This debate argues that social policy should not be judged only by narrow, measurable human‑capital endpoints but also by whether it enables social participation and reduces class alienation. Bruenig invokes a 1969 commission to re-center dignity and belonging, while Piper updates toward targeted cash where evidence is strongest.
— It challenges the dominance of RCT‑driven ROI logic in welfare design and urges a redefinition of success that includes social integration and dignity.
msmash
2025.10.07
50% relevant
The scheme explicitly values non‑market outcomes—time for creative work, reduced stress, and well‑being—mirroring the argument that social policy should be judged beyond narrow human‑capital ROI. Ireland’s evaluation cites these broader metrics to justify a permanent cash program.
Matt Bruenig
2025.08.21
100% relevant
Kelsey Piper’s line 'Giving people money helped less than I thought it would' and her emergency‑only cash stance versus Bruenig’s critique of the Heckman‑style investment frame and his NASW/Poverty Amid Plenty quotes.
← Back to All Ideas