@codinghorror I think I don't understand the "means testing industrial complex" part...
Also, GiveDirectly will probably not do anything for public infrastructure... But it's a very nice start!
Discussion
Loading...
@codinghorror I've had a friend who's been stuck in poverty for a while. He's been living in hotels for years just trying to make enough money to survive the day. Is this something you apply for?
@too_little_caffeine yes, provided there is a GMI study in his county. That's what we're trying to encourage. We need billionaires to step up.
Your suggestion is largely correct: yes, the RGMII website does address many of the core philosophical and structural criticisms raised by experts, primarily by reframing the initiative as a specific kind of research project rather than a permanent solution or a "tech-savior" mission.
Here is how the text on rgmii.org directly responds to the most common expert concerns:
Criticism: "Silicon Valley Savior" / Top-Down Approach
How the Site Addresses It: The website explicitly states that they "engage with existing local rural community stakeholders — veterans organizations, communities of faith, local businesses, and neighborhood groups."
The Rebuttal: By listing these specific local partners, RGMII signals that it is not just "dropping cash from a helicopter" (or San Francisco) but is working through the trusted networks that already exist in these counties.
Criticism: Sustainability & "Pilot Fatigue"
How the Site Addresses It: The site clarifies that the goal is not to fund these counties forever with private money, but to "eventually become policy."
The Rebuttal: It frames the $50 million not as a permanent welfare replacement, but as "seed funding" to "create more data and more history" that can be used to pass federal or state legislation. This directly counters the critique that private philanthropy is unsustainable by admitting it is a means to a legislative end.
Criticism: Lack of Evidence / "We Already Know Cash Works"
How the Site Addresses It: The initiative partners with OpenResearch and GiveDirectly, organizations that have conducted some of the largest GMI studies in history.
The Rebuttal: By emphasizing "sound, evidence-based scientific data," the site argues that while advocates know cash works, the political system still needs more rigorous, specific data from rural America to move forward.
Criticism: The "Benefits Cliff" (Losing Medicaid/SNAP)
How the Site Addresses It: While the homepage does not explicitly detail "hold harmless" agreements or waivers, it mentions partnering with GiveDirectly.
The Rebuttal: GiveDirectly is the industry standard for managing these payments. Their involvement implies a professionalized approach to benefits counseling, ensuring recipients are informed about how the cash might interact with other aid, even if the site doesn't host a complex "legal waiver" FAQ publicly.
Summary
The experts critiquing the plan often focus on the technical difficulties of implementation (waivers, cliffs, infrastructure). The website, however, addresses the strategic purpose: to build a political case for rural investment. If you read the site, the project is clearly defined as a data-gathering operation to change laws, not just a charity project to alleviate temporary suffering.
@codinghorror Does rural America represent the country’s racial makeup, or is it significantly more White (by 😖 than the country at large? I don’t know the answer to that but it seems like a good question to ask.
@Kimota94 are you sure this is the correct question? Shouldn't it be "what is the racial makeup of the poor in rural areas?" It's the poor we are helping, in what I thought was a rather obvious choice, it just makes sense to me to help the people that need the most help first?
@Kimota94 if you HAD asked "what is the racial makeup of the poor in rural areas" here's what you would have found:
Using USDA ERS estimates for rural = nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) counties and the official poverty measure:
Racial makeup of people in poverty in rural America 2018:
White: 73.4%
Black: 14.9%
All other races: 11.7%
Overall rural population:
White: 84.8%
Black: 7.6%
All other races: 7.6%
@codinghorror Incredibly great project! Lately I thought about selling "alternative government" to very rich people: they can invest in a company which solves the problem the government is supposed to solve, but cannot solve anymore, because the rich people keep all their money.
I'm not sure about the right pitch yet :)
@ligasser This is sort of like that, in that the "means testing industrial complex" is costing the government vast sums. GiveDirectly can do this for 90+ cent on the dollar efficiency. The government, weighed down by .. well, a variety of things, but mainly that.. does no better than 70 cents on the dollar.
@codinghorror I think I don't understand the "means testing industrial complex" part...
Also, GiveDirectly will probably not do anything for public infrastructure... But it's a very nice start!
@ligasser check this out my good friend! https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116034726379307010
@codinghorror Funny how the big "solution" is "more cash", when there is already too much cash in the system. I suppose if the real solution—progressive taxation—is off the table, only absurd alternatives remain.
When it is demonstrated that this approach works, progressive taxation is the means with which it can be achieved in relation to the desired change in legislative approach.
The interesting bit thus isn't "does this work", but "how does one make the evidence of 'does this work' indisputable when viewed through the lens of shaping policy, when faced with a large cohort of rich libertarians hell bent on destroying civil society in favour of a feudal society owned by them."
@ermo @8r3n7 well, wake me up when any US billionaire pays their fair share of taxes. If you know to make this happen here in the USA, please do share with all of us how this can be made to happen with step-by-step specifics, please? I mean, I completely agree we COULD COMPLETELY ELIMATE US POVERTY IN A SINGLE DAY (at the 100% FPL level) if the billionaires paid their fair share of taxes. I wonder why that isn't happening? Seems easy, right?
@codinghorror Beats me. I have already suggested that one start with getting rid of Citizens United and that the FCC Fairness clause be reinstated.
But your point about the U.S. Constitution being practically un-amendable does kind of suggest that reforms that do make it amendable need to be passed.
How one does that is something you probably know better than me.
It would also be nice if states could agree to instate representative democracy for House and Senate seats, but...
@codinghorror @ermo I know; I’m not against what you’re doing. I’m not against food banks, either. But these are stopgaps: running to stand still (at best) solutions. Both involve moving money through the system one more time, giving the oligarchs that many more opportunities to skim their take.
I think a more agile approach might be required. Driven by policy. Which necessitates determining which policy changes will be accepted. Granted, it changes from a cold war for buying power into a cold war over the narrative. But if the story doesn’t change, then in the end, nothing changes.
I wish you the best of luck. I still feel we are trapped in absurdity.
@8r3n7 @ermo literally ZERO policy change, unless it's something ridiculous like adding lead back into gasoline, is happening for the forseeable future under the current regime in the USA. And that's assuming we can stop them. I'm honestly not sure. Wait until states like CA and NY stop paying federal taxes... that's probably coming. https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116056668112430977
@codinghorror @ermo What I really believe is that we need to build a new, non-profit economy, inside the still-breathing carcass of the existing one.
That means new companies that compete with existing ones, but not fairly—by changing the narrative at the same time, and proving that they are better, even if they can’t always beat monopolists on price. It means training a new cohort of entrepreneurs and business leaders, to do the work without demanding an absurdly large share of the take.
It means a new agreement between producers and consumers, between owners and employees. Nothing changes if the basic behaviours don’t change; they will change willingly, or not at all.
New leaders have to be inspired to consider everyone’s fate, not only their own. Bleed the old billionaires dry.
@codinghorror I just want to point out that I think your choice of "putting your money where your mouth" is re. UBI is commendable.
I hope it makes a big difference in terms of becoming an indisputable data point.
@ermo @8r3n7 UBI is not commendable. Everyone deserves universal healthcare... but when it comes to "giving people cash" the well off, middle-class, and exorbitantly wealthy DO NOT DESERVE MORE CASH in the same way we all deserve healthcare. They have all the cash need, and far, FAR more. You do realize we are solidly into the second gilded age, right? More money in the hands of fewer people than any other in recorded history. Stop talking about universal and basic when it comes to cash. Talk about guaranteeing a minimum floor to keep it fair for everyone, like it's supposed to be.
@codinghorror I meant to write GMI (what you are supporting).
I have edited my post to reflect this.