3 ms·
> What's in it for my ISP and cell provider to give me a discount? Were they receiving more back in kickbacks? the person you're talking to probably earned a c
by chii 3y ago
> What's in it for my ISP and cell provider to give me a discount? Were they receiving more back in kickbacks?
the person you're talking to probably earned a commission or bonus based on how many they can convince to sign up.
This is what happens to gov't incentive programs - the cash and value generation is distorted.
Look at how homelessness problems in california is not solved, despite paying more than some $200k per homeless person in subsidies and grants. This is more than most (or any) job would've paid to that person. And yet, it fails to achieve anything of note, because the value generation (taxation) is _not_ aligned with the value recipient (which is not the homeless person, but the various orgs that spring up to eat the value while attempting to prolong the gov't subsidy/grant).
Have a watch of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNxQ8JWxWMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNxQ8JWxWMA
- WesternWind 3y agoActually helping people who have become homeless is like two steps away from what it should be, of course. One step in the right directly would be more homelessness prevention (there's some, but not nearly enough). Two steps would be systemic changes so housing was more easily affordable. That said, I had dinner tonight with a formerly unhoused person here in SF, who is now living her life successfully because of that help, has an apartment, is paying bills, etc. So while you think it fails to achieve anything of note, I think the problem would be a heck of a lot worse without it.
- nielsbot 3y agoI also think people be overly concerned with the “moochers”. that said we should still dedicate resources to make sure programs are applied fairly and not taken advantage of.
- rocqua 3y agoI love basic income for this. It prevents needing to solve any kind of missuse since everyone is supposed to get it.
- largbae 3y agoA noble dream solution, but even in this case there will be folks who try to collect the UBI of others in addition to their own.
- chefandy 3y agoNot all, but many of these concerns are drummed up by people that want to add every conceivable resistance to wealth redistribution possible, and the rubes that believe their fabricated justification. Drug testing for food and housing assistance is a great example. A fraction of the amount of money spent gets “saved” and the rare addict thrown off will probably cost the system more money as a homeless addict. Ultimately, it comes down to contempt for people who have less, and wanting to see them humiliated.
- ponow 3y agoYes, wealth redistribution is genteel theft and should be thwarted at every turn.
- AllegedAlec 3y agoPlease stop hitting that straw man. My hay fever's starting to play up.
- sha2468 3y agoAn effective test for determining if reading an opinion is a waste of your time is: watch for language that assigns an explanation to the behavior of others. Basically: they don’t describe what happened. They describe how other people are less good. “These concerns are drummed up by people who what to add every conceivable resistance to wealth redistribution possible” Not the language of an open hearted soul. I’m going to default to “unconvincing argument” as the infinitely more plausible explanation.
- chefandy 3y ago> watch for language that assigns an explanation to the behavior of others. K > Not the language of an open hearted soul. Found some.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoAmazing the number of people on HN who dislike any measure of helping those less fortunate.
- mistrial9 3y agoactually the moochers wear business clothing.. the actual homeless are often damaged and addicted people who are stuck in hell loops
- gopher_space 3y agoThe majority of homeless people are at work or in school during the daytime. The people you see on the street are the tip of an enormous iceberg.
- WesternWind 3y agoYeah there's some silly shit that I'm sick of states paying for. Mandatory drug testing almost always costs more then it saves.
- EasyMark 3y agoCalifornia's failures are part of throwing money at something with no feedback loop to kill off unsuccessful strategies (like a lot of government programs). California is too lax on enforcement side. If you don't have the ability to take drug addicts and mentally ill off the street and put them in therapeutic programs nothing will ever happen because those are 80-90% of the chronically homeless, the systems will absorb whatever money you throw at it and there will never be any positive results.
- specialist 3y ago> despite paying more than some $200k per homeless And yet we're told universal basic income is too expensive. Give People Money [2018] https://www.amazon.com/Give-People-Money-Universal-Revolutionize/dp/1524758760 https://www.amazon.com/Give-People-Money-Universal-Revolutio... Am policy noob, so I don't know how to articulate this properly: I support whatever social safety net wrap around services people may need. But I don't support our top-down welfare bureaucracy. When a mere fraction of our spending benefits the actual people in need, wtf are we doing. How I usually phrase it: Help people help themselves. Then help those who can't. (Rant over, thanks for listening.)
- underlipton 3y ago>When a mere fraction of our spending benefits the actual people in need, wtf are we doing. Giving jobs to the people "worthy" of a non-profit position (unemployable anywhere else). Which isn't to say that non-profits are particularly useless, just that a large swath of jobs in the US are just there so that someone's friend or family member or neighbor won't become destitute. If you're not in the network? Tough luck.
- qingcharles 3y agoI don't know about ACP, but its sister program Lifeline pays for signups. That's why here in Chicago's South Side there is someone giving away phones and tablets on every street corner. Really.