5 ms·

Except 133,000 individuals could not buy 133,000 chromebooks for the amount of money that it takes one entity to buy 133,000 chromebooks. There’s plenty of fre

Except 133,000 individuals could not buy 133,000 chromebooks for the amount of money that it takes one entity to buy 133,000 chromebooks. There’s plenty of free cash/food/shelter around for those who need it. Adding computers to the list is better than just slightly more cash.

prepend 3y ago
Yeah, but it’s cheaper to administer cash outflows. Maybe the state can buy the books for $200 but they have to manage inventory, hire staff, etc etc. So it’s probably cheaper to just cut checks to people for $300 even though the cost per unit is higher.
- thatwasunusual 3y ago
  How can you be assured that those money are used on those ChromeBooks?
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    You can't, but it doesn't matter
  - prepend 3y ago
    The same way you assure chromebooks aren’t ebayed. Basically a percentage will be wasted. But you give the money to parents who need a computer and trust them to get a computer. Not everyone will do the right thing, but I think it’s more efficient, and less wastage, to just hand out money than to hand out chromebooks.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  I can assure you the state already has plenty staff on hand with plenty of training on giving out free stuff. And even if they don’t: jobs program.
  - mhb 3y ago
    > jobs program Bastiat would like a word.
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      133,000 free laptops, but some employees is where he interjects?
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        I believe you could do more good for the same price if you just gave people cash instead of implementing an administrative system to manage distributing laptops. Just give people money and they can buy what they need
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    The state could administer other tasks it's good at more effectively if it didn't need to spend human resources on such a program. >jobs program so is the point to help the poor, or is it to pay government workers to do unnecessary work?
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      You repeat yourself. In all seriousness, it’s amusing to see how many people in this thread want to apply capitalist principles to a welfare program. The two are opposite - the goal here is to lose as much capital as possible.
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        I'm not arguing for "capitalist principles" (if there were such a thing). The goal with welfare is to do as much good as possible. I contend that by managing administrative bloat, you lose money which could otherwise be given directly to people and do more good. The goal should be to spend money as efficiently as possible, not to spend less money
CapstanRoller 3y ago
>There’s plenty of free cash/food/shelter around for those who need it. There's plenty, but very little is actually given to those who need it.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Ironically, the most recent survey in the special unhoused enforcement zone near me found that the number of people living on the streets was almost identical to the number of empty beds at the shelter.
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    A lot of homeless people don't go to shelters because they can be more dangerous than sleeping on the street
    - Rebelgecko 3y ago
      I really can't imagine how having a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard would be more dangerous than a tent on the sidewalk. I do know that 1-2 people per month get kicked out of the shelter for fighting, but not sure how that compares to life on the streets. I think a bigger factor is that the tiny homes limit how much stuff you can bring (aka 1 bike per person, cant build your own structures on the land, no drugs, etc), which seems to be the most common reason people gave for not wanting to go.
      - CapstanRoller 3y ago
        >a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard You are not describing any homeless shelter that I've ever seen. Usually they are very crowded communal sleeping facilities with barely any security and zero privacy. Theft and assault are a common occurrence.
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        > I really can't imagine how having a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard would be more dangerous than a tent on the sidewalk One: many homeless people feel dehumanized by how they're treated by the staff, and Two: homeless shelters are full of homeless people
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shortrounddev2 3y ago
Right but the question is if the government knows what those 133k people need better than they do. There's also the administrative cost of such a system and logistics (if the government decides to ship or deliver the devices themselves). You could avoid having to pay government salaries for the people involved in finding qualified people, getting their info, auditing for fraud, etc.

prepend 3y ago

Yeah, but it’s cheaper to administer cash outflows. Maybe the state can buy the books for $200 but they have to manage inventory, hire staff, etc etc. So it’s probably cheaper to just cut checks to people for $300 even though the cost per unit is higher.

thatwasunusual 3y ago
How can you be assured that those money are used on those ChromeBooks?
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  You can't, but it doesn't matter
- prepend 3y ago
  The same way you assure chromebooks aren’t ebayed. Basically a percentage will be wasted. But you give the money to parents who need a computer and trust them to get a computer. Not everyone will do the right thing, but I think it’s more efficient, and less wastage, to just hand out money than to hand out chromebooks.
explaininjs 3y ago
I can assure you the state already has plenty staff on hand with plenty of training on giving out free stuff. And even if they don’t: jobs program.
- mhb 3y ago
  > jobs program Bastiat would like a word.
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    133,000 free laptops, but some employees is where he interjects?
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      I believe you could do more good for the same price if you just gave people cash instead of implementing an administrative system to manage distributing laptops. Just give people money and they can buy what they need
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  The state could administer other tasks it's good at more effectively if it didn't need to spend human resources on such a program. >jobs program so is the point to help the poor, or is it to pay government workers to do unnecessary work?
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    You repeat yourself. In all seriousness, it’s amusing to see how many people in this thread want to apply capitalist principles to a welfare program. The two are opposite - the goal here is to lose as much capital as possible.
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      I'm not arguing for "capitalist principles" (if there were such a thing). The goal with welfare is to do as much good as possible. I contend that by managing administrative bloat, you lose money which could otherwise be given directly to people and do more good. The goal should be to spend money as efficiently as possible, not to spend less money

CapstanRoller 3y ago

>There’s plenty of free cash/food/shelter around for those who need it. There's plenty, but very little is actually given to those who need it.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
Ironically, the most recent survey in the special unhoused enforcement zone near me found that the number of people living on the streets was almost identical to the number of empty beds at the shelter.
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  A lot of homeless people don't go to shelters because they can be more dangerous than sleeping on the street
  - Rebelgecko 3y ago
    I really can't imagine how having a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard would be more dangerous than a tent on the sidewalk. I do know that 1-2 people per month get kicked out of the shelter for fighting, but not sure how that compares to life on the streets. I think a bigger factor is that the tiny homes limit how much stuff you can bring (aka 1 bike per person, cant build your own structures on the land, no drugs, etc), which seems to be the most common reason people gave for not wanting to go.
    - CapstanRoller 3y ago
      >a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard You are not describing any homeless shelter that I've ever seen. Usually they are very crowded communal sleeping facilities with barely any security and zero privacy. Theft and assault are a common occurrence.
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      > I really can't imagine how having a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard would be more dangerous than a tent on the sidewalk One: many homeless people feel dehumanized by how they're treated by the staff, and Two: homeless shelters are full of homeless people

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

shortrounddev2 3y ago

Right but the question is if the government knows what those 133k people need better than they do. There's also the administrative cost of such a system and logistics (if the government decides to ship or deliver the devices themselves). You could avoid having to pay government salaries for the people involved in finding qualified people, getting their info, auditing for fraud, etc.