9 ms·

LA County's guaranteed income program to give some foster youth $1k per month

47 points by lxm 3y ago

shortrounddev2 3y ago
If it's means tested, what about this is guaranteed income? This just sounds like welfare
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Depends on whether your definition of "guaranteed income" is "unconditional payment" or "guarantee that your income will never fall below x amount". IMO, the former does not make sense while the latter is more sensible and indeed a type of welfare.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  It's a UBI that interfaces with our current system and limited budgets.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    I thought the U in UBI stands for Universal?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  “guaranteed income” or “guaranteed minimum income” is not “unconditional basic income”; the former is often a name for a means-tested program tha provides an income floor, but not necessarily a boost beyond that floor. OTOH, nothing in the article or the linked article I checked suggests this is means tested, its background tested (currebt foster youth originally, former foster youth for the new expansion), self-selected (application required), and randomly selected from the eligible applicants.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Some programs are means tested at the beginning, and then you "can't lose it" - iirc Calgrants are/were this way. If you qualified, you qualified, and then you wouldn't lose it during your 4 year college stay even if your situation changed. Doing these types of programs can avoid the "welfare gap" where there's a period where earning more to try to get off welfare actually hurts you - this will occur if you're getting a $X benefit that goes to $0 when your income increases above a certain level. Much better to have it taper off in such a way that you never lose more than $1 for earning another dollar.
skymast 3y ago
[dead]
giantg2 3y ago
Former foster youth 21-23 in age. I was initially confused what foster youth would be spending $1k/mo on.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  wouldn't it make more sense to start this on the day they age out of the system?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    21 is when kids age out in CA.
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      aha, thanks for the context.
cenobyte 3y ago
As a programmer from a bad family, group home, foster family background myself. $1k per month without working or struggle would have destroyed me. Imagine all the weed and whiskey I could have bought for that? (Which is what I would have done) Instead of working I would have been lazy. Homelessness and hunger was my major motivator and made me work in fast food while dreaming of computers. The lack of struggle would have crippled my drive.
- smcg 3y ago
  That was then this is now. The recipients are 21-23. They need a place to live. 1000/month barely covers rent now.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  25% of foster kids end up homeless after aging out of the system. Direct cash transfer value is mostly proven from a social work/benefit perspective. Sure, coaching and counseling through social services must also be provided to help underprivileged humans take care of themselves and reach their full potential, but cash benefits help, full stop. The moral hazard argument needs to die. There is a difference between struggle you can overcome to grow and plain ol’ suffering that will kill you, or cause you to kill yourself.
  - fastball 3y ago
    Proven? At what scale?
  - LMYahooTFY 3y ago
    The responses that completely ignore addiction and mental health need to die. Can you address what the parent described about mental health and addiction? Would you rather invest $10k into someone who has shown you they're reliable, or someone who has shown you they are unreliable? Please answer both questions.
    - baseballdork 3y ago
      The parent merely stated that they don't think they could have handled $1k/m. That's fine. They aren't in the group that will receive. As for the second question, is the implication that former foster kids are "unreliable" and we should instead be investing somewhere else? Why don't you address the "25% of former foster kids find themselves homeless" stat? Are these kids just getting too much assistance to be driven to... work fast food? I really don't understand these perspectives.
Eumenes 3y ago
> "Given the huge number of L.A. County residents who applied, it's abundantly clear that a guaranteed basic income is an idea whose time has come," Supervisor Sheila Kuehl said. Uh, its abundantly clear that people want free money?
- brink 3y ago
  I know, right? What a dangerously simplistic mindset to have for someone in authority.
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Sounds like a real piece of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Kuehl#Los_Angeles_County_Board_of_Supervisors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Kuehl#Los_Angeles_Count...
- proc0 3y ago
  People want money and society needs people to work. Working is a contribution to society that in return society gives you credits to buy other people's work. Exceptions aside (like physical disabilities), all of these free money programs are messing with this incentive structure. I'm not saying it won't work but just explaining where the pushback is coming from. At an individual level of course free money makes sense, but we all are part of a larger social structure, and problems need to be looked at from all these angles to avoid creating even more problems.
WalterBright 3y ago
We tried UBI with the multiple stimulus checks. The result was inflation, which more than ate that all up.
- striking 3y ago
  This isn't UBI.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Sadly UBI will probably work best when it's not U.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    I'm not convinced that any UBI program will remain either U or B for very long. The numbers just don't work out. At least, not until we have "fully automated luxury gay space communism"-level technology.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Given 300 million people in the US and $1000/mo UBI, that works out to $3.6 trillion a year. So ya, that's not going to work.
- verteu 3y ago
  How do we know inflation was due to the stimulus checks, and not due to supply chain issues caused by covid/Ukraine? IIUC, "European nations largely avoided the one-time payments" [1] but suffered the same inflation [2]. [1] https://fox8.com/news/stimulus-checks-how-much-money-did-people-in-other-countries-get/ https://fox8.com/news/stimulus-checks-how-much-money-did-peo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_surge#/media/File:Inflation_rate,_United_States_and_eurozone,_January_2018_through_June_2023.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_su... Edit: After a bit more research, this is less clear -- many European countries provided large unemployment checks during covid.
  - WalterBright 3y ago

47 points by lxm 3y ago

shortrounddev2 3y ago

If it's means tested, what about this is guaranteed income? This just sounds like welfare

mytailorisrich 3y ago
Depends on whether your definition of "guaranteed income" is "unconditional payment" or "guarantee that your income will never fall below x amount". IMO, the former does not make sense while the latter is more sensible and indeed a type of welfare.
rtkwe 3y ago
It's a UBI that interfaces with our current system and limited budgets.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  I thought the U in UBI stands for Universal?
dragonwriter 3y ago
“guaranteed income” or “guaranteed minimum income” is not “unconditional basic income”; the former is often a name for a means-tested program tha provides an income floor, but not necessarily a boost beyond that floor. OTOH, nothing in the article or the linked article I checked suggests this is means tested, its background tested (currebt foster youth originally, former foster youth for the new expansion), self-selected (application required), and randomly selected from the eligible applicants.
bombcar 3y ago
Some programs are means tested at the beginning, and then you "can't lose it" - iirc Calgrants are/were this way. If you qualified, you qualified, and then you wouldn't lose it during your 4 year college stay even if your situation changed. Doing these types of programs can avoid the "welfare gap" where there's a period where earning more to try to get off welfare actually hurts you - this will occur if you're getting a $X benefit that goes to $0 when your income increases above a certain level. Much better to have it taper off in such a way that you never lose more than $1 for earning another dollar.

skymast 3y ago

[dead]

giantg2 3y ago

Former foster youth 21-23 in age. I was initially confused what foster youth would be spending $1k/mo on.

sidewndr46 3y ago
wouldn't it make more sense to start this on the day they age out of the system?
- giantg2 3y ago
  21 is when kids age out in CA.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    aha, thanks for the context.

cenobyte 3y ago

As a programmer from a bad family, group home, foster family background myself. $1k per month without working or struggle would have destroyed me. Imagine all the weed and whiskey I could have bought for that? (Which is what I would have done) Instead of working I would have been lazy. Homelessness and hunger was my major motivator and made me work in fast food while dreaming of computers. The lack of struggle would have crippled my drive.

smcg 3y ago
That was then this is now. The recipients are 21-23. They need a place to live. 1000/month barely covers rent now.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
25% of foster kids end up homeless after aging out of the system. Direct cash transfer value is mostly proven from a social work/benefit perspective. Sure, coaching and counseling through social services must also be provided to help underprivileged humans take care of themselves and reach their full potential, but cash benefits help, full stop. The moral hazard argument needs to die. There is a difference between struggle you can overcome to grow and plain ol’ suffering that will kill you, or cause you to kill yourself.
- fastball 3y ago
  Proven? At what scale?
- LMYahooTFY 3y ago
  The responses that completely ignore addiction and mental health need to die. Can you address what the parent described about mental health and addiction? Would you rather invest $10k into someone who has shown you they're reliable, or someone who has shown you they are unreliable? Please answer both questions.
  - baseballdork 3y ago
    The parent merely stated that they don't think they could have handled $1k/m. That's fine. They aren't in the group that will receive. As for the second question, is the implication that former foster kids are "unreliable" and we should instead be investing somewhere else? Why don't you address the "25% of former foster kids find themselves homeless" stat? Are these kids just getting too much assistance to be driven to... work fast food? I really don't understand these perspectives.

Eumenes 3y ago

> "Given the huge number of L.A. County residents who applied, it's abundantly clear that a guaranteed basic income is an idea whose time has come," Supervisor Sheila Kuehl said. Uh, its abundantly clear that people want free money?

brink 3y ago
I know, right? What a dangerously simplistic mindset to have for someone in authority.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Sounds like a real piece of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Kuehl#Los_Angeles_County_Board_of_Supervisors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Kuehl#Los_Angeles_Count...
proc0 3y ago
People want money and society needs people to work. Working is a contribution to society that in return society gives you credits to buy other people's work. Exceptions aside (like physical disabilities), all of these free money programs are messing with this incentive structure. I'm not saying it won't work but just explaining where the pushback is coming from. At an individual level of course free money makes sense, but we all are part of a larger social structure, and problems need to be looked at from all these angles to avoid creating even more problems.

WalterBright 3y ago

We tried UBI with the multiple stimulus checks. The result was inflation, which more than ate that all up.

striking 3y ago
This isn't UBI.
bombcar 3y ago
Sadly UBI will probably work best when it's not U.
- gottorf 3y ago
  I'm not convinced that any UBI program will remain either U or B for very long. The numbers just don't work out. At least, not until we have "fully automated luxury gay space communism"-level technology.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Given 300 million people in the US and $1000/mo UBI, that works out to $3.6 trillion a year. So ya, that's not going to work.
verteu 3y ago
How do we know inflation was due to the stimulus checks, and not due to supply chain issues caused by covid/Ukraine? IIUC, "European nations largely avoided the one-time payments" [1] but suffered the same inflation [2]. [1] https://fox8.com/news/stimulus-checks-how-much-money-did-people-in-other-countries-get/ https://fox8.com/news/stimulus-checks-how-much-money-did-peo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_surge#/media/File:Inflation_rate,_United_States_and_eurozone,_January_2018_through_June_2023.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_su... Edit: After a bit more research, this is less clear -- many European countries provided large unemployment checks during covid.
- WalterBright 3y ago