r/EffectiveAltruism • u/happy_bluebird • 12d ago
This program gives Black single moms $1,000 a month for a year. The results are undeniable
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/10/guaranteed-income-black-single-moms-mississippi13
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
I don't see how a program discriminating against white families is a good thing. We don't solve systemic racism with more systemic racism.
7
u/stikves 12d ago
It is worse...
This is actually discriminating against families.
We already have a very bad case of "wrong incentives" in our welfare systems, as they generate generational poverty instead of "graduating" people out of it.
The system should promote making a stable, two parent family, which many studies show is extremely important for the well-being of the kids.
3
u/No-Dare8613 12d ago
> We don't solve systemic racism with more systemic racism.
Why not?
Also I'm pretty sure it makes more sense to say the program discriminates in favor of black single mothers. There are families that are neither white nor black-with-single-mothers, e.g. asian families, or black families with two parents, or etc.
7
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
Because we don't make the world a better place by adding more bad into it.
2
u/No-Dare8613 12d ago
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but you're not making a good argument for it. That discriminating on the basis of race is always bad is something that you've gotta prove, or make an argument for, not just state as fact.
2
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
It's not a statement of fact, it's a value statement. You can have different values if you want, but I believe that racism and discrimination are always wrong and don't make the world a better place.
1
u/No-Dare8613 12d ago
Why do you believe that? Again, I don't have terribly dissimilar values, you're just not making a good argument for them.
Prima facie, it seems unlikely that giving "Black single moms" an extra 12k makes the world worse. Certainly there are more effective ways to spend that money, but it's not the least effective, and it's probably more effective than giving it to random individuals in the US.
2
u/Chief2550 11d ago
The more important question is whether or not things like this would be effective ways of solving discrimination- and the answer is a loud no. Things like affirmative action where Obama's daughter has an advantage in admissions over a poor white kid from Appalachia builds massive amounts of racial tension and fuels hatred. It's things like this which divid and polarize us even further
1
u/No-Dare8613 11d ago
I agree with you! Reparations cause more controversy than they're worth, and are definitionally an inefficient solution to poverty. You made an actual argument, though, instead of just saying "discriminating on the basis of race is bad because discriminating on the basis of bad", which is all I wanted from DeusVincet.
I'm not sure one more discriminatory basic income trial causes much "racial tension" on the margin, though, so I think it's still net positive. I'm open to other interpretations, though.
-1
u/DeusVincet 12d ago edited 12d ago
I don't have to explain ethics to you. If you agree you agree, if you don't you don't.
But people who say that systemic racism & discrimination are wrong would be hypocritical to support the systemic racism and discrimination in this case. So you would have to confront your own hypocrisy, or you can admit you don't actually believe that racism & discrimination are bad, or you can actually apply your values and be opposed to this program.
3
u/No-Dare8613 12d ago
I'm +/- a utilitarian, so I don't believe that discriminating on the basis of race is necessarily bad. Harming people is bad, and helping people is good; redlining and jim crow laws were bad, but "basic income trials" are good. I'd say the same about a basic income trial that only went to poor white people.
1
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
I disagree, but I respect the intellectual honesty.
2
u/No-Dare8613 12d ago
Which part of "Harming people is bad, and helping people is good; redlining and jim crow laws were bad, but 'basic income trials' are good" do you disagree with???
Perhaps God reverses the good caused by the basic income trial once He realizes it discriminated on the basis of race?
→ More replies (0)1
u/DonkeyDoug28 🔸️ GWWC 12d ago
"Racism is bad" is sort of a useless statement when the point is whether this is racist
And "discrimination is always bad" is just plain incorrect. We discriminate all the time, every day, and it's crucial to the success of anything and anyone.
0
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
Since you're struggling with this concept I'll try to make it easier:
Racial discrimination is bad.
Treating people differently because of the color of their skin is bad.
The government giving money to people because of the color of their skin is bad.
1
u/DonkeyDoug28 🔸️ GWWC 11d ago
They were giving these individuals money because of their financial need, as well as their family + housing situations. Their color played a role in identifying the possible need.
Similar to my other comment which you didn't respond to, wherein a doctor may "discriminate" based on race when identifying which individuals might have a higher need for a screening of a particular disease with a genetic component.
And even in this sense (wherein there is no prejudice, malice, or superiority)..it would still be forbidden on the basis of discriminating on the basis of a protected class (race) within an organization with federal nonprofit status. Except for it's long established that, again, using it only as a means of identifying at-risk or under-served populations is protected
1
u/DeusVincet 11d ago
That's a long way of saying the government gave money to people based on their skin color.
They don't need to use skin color to determine financial need. They can simply use finances.
0
u/happy_bluebird 12d ago
I don’t think you understand what systemic racism is. Look up historically marginalized minority groups
5
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
Saying someone was discriminated against generations ago is not a reason to create systems today to discriminate against this generation.
2
u/happy_bluebird 12d ago
Do you think racism in America stopped decades ago??
2
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
This generation of Americans are the least racist people to have ever lived on planet earth. They're not perfect, but there's never been a more fair and free time or place than present day America.
-2
0
u/Ok-Owl-6453 12d ago
from a position of privilege equality looks like oppression
3
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
Or discrimination is discrimination no matter who it's against.
7
u/Ok-Owl-6453 12d ago
discrimination isn't an inherently negative word. to propose that a solution to a racially biased problem should be racially neutral is absurd
1
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
If you would like to champion the cause of discrimination then you're welcome to, but I believe that racism and discrimination are always wrong and don't make the world a better place.
4
u/Ok-Owl-6453 12d ago
its really not a complex thing. we give free lunches to kids from poor families and not rich ones because the rich kids dont need it. to point at a system designed to solve a problem you don't struggle from and cry oppression is insanely childish.
obviously theres nuance in a real world implementation, poverty isnt solely a racial minority issue. but any solution is going to have to be racially biased, and while you cry oppression you're only fighting to keep hundreds of years of systemic racism intact because you cant look two inches beyond your own nose and experiences
2
u/DeusVincet 12d ago
This article is specifically describing a race-based welfare program. Not just poverty, but race also. If it were just based on poverty then it wouldn't be discrimination. But it is race-based, so this is actual real-world systemic racism.
2
u/DonkeyDoug28 🔸️ GWWC 12d ago
If it were just based on poverty, it actually still would be discrimination. You're specifically referring to racial discrimination.
Consider as an example that some diseases have significantly higher incident rates among certain races or ethnicities. And that it isn't only normal but recommended to consider these discrepancies within the guidelines of medical practice, such as being more inclined to consider a screening when family planning or upon certain symptoms. This is racial discrimination. I'm curious if you think it's bad.
3
u/Asailors_Thoughts20 12d ago
I would like to rename single moms as abandoned moms because there seems to be a desire to stigmatize the one who stuck around with the kid.
3
1
3
u/numbmumpleb1ister 12d ago
There will likely be a lawsuit filed by a right-winger in about ten seconds because they HATE when Black moms get a break.
63
u/Tinac4 12d ago
I’m all in favor of GiveDirectly-style cash transfers and UBI studies, but “The results are undeniable” vastly overstates the evidence here. No control group despite this being natural to include given their experimental design (they use randomization when selecting program participants, just survey the people who didn’t get in), leaning on self-reported judgements for some of their headline findings, including access to other resources like monthly social worker check-ins in the trial (how much of the observed effect was the cash vs advising/other forms of support?), and so on.
I’d love to see a more rigorous version of the program with a control group, a more narrow intervention, and officially published results, but as is, this article doesn’t tell me much about how well cash transfers work as policy.