since most US states adopted English common law as a basis for their own, it is not surprising that all of them allow a person to use force in defense of self or others. The details vary a bit, but the concept is universal.

Where the states begin to diverge is on the concept of “duty to retreat.” Blackstone identifies a duty to retreat in the event of a sudden brawl or affray, and only in the absence of the possibility of such retreat would defensive homicide be excused. The “stand your ground” states do not require a duty to retreat, if and only if a number of requirements are met. From Florida law (Chapter 776.012 para. 3), here is the heart of the matter:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

For the person using defensive force to have no duty to retreat, the following must be true:

• Have a right to be in the place where the attack occurs
• Must not be engaged in illegal activity
• Must believe that deadly force is reasonably necessary

The Tampa Bay Times, in a paroxism of self-guilt for being Floridean, documents what it calls “stand your ground cases” from around the state. Reviewing the very first one is very instructive.

In a narrow courtyard of the Liberty Square housing project, Damon “Red Rock” Darling and Leroy “Yellowrock” Larose got into a gunfight, allegedly due to an argument over drugs. Darling said he thought Larose was going to pull a gun on him so he pulled his and fired first. Neither Darling nor Larose were killed in the fusillade, but, unfortunately, 9-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins was killed in the crossfire while playing with her dolls. An extremely sad story, but does it support General Holder’s revulsion with “stand your ground”?

Not at all. None of the elements of “stand your ground” exist in the crime. The purported aggressor (Larose) was not killed, and Darling was engaged in illegal activity (drug trade). The court denied Darling’s attempt to use “stand your ground” as defense to the death of little Sherdavia, as well they should. Both Larose and Darling were convicted, with Darling getting 50 years.  Sounds like the “stand your ground” law operating as it should.

Here is another case. Anusha Bissoon, female, stabbed to death a man who was attacking her boyfriend after a road rage incident. Witnesses told police that the boyfriend would have been killed without Bissoon’s intervention. Based on evidence and witness testimony, prosecutors declined to press charges. Bissoon was spared the grueling trouble and expense of a trial, and was protected from civil suit by the aggressor’s family and estate. Again, seems like “stand your ground” operating as designed in the interest of justice.

Make up your own mind. But please, inform yourself and don’t be influenced only by lofty rhetoric. Our justice system deserves no less.