4 ms·

The idea of handing out cash has become popular lately but I'm skeptical. Does anyone have an argument why handing them cash would be better than paying for ne

The idea of handing out cash has become popular lately but I'm skeptical. Does anyone have an argument why handing them cash would be better than paying for needs? It seems to me (less restrictive) housing subsidies, food stamps for everyone and child healthcare would help the poor a lot more than cash. My argument is that paying basic needs will reduce stress level and help them deal with the problems. Not only does it make more intuitive sense, but when I've helped troubled family members, this has worked much better in practice than giving cash. The article, which seems to support giving out cash, admits they don't make good decisions. A more generous assumption is that they spend it on their needs but spend all their will power doing so, leaving less willpower to address other problems. Note: I'm in favor of helping the poor and I'm not bashing them. I think the stress of poverty partly causes them to make bad decisions and I think people have value even if they make bad decisions. Also note: Please don't just downvote me if my argument isn't consistent with your ideology. That's lame (100% chance I get downvotes anyway). Rather, provide an argument if you disagree.

datashovel 11y ago
From what I understand the primary reason people seem to think giving money instead of services is better is due to overhead. If you need to monitor how the money is distributed and how the money is spent, then that requires entire branches of government to make this possible. Instead if you're just giving money you are giving those in need more, which more than likely will help them considerably more than if you're paying a ton of overhead in salaries and buildings and bureaucracy just so you can distribute money to those in need.
- sheensleeves 11y ago
  I think the appeal of basic income to HN crowd is that is a solution that an engineer would like. Very neat. Some people can't manage their money though, however complicated that is.
  - thedevil 11y ago
    Yeah, I would guess that the huge overhead is still more efficient given how poorly some would use the money, but that's just a hunch. I have nothing to back that up (and would love any argument on either side of that)
    - datashovel 11y ago
      Here's a link to an article that summarizes one of the more interesting stories. http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183 http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-givin... About 1/2 way through it says: "In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker."
  - datashovel 11y ago
    Another reason, I think, is a general belief that human nature is mostly good and if given a chance most people will do what's right with the money. There would be problems sure, but I would say use that money (that would've been spent at the front of the pipeline) and find the problems in an audit process at the backend of the pipeline. Don't withhold money because people are irresponsible. Use part of the funds to audit, and then also to "recuperate / rehabilitate" those who have problems. I can't say for certain, but I've read many stories that lead me to believe that it's more expensive for a state to withhold basic things like food and shelter than it is to simply give it to them. When all is said and done, those who turn out to be problems and never figure out how to turn their lives around, even after given every chance to fix their lives and become productive members of society, simply end up dying knowing they lived an unproductive life. I think in the modern world that will turn out to be enough of a penalty / incentive. EDIT: I think we can all agree those who turn out to be problems, even with Basic or Minimum Guaranteed Income, will show up on the radar. Won't be hard. They'll be in prison, regularly in hospital overdosed on drugs, etc. So I doubt the backend audit would be more than a fraction of putting that cost at the front.
- thedevil 11y ago
  Awesome, a real counter argument. I can't believe that worked. Hacker news rocks. Edit: Seriously I'm shocked. I wrote in hopes of getting a good response and figured this was the best chance, but the political environment lately is so polarized I expected the worst in any comment section anywhere.

datashovel 11y ago

From what I understand the primary reason people seem to think giving money instead of services is better is due to overhead. If you need to monitor how the money is distributed and how the money is spent, then that requires entire branches of government to make this possible. Instead if you're just giving money you are giving those in need more, which more than likely will help them considerably more than if you're paying a ton of overhead in salaries and buildings and bureaucracy just so you can distribute money to those in need.

sheensleeves 11y ago
I think the appeal of basic income to HN crowd is that is a solution that an engineer would like. Very neat. Some people can't manage their money though, however complicated that is.
- thedevil 11y ago
  Yeah, I would guess that the huge overhead is still more efficient given how poorly some would use the money, but that's just a hunch. I have nothing to back that up (and would love any argument on either side of that)
  - datashovel 11y ago
    Here's a link to an article that summarizes one of the more interesting stories. http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183 http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-givin... About 1/2 way through it says: "In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker."
- datashovel 11y ago
  Another reason, I think, is a general belief that human nature is mostly good and if given a chance most people will do what's right with the money. There would be problems sure, but I would say use that money (that would've been spent at the front of the pipeline) and find the problems in an audit process at the backend of the pipeline. Don't withhold money because people are irresponsible. Use part of the funds to audit, and then also to "recuperate / rehabilitate" those who have problems. I can't say for certain, but I've read many stories that lead me to believe that it's more expensive for a state to withhold basic things like food and shelter than it is to simply give it to them. When all is said and done, those who turn out to be problems and never figure out how to turn their lives around, even after given every chance to fix their lives and become productive members of society, simply end up dying knowing they lived an unproductive life. I think in the modern world that will turn out to be enough of a penalty / incentive. EDIT: I think we can all agree those who turn out to be problems, even with Basic or Minimum Guaranteed Income, will show up on the radar. Won't be hard. They'll be in prison, regularly in hospital overdosed on drugs, etc. So I doubt the backend audit would be more than a fraction of putting that cost at the front.
thedevil 11y ago
Awesome, a real counter argument. I can't believe that worked. Hacker news rocks. Edit: Seriously I'm shocked. I wrote in hopes of getting a good response and figured this was the best chance, but the political environment lately is so polarized I expected the worst in any comment section anywhere.