I'm not entirely sure what the last part means. If "we should identify the kids in every school district risk of dropping out and from poor households" means aid for poor households that's one thing. But most other at-risk identifiers seem like they would encourage poor behaviors. At the very least "Oakland is paying money to kids who skip school" is bad politics. Or maybe there are some other non-behavioral predictors that could be a good bases for aid and I'm just missing them.
If it's based in some way on behaviors, I'm also curious when it would stop - do you get $50 a week for the next 7 years or do you go off and on aid depending on your attendance and grades, etc?
I don't see a path in the short term to try to get to commonsensical though. Political polarization is generally bad for actually solving... well... any problem. But "short but certain punishment for crimes" is not a rallying cry for anyone, even though research has shown this to almost be a Pareto optimal solution for everyone, whether you care most about the fiscal, humanitarian, equity, or whatever impacts. As such, we don't see this being promoted by anyone, especially within general consumption news media or social media... which also makes it hard for politicians to take up the cause.
I'm not entirely sure what the last part means. If "we should identify the kids in every school district risk of dropping out and from poor households" means aid for poor households that's one thing. But most other at-risk identifiers seem like they would encourage poor behaviors. At the very least "Oakland is paying money to kids who skip school" is bad politics. Or maybe there are some other non-behavioral predictors that could be a good bases for aid and I'm just missing them.
If it's based in some way on behaviors, I'm also curious when it would stop - do you get $50 a week for the next 7 years or do you go off and on aid depending on your attendance and grades, etc?
As always, informative and commonsensical.
I don't see a path in the short term to try to get to commonsensical though. Political polarization is generally bad for actually solving... well... any problem. But "short but certain punishment for crimes" is not a rallying cry for anyone, even though research has shown this to almost be a Pareto optimal solution for everyone, whether you care most about the fiscal, humanitarian, equity, or whatever impacts. As such, we don't see this being promoted by anyone, especially within general consumption news media or social media... which also makes it hard for politicians to take up the cause.