An article appeared in this morning's DomPost from one Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw of the Morgan Foundation. Apparently the first of three.
My response by way of a letter-to-the-editor:
Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw of the Morgan Foundation (DomPost, Jan 1) argues that giving families cash with "no strings attached" is the best way of reducing child poverty. To support her argument she quotes from The Economist, "Unconditional Cash Transfers work better than almost anyone would have expected. They dent the stereotype of poor people as inherently feckless and ignorant".
This is only part of the quote. The next sentence is, "But Conditional Cash Transfers are usually better still, especially when dealing with the root causes of poverty and, rather than just alleviating it, helping families escape it altogether."
That immediately conflicts with the idea of "no strings attached."
Additionally, The Economist feature was about aid in the developing world. Not alleviating family poverty in the first world where employment, social housing, highly effective contraception, low-cost health services, 'free' education and access to credit, etc are all available.
There is far more that could be said but why credit any validity to the rest of the piece when it starts with a deception.
Tom Sowell on wage gaps
33 minutes ago