The largest chunk of federal "cash transfers" is not welfare; it is retirement and disability spending. The rural population is significantly older than the urban population.
Bear in mind that rural poverty rates (~17%) remain persistently higher than urban poverty rates (~12%).
And in a high-wage urban area (e.g., Seattle), a $20,000 Social Security check is a tiny fraction of the local per capita income. In a rural area, that same $20k check represents a much larger slice of the total economic pie. This makes the reliance on government cash appear massive -- ~29% rural and ~17% urban -- even if the absolute dollar difference is more modest.
Also, metro areas receive MASSIVE amounts of federal contracting money (defense, science, universities, federal employees), whereas rural areas get virtually none.
Mostly this is caused by the "graying" of rural America and the persistent lack of high-wage employment in rural areas.
I'd like to add that I feel quite strongly "Universal" and "Basic" are hugely probematic words. You end up with massive digressions immediately.. case in point.. look at this AMA for proof:
How much of that MASSIVE SET OF DIGRESSIONS (which Neil handled like a gentleman, because he's a truly nice person) could have been avoided by not using "universal" (like, every atom in the universe? every person in the world? every mammal in this country) and "basic" (what is basic, even?) ..
As for a "does this person actually live in this area" criteria, I have a hard time seeing that single thing alone as "bureaucracy" -- it's quite common.
with GMI the conditions are very simple math: what percent of the poverty line are you within?
I agree that adding a lot of conditions is part of the problem, but "help those who most need it first" seems like a very logical primary (and perhaps only) condition.
Yes, within 8 months we went from "how do we make systemic change" to actually doing it. This is proof. And the GMI topics are on that dedicated site, not Coding Horror.
"Why rural Americans? The same amount of cash will go a lot further and likely be more effective in rural areas of other countries."
Again, the data goes into an open global repository that DOES help the entire world. We will all learn from it. When our house is currently on fire, I think we should deal with that first.
It's also "yes, and". Gates Foundation (among others) is working on other areas of the world and has vastly more money.
I strongly recommend you check out the book "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America". People -- in this country, not in the third world -- are regularly selling their blood so they can afford to eat. https://www.google.com/search?q=%242+a+day%3A+living+on+almo...
What difference does it make if the government is "capable" when it's not happening in practice?
A lot of areas in this country resemble the third world more than the rest of America. Don't take it from me. Try the book reference I provided and its citations.
it's "yes, and". Help those people who are selling their blood to buy happy meals first. I am not exaggerating. I wish I was. Check out the book "$2.00 a day: Living On Almost Nothing in America" for so much evidence. Disclaimer: I know the author now. Because I have to. It's related to the work we're doing. https://www.google.com/search?q=%242+a+day%3A+living+on+almo...
Beyond that, maybe SF really is too expensive a place to live in.
I think too many people (especially here, but it's understandable) think poverty just is "barely making rent".
Oh, that's the rich poverty! There are so many layers below that where it ceases to be poverty and starts being something else entirely, an entire alternate system of bartering and deals and staying alive day to day.
100% do things locally. If there is a food bank in your area, support it heavily. That's the absolute base of the hierarchy of needs. For example, in that blog post, expand the immediate donations. Note $100k to Alameda Food Bank, where my partner Betsy regularly volunteers.
Bear in mind that rural poverty rates (~17%) remain persistently higher than urban poverty rates (~12%).
And in a high-wage urban area (e.g., Seattle), a $20,000 Social Security check is a tiny fraction of the local per capita income. In a rural area, that same $20k check represents a much larger slice of the total economic pie. This makes the reliance on government cash appear massive -- ~29% rural and ~17% urban -- even if the absolute dollar difference is more modest.
Also, metro areas receive MASSIVE amounts of federal contracting money (defense, science, universities, federal employees), whereas rural areas get virtually none.
Mostly this is caused by the "graying" of rural America and the persistent lack of high-wage employment in rural areas.