Income

More stories

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Student Loan Plan Squarely Targets Middle Class

    by

    President Biden is offering what independent analysts suggest would be his most targeted assistance yet to middle-class workers — while trying to repair what he casts as a broken bridge to the middle class.WASHINGTON — The big winners from President Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans are not rich graduates of Harvard and Yale, as many critics claim.In fact, the benefits of Mr. Biden’s proposals will largely go to the middle class. According to independent analyses, the people eligible for debt relief are disproportionately young and Black. And they are concentrated in the middle band of Americans by income, defined as households earning between $51,000 and $82,000 a year.The Education Department estimates that nearly 90 percent of affected borrowers earn $75,000 a year or less. Ivy League graduates make up less than 1 percent of federal student borrowers nationwide.Economists say the full scope of Mr. Biden’s plan, including significant changes meant to reduce the payments that millions of borrowers will make for years to come, will help middle-income earners from a wide range of schools and backgrounds.“You’ll have a lot more people who are making zero payments and will have significant loan forgiveness in the future,” said Constantine Yannelis, an economist at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “The relief to borrowers is going to be more targeted to the people who really need it.”Yet despite the appeal of such debt relief, the program still has set off a contentious debate as economists and political figures assess the full consequences of the plan. By some estimates, it will cost as much as a half-trillion dollars over the course of a decade, imposing a future burden on American taxpayers.The plan also could encourage colleges to raise tuition even faster than they already are. Schools could try to persuade borrowers to take on as much debt as possible to cover higher tuition, with the belief that the federal government would help pay it back.Some conservative and Democratic economists also say the program could add significantly to what is already the highest inflation rate in four decades. Evidence suggests those claims are overstated, however, and American shoppers are not likely to see prices spike because of the program.The announcements Mr. Biden made, including both debt forgiveness and a restart next year of loan payments for all borrowers after a nearly three-year pause, will most likely be a wash for consumer prices, a wide range of economists say.“Debt forgiveness that lowers monthly payments is slightly inflationary in isolation,” analysts from Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note on Thursday, “but the resumption of payments is likely to more than offset this.”What to Know About Student Loan Debt ReliefCard 1 of 5What to Know About Student Loan Debt ReliefMany will benefit. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Has the U.S. economy been shrinking? New data will shed light.

    by

    Government data on Thursday will help answer a seemingly simple but surprisingly thorny question: Did the U.S. economy shrink in the second quarter?The Commerce Department’s initial reading showed that gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, fell 0.2 percent (an annual rate of 0.9 percent) in the quarter. It was the second straight contraction, fanning fears that the economy was entering a recession, or perhaps that one had already begun.On Thursday, the government will release revised figures based on more complete data. Forecasters expect the new data to show that G.D.P. shrank by a bit less than previously calculated. (The numbers will be revised again next month.)But another number in the report is arguably more important: the government’s first estimate for gross domestic income in the second quarter.Gross domestic income is gross domestic product’s less-famous twin. In theory, the two indicators measure the same thing, economic output, from opposite sides of the ledger: One person’s spending is someone else’s income.In practice, though, the two indicators can diverge because the government can’t measure the economy perfectly. And recently, they have diverged considerably. In the first quarter, gross domestic product fell, while gross domestic income rose. The divergence matters because both numbers can’t be right — and some economists believe the figure on income is likely to be closer to the mark, because the government collects more detailed data on income. If they are right, and if the income numbers continue to look stronger, it would suggest that the economy kept growing in the first half of the year. That would ease concerns about a recession. More

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Income and Spending Rose Less Than Prices in May

    by

    Americans’ income and spending failed to keep pace with rising prices in May, the latest sign that the fastest inflation in a generation is chipping away at the bedrock of the economic recovery.Consumer spending, adjusted for inflation, fell for the first time this year, declining 0.4 percent from April, the Commerce Department said Thursday. In addition, spending rose more slowly in the first four months of the year than previously reported, the government said, and after-tax income, adjusted for inflation, fell slightly.The report offered new evidence that the U.S. economy hangs in a delicate balance as the Federal Reserve tries to bring inflation under control. Policymakers want to cool off consumer demand for goods and services, which has outstripped supply, driving up prices. But if the central bank chokes off demand aggressively when prices are already crimping consumption, it could cause a recession.Consumers have hardly stopped spending. Overall demand remains strong, particularly for vacation travel, restaurant meals and other services that many families avoided earlier in the pandemic.Still, several forecasters said Thursday that they now believed U.S. gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, shrank in the second quarter. That would be the second consecutive decline — a common, though unofficial, definition of a recession. Most economists say the United States has not yet entered a recession under the more formal definition, which takes into account a variety of economic indicators, but they say the risks are growing.The data released Thursday did hint at some potential moderation in inflation. The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, which the Fed officially targets when it aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time, climbed 6.3 percent from a year earlier, matching the April increase. From a month earlier, it picked up 0.6 percent, a rapid pace as gas prices rose.But the core price index, which strips out volatile food and fuel prices, climbed 4.7 percent over the past year, down slightly from 4.9 percent in the prior reading. That core measure picked up by 0.3 percent from April, roughly matching the previous few months.Policymakers “are probably quietly sitting there and feeling a bit relieved” that core price increases have been moderating, said Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. But inflation remains very high, its outlook hinges on variables like the war in Ukraine, and the latest data is unlikely to lead the Fed to change course.“Now is not the time to declare even the hint of potential victory,” Mr. Shepherdson said.Inflation is taking a toll on consumers’ finances, and their economic outlook. Fifty-two percent of American adults say they are worse off financially than they were a year ago, according to a survey for The New York Times conducted June 13-19 by the online research platform Momentive. Ninety-two percent say they are concerned about inflation, including 70 percent who say they are “very concerned.”A line for a sale in New York. Because of inflation, Americans are spending more but getting less.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesUntil recently, there was little sign that consumers’ dour mood was affecting their spending much. But that may be starting to change. Consumer spending, not adjusted for inflation, rose 0.2 percent in May, the weakest gain this year, and spending on goods, where price increases have been fastest, fell.In other areas, consumers are spending more but getting less: Households bought almost exactly the same amount of gasoline in May as in April, for example, but paid 4 percent more for it.Tim Trull put $35 worth of gas in his truck one recent Friday, and was on empty again after a weekend trip to visit his parents 30 miles away. So he is looking for other places to cut back. Trips to the grocery store have become a dull routine: bread, cheese, eggs, milk, whatever lunch meat is on sale. Mr. Trull said he no longer even walked down the meat aisle.“I like my Raisin Bran, but I can’t even buy Raisin Bran,” he said. “Raisin Bran’s almost $7 a box right now.”Mr. Trull, 51, got a 50-cent-an-hour raise at Christmas, but inflation has more than wiped that out — especially because the furniture plant where he works in Hickory, N.C., has begun cutting back on overtime. Now, with talk of a recession, he is worried about losing his job.“I just have some bad feelings that eventually it’ll peter off and they’ll start laying people off again,” he said. “Who’s going to buy furniture when you’re deciding gas, food or a new love seat?”Stories like Mr. Trull’s highlight the risk facing the economy if the job market slows. Despite the dip in May, Americans’ income, in the aggregate, has mostly kept up with inflation thanks to rising wages and strong job growth.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Covid, inflation and a loss of aid crimped American incomes in January.

    by

    Soaring coronavirus caseloads, rising prices and a falloff in government aid combined to take a bite out of Americans’ incomes in January.After-tax income rose just 0.1 percent last month, the Commerce Department said Friday. That was the slowest growth since June. Adjusted for inflation, after-tax income fell 0.5 percent, the sixth consecutive monthly decline.Incomes were affected by the spike in coronavirus cases associated with the Omicron variant, which kept millions of employees home from work in January. Earlier data from the Labor Department showed that total hours worked fell early in the month, despite continued job growth.January was also the first month since mid-2021 in which parents did not receive payments under the expanded child tax credit, which expired at the end of last year. Income from government programs fell 1.3 percent last month.Yet despite the crimp in incomes, Americans continued to spend. Consumer spending rose 2.1 percent in January. Even after adjusting for inflation, spending was up 1.5 percent.Spending on goods was particularly strong, continuing the pandemic-era pattern that has put pressure on global supply chains. But spending on services also rose modestly, suggesting that the Omicron wave did not derail the recovery on the services side of the economy. More

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Pandemic savings boom may be ending, and many feel short of cash.

    by

    Americans have collectively saved trillions of dollars since the pandemic began. But they aren’t exactly feeling flush with cash — and now there are signs that the pandemic-era savings boom may be coming to an end.Savings soared during the first year of the pandemic as the federal government handed out hundreds of billions of dollars in unemployment benefits, economic impact payments and other forms of aid, and as households spent less on vacations, concerts and other in-person activities. The saving rate — the share of after-tax income that is invested or saved, rather than spent — topped 33 percent in April 2020 and remained elevated through late last year.But the saving rate fell in the second half of 2021, returning roughly to its prepandemic level of about 7 percent last fall. In January, Americans saved just 6.4 percent of their after-tax income, the lowest monthly saving rate since 2013, as millions of employees lost hours because of the latest coronavirus wave, and this time the government did not step in to provide aid.Still, Americans in the aggregate have roughly $2.7 trillion in “excess savings” accumulated since the pandemic began, by some estimates.In a survey conducted this month for The New York Times by the online research firm Momentive, however, only 16 percent of respondents said they had more in savings than before the pandemic, and 50 percent said they had less. Among lower-income households, just 9 percent said they had more in savings, and 64 percent said they had less.The government measures the total savings of all households, which can be skewed by a relative handful of rich people. And it uses a broader definition of “saving” than most laypeople probably do — paying down debt, for example, is considered “saving” in official government statistics.But those factors can’t fully explain the disconnect. According to anonymous banking records reviewed by researchers at the JPMorgan Chase Institute, for example, median checking account balances remained significantly above their prepandemic level at the end of December, though they have fallen since their peak last spring. And while high-income households had far more money in their accounts on average, low-income households had experienced a bigger jump in savings on a percentage basis.“We’re still seeing this picture that cash balances are still elevated in general, and they’re elevated more so for low-income families,” said Fiona Greig, co-president of the institute.Dr. Greig said it was possible that balances had shrunk further since December, when monthly child tax credit payments ended. Brianna Richardson, a research scientist at Momentive, said it was also possible that survey respondents were misremembering how much money they had before the pandemic, perhaps because their savings grew so much earlier in the crisis. Inflation could also be affecting people’s assessments, because the same dollar amount in savings won’t go as far as prices rise. More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Far From the Big City, New Economic Life

    by

    GAINESBORO, Tenn. — There is not much to suggest prosperity in Gainesboro, a hamlet of 920 in Tennessee’s Upper Cumberland region. Almost one in seven homes are vacant. One-quarter of the population lives in poverty.Yet from his office in the Jackson County Courthouse, County Mayor Randy Heady outlines a picture of plenty: Revenue from sales and occupancy taxes almost doubled in the last fiscal year, and he expects another 20 percent increase this year. “Sales tax is up, occupancy tax is up, liquor tax is up,” he said.And outsiders are flocking into the county. “They are coming from other states, trying to get away from the high taxes,” Mr. Heady said. “People are moving from Arizona and California, New York and New Jersey.”Economists have long voiced fear that rural places like this are being left behind. The last of the textile businesses, once an economic mainstay, departed in the 1990s. Jackson County and several other counties in the Upper Cumberland are considered “distressed” or “at risk” by the Appalachian Regional Commission. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    From Liverpool to London, Inflation Means Tighter Wallets and Colder Homes

    by

    LIVERPOOL, England — For the past few weeks Vincent Snowball hasn’t needed to use the weekly food bank that runs out of a church near Liverpool’s city center. But he’s still there each Tuesday, laying out fabric swatches to advertise his upholstering services, and to socialize with the people he grew up with.Like many people across Britain, Mr. Snowball, 61, has been forced to cut down his already modest expenses to stabilize his finances. Prices are rising at their fastest pace in three decades.“I go to Tesco and I get a shock,” he said, referring to Britain’s ubiquitous supermarket chain. The prices there are “troubling,” he said. Instead he shops at Aldi, the rapidly growing chain that claims to be the cheapest supermarket in Britain.Prices are rising steeply in the United States and across Europe, driven by rising energy costs and supply-chain issues triggered by the easing of pandemic rules. But in Britain, there is a fear that sharply escalating heat and electricity bills, combined with food inflation, will push millions more into poverty.The Bank of England on Thursday lifted interest rates for the second time in two months — moving before the Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank. But policymakers acknowledge there is little they can do about the global factors driving inflation.Up and down the country, people are turning their heat down or off, switching to cheaper supermarkets, taking fewer car trips, cutting out takeout and restaurant meals, and abandoning plans for vacations.Because natural gas prices have risen so much, Vincent Snowball rarely turns on his heat, using it mainly for hot water. “I’m very conscious about what I use,” he said.Mary Turner for The New York TimesThursday brought more painful news when the government’s price cap on energy bills was raised by 54 percent, or about 700 pounds ($953) annually, reflecting high global prices for natural gas. The increase will affect 22 million households beginning in April. That same month, a large rise in National Insurance, a payroll tax that finances the National Health Service, among other things, will also take effect, further shrinking take-home pay.Although inflation is expected to peak in April, at 7.25 percent, Bank of England economists say household finances will continue to erode: For the next two years, household incomes after inflation and taxes will be less than the year before, the bank said. This will be the third stretch of time in about a decade that real wages have shrunk in Britain.This period is “somewhat unprecedented because it comes on the back of a very huge Covid shock” and Brexit, said Arnab Bhattacharjee, a professor of economics at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a researcher at Britain’s National Institute of Economic and Social Research.Mr. Snowball’s gas bill has risen, after a surge in natural gas prices in Europe late last year, and so he mostly uses it for hot water. Despite living in the northwest of England, he rarely turns the heating on. “I’m very conscious about what I use,” he said.But there are limits to how much Mr. Snowball can withstand. He receives about £300 ($403) in state support toward his £550 monthly rent and another £213 a month in working tax credits, financial support for people on low incomes. There aren’t any luxuries to cut.Having cup of tea and a chat at the food pantry run by Micah Liverpool, a charity. Since the pandemic began, the number of Britons receiving the main public income benefit has doubled.Mary Turner for The New York Times“There’s millions of people like that,” Mr. Snowball said.Although the British economy has slowly shaken off much of the torpor from the sharp recession brought on by the coronavirus, millions aren’t enjoying the recovery. Since the start of the pandemic, the number of people receiving Universal Credit, the main government income benefit, doubled to six million. Since the peak nearly 11 months ago, it has fallen only to 5.8 million. The number of people using food banks also jumped, according to the Trussell Trust, a nonprofit that provides emergency food packages, and independent groups.A cost-of-living crunch was forewarned last fall but “what came as a surprise this time round was the degree of food price inflation,” Mr. Bhattacharjee said. “This has not happened in the past decade.” In December alone, food and nonalcoholic drink prices rose 1.3 percent, the fastest monthly pace since 2011.For more and more people, it’s impossible to ignore. Katie Jones’s main food shopping trip, which she does twice a month, used to cost up to £80; now it’s more likely to be £100. Ms. Jones, 33, works full time in Liverpool city center at a branch of a national coffee shop chain. She lives across the River Mersey with her partner and their three children where, in December, the energy bills increased from £95 a month to £140.“We no longer have takeaways in the house,” she said. “Partly it was for health reasons, but I also noticed just how much it costs.” And there are fewer date nights with her partner because she can’t push the cost of them out of her head.In Earlsfield, the local food bank has had to cut more expensive food and toiletry items from its packages.Mary Turner for The New York TimesFood inflation is hurting those who are trying to help. Managers of the Earlsfield Foodbank in southwest London recently decided to cut items from their offering — including juice, snacks, cheese and peanut butter — because they are too expensive now. And they will provide fewer toiletries and household items, such as laundry detergent.Each week, the food bank buys a wide variety of fresh vegetables and fruit, and other food, to supplement its donations. In the past few weeks, the cost of supplies has increased worryingly.“That number is going up and isn’t really sustainable throughout the year,” said Charlotte White, the manager.As the cost of purchases rises, so does the list of people seeking help. Last week, eight more people registered with Earlsfield Foodbank, and 71 people received food parcels. In March 2020, they were averaging 25 guests a week, with fewer families and working people.“Families are already at, if not beyond, breaking point,” said Ruth Patrick of the University of York and the lead academic of Covid Realities, a national project in which about 150 low-income parents and care-providers have documented their experiences through the pandemic. “We get a really dominant message coming through about fear and anxiety and worry about how people will get by.”“Probably, I was quite comfortable last year,” said Joanne Barker-Marsh. “Now there is no buffer.” She is considering selling her home, which is becoming less affordable.Mary Turner for The New York TimesThrough the project, Joanne Barker-Marsh, 49, has found some emotional, and at times financial, support. She lives in a two-bedroom house on the outskirts of Manchester with her 12-year-old son Harry, and worries that, with its high ceilings and uncarpeted floors, it is too cold. Understand Rising Gas Prices in the U.S.Card 1 of 5A steady rise. More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Cash Aid to Poor Mothers Increases Brain Activity in Babies, Study Finds

    by

    The research could have policy implications as President Biden pushes to revive his proposal to expand the child tax credit.WASHINGTON — A study that provided poor mothers with cash stipends for the first year of their children’s lives appears to have changed the babies’ brain activity in ways associated with stronger cognitive development, a finding with potential implications for safety net policy.The differences were modest — researchers likened them in statistical magnitude to moving to the 75th position in a line of 100 from the 81st — and it remains to be seen if changes in brain patterns will translate to higher skills, as other research offers reason to expect.Still, evidence that a single year of subsidies could alter something as profound as brain functioning highlights the role that money may play in child development and comes as President Biden is pushing for a much larger program of subsidies for families with children.“This is a big scientific finding,” said Martha J. Farah, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted a review of the study for the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, where it was published on Monday. “It’s proof that just giving the families more money, even a modest amount of more money, leads to better brain development.”The payments will continue until the children are at least 4 years old, and the researchers plan further tests.via Lauren Meyer/Baby’s First YearsAnother researcher, Charles A. Nelson III of Harvard, reacted more cautiously, noting the full effect of the payments — $333 a month — would not be clear until the children took cognitive tests. While the brain patterns documented in the study are often associated with higher cognitive skills, he said, that is not always the case.“It’s potentially a groundbreaking study,” said Dr. Nelson, who served as a consultant to the study. “If I was a policymaker, I’d pay attention to this, but it would be premature of me to pass a bill that gives every family $300 a month.”A temporary federal program of near-universal children’s subsidies — up to $300 a month per child through an expanded child tax credit — expired this month after Mr. Biden failed to unite Democrats behind a large social policy bill that would have extended it. Most Republicans oppose the monthly grants, citing the cost and warning that unconditional aid, which they describe as welfare, discourages parents from working.Sharing some of those concerns, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, effectively blocked the Biden plan, though he has suggested that he might support payments limited to families of modest means and those with jobs. The payments in the research project, called Baby’s First Years, were provided regardless of whether the parents worked.Evidence abounds that poor children on average start school with weaker cognitive skills, and neuroscientists have shown that the differences extend to brain structure and function. But it has not been clear if those differences come directly from the shortage of money or from related factors like parental education or neighborhood influences.The study released on Monday offers evidence that poverty itself holds children back from their earliest moments.“This is the first study to show that money, in and of itself, has a causal impact on brain development,” said Dr. Kimberly G. Noble, a physician and neuroscientist at Teachers College, Columbia University, who helped lead the study.Dr. Noble and colleagues from six universities recruited a thousand mother-infant pairs within days of the babies’ birth and randomly divided the families into two groups. One group received a nominal $20 a month and another received $333.Using electroencephalograms, or EEG tests, to evaluate the children at age 1, the researchers found that those in the high-cash group had more of the fast brain activity other research has linked to cognitive development than those in the low-cash group. The differences were statistically significant by most, but not all, measures and were greatest in parts of the brain most associated with cognitive advancement.The payments will continue until the children are at least 4 years old, and the researchers plan further tests.Researchers are still trying to determine why the money altered brain development. It could have purchased better food or health care; reduced damaging levels of parental stress; or allowed mothers to work less and spend more time with their infants.The question of whether cash aid helps or hurts children is central to social policy. Progressives argue that poor children need an income floor, citing research that shows even brief periods of childhood poverty can lead to lower adult earnings and worse health. Conservatives say unconditional payments erode work and marriage, increasing poverty in the long run.President Bill Clinton changed the Democratic Party’s stance a quarter-century ago by abolishing welfare guarantees and shifting aid toward parents who work. Though child poverty subsequently fell to record lows, the reasons are in dispute, and rising inequality and volatility have revived Democratic support for subsidies.There are a variety of public and private programs underway in the United States to measure the effects of a guaranteed income on poor families, and many other rich countries offer broad children’s allowances without condition.The temporary expansion of the child tax credit, passed last year, offered subsidies to all but the richest parents at a one-year cost of more than $100 billion. Representative Suzan DelBene, Democrat of Washington, said the study strengthened the case for the aid by showing that “investing in our children has incredible long-term benefits.”Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine, who was one of nine co-authors of the study, said he hoped the research would refocus the debate, which he said was “almost always about the risks that parents might work less or use the money frivolously” toward the question of “whether the payments are good for kids.”But a conservative welfare critic, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, argued that the study vindicated stringent welfare laws, which he credited with reducing child poverty by incentivizing parents to find and keep jobs.“If you actually believe that child poverty has these negative effects, then you should not be trying to restore unconditional cash aid,” he said. “You certainly don’t want to go in the business of reversing welfare reform.”Economists and psychologists once dominated studies of poor children, but neuroscientists have increasingly weighed in. Over the past 15 years, they have shown that poor children on average differ from others in brain structure and function, with the disparities greatest for the poorest children.EEG tests have found differences in electrical activity. Magnetic resonance imaging, or M.R.I.s, have shown differences in the size of the cerebral cortex, especially in areas linked to language development and executive functioning. One study found differences in cerebral cortex size may account for up to 44 percent of the achievement gap between high- and low-income adolescents.As with any group differences, averages do not predict individual outcomes. Many other factors beyond brain features influence cognitive development, and many low-income children thrive.To test the effects of cash aid, Baby’s First Years raised more than $20 million from public and private sources, including the National Institutes of Health. Researchers recruited participants from maternity wards in New York City, Minneapolis-St. Paul and the metro areas of New Orleans and Omaha, randomly assigning them to the high- and low-payment groups.The families had average incomes of about $20,000, below the official poverty line for an average-sized family, meaning those who received $333 a month experienced an income gain of approximately 20 percent. The mothers were told they could use the money as they wished.The researchers predicted that children in the high-cash group would show more high-frequency brain activity than those in the low-cash group and less low-frequency activity. Previous research has found such patterns are associated with higher cognitive skills and fewer attention problems.The results largely conformed to predictions, with the children who received the higher grants showing more of the fast brain activity (though no differences in slow brain activity).The scientists wrote that the money “appeared” to cause the changed brain patterns, though they were less equivocal in interviews. Dr. Noble said the evidence, though strong, was not “airtight,” in part because the coronavirus pandemic allowed them to test only 435 infants.Researchers are still trying to determine why the money altered brain development. It could have purchased better food or health care.Cody O’Loughlin for The New York TimesJohn Gabrieli, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the evidence that cash aid altered brain activity was persuasive and “very important scientifically,” though he added, “We want to see if these differences result in improvements to cognition.”While the size of the recorded differences are modest (about a fifth of a standard deviation), the researchers said they were comparable to those produced by the average school experiment, like giving children tutors. While those services are often hard to administer, they added, cash can be distributed on a mass scale.Katherine Magnuson, a co-author of the study who directs the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, said she was surprised that only a year’s worth of aid made a difference. “It shows how sensitive the brain is to environments,” she said.Critics of unrestricted cash aid often warn that families will waste or abuse it. But Lisa A. Gennetian, an economist at Duke University and a co-author of the study, said the results indicated that parents could be trusted to make good decisions. “For one family, that might be food; for another, it might be housing,” she said. Additional research will examine how parents spent the money.Unlike last year’s expansion of the child tax credit, the experimental payments were narrowly targeted to poor newborns, which would make it less costly to replicate and possibly ease conservatives’ concerns about deterring work.One critic of the broader payments, Angela Rachidi of the American Enterprise Institute, said the study suggested the importance of infant bonding. Should the initial results hold up, she said, they could lend support for policies that help mothers spend more time with their newborns, including paid leave.But any cash aid, she said, should be “targeted to those with low incomes, time limited, and not erode work incentives in the long term.” More