The NY Times article’s framing (about homeless “being denied assistance”) is potentially distortionary: are the people who do not receive assistance people who otherwise would have received assistance? If so, what is the money that would have been used to assist them being used for?
People often object to randomized controlled trials on humans on the grounds that it seems inhumane to deny people potentially useful assistance. But even ignoring potentially positive long term consequences, such a framing ignores the fact that there’s a short term opportunity cost to granting assistance to everyone; the money saved by giving it to only half of the people can be used for other social programs.
According to the city, 5,500 households receive full Homebase help each year, and an additional 1,500 are denied case management and rental assistance because money runs out.
If it’s going to happen anyway:
Ms. Almodovar said she was told when she sought help from Homebase that in order to apply, she had to enter a lottery that could result in her being denied assistance.
Thanks for pointing this out.
The NY Times article’s framing (about homeless “being denied assistance”) is potentially distortionary: are the people who do not receive assistance people who otherwise would have received assistance? If so, what is the money that would have been used to assist them being used for?
People often object to randomized controlled trials on humans on the grounds that it seems inhumane to deny people potentially useful assistance. But even ignoring potentially positive long term consequences, such a framing ignores the fact that there’s a short term opportunity cost to granting assistance to everyone; the money saved by giving it to only half of the people can be used for other social programs.
If it’s going to happen anyway:
However:
which is the only point at which one can object.