13 ms·

This seems like another argument for Basic Income. A lot of young, jobless people (males especially) isn't only a moral problem, but it's a sociological problem

by hooande 13y ago

This seems like another argument for Basic Income. A lot of young, jobless people (males especially) isn't only a moral problem, but it's a sociological problem. The young jobless commit more crimes, are more likely to join gangs and are generally more of a drain on society. Giving them an income would remove the social pressure to constantly look for jobs that aren't actually there. People could focus on internships and other productive activities without having to resort to selling drugs to make a living. Short of full on Basic Income, we could at least continue a much larger version of the government teen jobs program mentioned in the article. Money given to low income youth tends to find it's way back into the economy quickly. Much of the money from a government jobs program would be spent at the mall or walmart, some of which would end up in the hands of vendors and suppliers, which could get spent on apps and web services run by hn users. In short, poor people don't save a lot. Some percentage of our tax money will come back to us. Capitalism is a great system, but it isn't perfect. The best predictor of future income is parental income. Direct action is the best way to break the cycle.

Jayschwa 13y ago
> This seems like another argument for Basic Income. Or another argument against minimum wage. Minimum wage gets increased as cost-of-living goes up (albeit with a large lag). That's good if you're the household bread-winner trying to live off a minimum wage job. It's bad if you're a kid looking for some spending money. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  > > This seems like another argument for Basic Income. > Or another argument against minimum wage. How about both?
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Absolutely, BI would make minimum wage obsolete, allowing for a much more flexible labor market without people on the edge of starvation.
cpeterso 13y ago
I imagine a huge number of people on Basic Income would just blow all the money on the first day of each month on drugs and frivolous consumer goods. That said, I do think society has an obligation to provide a basic guarantee of life's needs: education, food and income, and health care. There is only so much society or any individual can do for someone if they, given the tools and opportunity, choose to waste it.
- nahname 13y ago
  Quite the opposite actually. Poor people become very good at managing their money out of necessity. http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15318&a=65653 http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15318&a=65653
- krakensden 13y ago
  That happens anyway. The addicts who are both totally lost and still functional enough to do paperwork are all on psychiatric SSI.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  What do you mean by "a huge number"? Do you mean "a huge number" or do you mean "a huge fraction"? The difference is important for policy decisions. 25% of Americans are food insecure each year. If you gave them enough money to not be (we sort of try to do this: about 15% of the US population received food stamps at some point last year, but 15% is less than 25%, and the monetary amount is sometimes too small to prevent food insecurity), some amount of it would probably be misspent. Let's suppose 1% of recipients misspent it. 750,000 people blowing government money on heroin and hookers is a huge number of people. But a program with 99% efficiency -- where only 1% is misspent -- is also objectively really fucking efficient; a charity only has to spent 80% of its funds well for most people to consider it efficient. So do you care about a huge number or a huge fraction of people abusing the system? Personally, I'm OK with the idea of hundreds of thousands of people abusing the public trust if it means that tens of millions are bootstrapped out of poverty.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
codex 13y ago
Given that human wants are infinite, why would someone with no job but a basic income not commit crimes to increase their income? They have plenty of time on their hands, and their social status would be a function of how much wealth they had beyond their basic income.
- cmsmith 13y ago
  The marginal value of money decreases as income goes up. So a crime that has an expected positive return when you have no money becomes less and less worth it as you become richer.
- rndmize 13y ago
  I would think people with basic income would be much less likely to commit crimes because a) essential needs can be met and b) they would have something to lose (freedom, time, money). Beyond that, there's something inherently silly about your question - perhaps its the way it assumes the worst of people. You might as well ask why don't teachers get tenure and leave as much teaching as they can to subs without being fired, or why don't programmers pass all their work on to elance or odesk and get some additional outside work to make more money. These things may happen on occasion, but I'm inclined to believe that most are not so mercenary/sociopathic.
- spamizbad 13y ago
  If I get a $270 check from the government every week (14K/year), what incentive do I have robbing a gas station, which will probably have less than half my weekly pay in the till (unless of course I carefully time my robbery). It would be like a developer who makes ~$85K/year breaking into someones bank account online and transferring just $800 out. And consider the punishment of that crime versus armed robbery. What you would likely see is people collecting wages off the books. People working odd jobs part time for maybe $250 a week and collecting their minimum income. Way less risk than crime; much better pay. This is bad, but nowhere near as bad as robbery or working the black market.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    I doubt people who rob gas stations post often on the HN. But consider this: it takes money to vandalize as the spray paint does not grow on trees and even when you stole it you are missing an opportunity to steal something you could pawn/sell (like washing detergent or booze). Yet the vandalism does not stop. People don't join gangs to pay their bills.
shin_lao 13y ago
Your approach is simplistic. In France there is a kind of Basic Income. Yet crimes are still committed. The reasons why you go into a life of crime is not just a matter of getting food because you're hungry. Otherwise all poor people would commit crimes. Being part of a gang is a way for young people to exist. It's not just a question of money. It's also an occupation, because there's nothing else to do. And there is the remote possibility that you might become very rich. Which will never happen with living wages. These young people don't need money. They need a job.
cpursley 13y ago
"This seems like another argument for Basic Income." I stopped reading there. The reason black youths have high unemployment rates is their (typically unwed) mothers already live off a combination of section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, other govt. programs and whatever they can get under the table to keep their reportable income low. This produces an environment where one can not thrive - black children do not learn the value of work nor understand how society and the rest of the world works. More of this would make it worse. Social programing is problem. Why create more of it?
- sequoia 13y ago
  > The reason black youths have high unemployment rates is their (typically unwed) mothers already live off a combination of section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, other govt. programs and whatever they can get under the table to keep their reportable income low. Got a source, there, David Duke? FYI low-income/poor black youth ≠ all black youth.
  - cpursley 13y ago
    Not all, I didn't say all. The source is my current home in Georgia and my wife's experience as a HS teacher.
    - WesternStar 13y ago
      Having lived in Georgia, I want to say acouple things. First you need to know that your beliefs and the beliefs of your wife are the reason that jobs that actually pay well will never come to Georgia. You can't educate what amounts to 30% of your population give or take if you think they are morally bankrupt. There is a reason corps move jobs to georgia when they want to pay less. Having gone to school in the south I will tell you that it is a really strange place. There was an expectation that as black person you would be stupid. Most of the black people I knew played along. I don't really get it.
      - cpursley 13y ago

by hooande 13y ago

Jayschwa 13y ago

> This seems like another argument for Basic Income. Or another argument against minimum wage. Minimum wage gets increased as cost-of-living goes up (albeit with a large lag). That's good if you're the household bread-winner trying to live off a minimum wage job. It's bad if you're a kid looking for some spending money. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

dllthomas 13y ago
> > This seems like another argument for Basic Income. > Or another argument against minimum wage. How about both?
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Absolutely, BI would make minimum wage obsolete, allowing for a much more flexible labor market without people on the edge of starvation.

cpeterso 13y ago

I imagine a huge number of people on Basic Income would just blow all the money on the first day of each month on drugs and frivolous consumer goods. That said, I do think society has an obligation to provide a basic guarantee of life's needs: education, food and income, and health care. There is only so much society or any individual can do for someone if they, given the tools and opportunity, choose to waste it.

nahname 13y ago
Quite the opposite actually. Poor people become very good at managing their money out of necessity. http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15318&a=65653 http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15318&a=65653
krakensden 13y ago
That happens anyway. The addicts who are both totally lost and still functional enough to do paperwork are all on psychiatric SSI.
saalweachter 13y ago
What do you mean by "a huge number"? Do you mean "a huge number" or do you mean "a huge fraction"? The difference is important for policy decisions. 25% of Americans are food insecure each year. If you gave them enough money to not be (we sort of try to do this: about 15% of the US population received food stamps at some point last year, but 15% is less than 25%, and the monetary amount is sometimes too small to prevent food insecurity), some amount of it would probably be misspent. Let's suppose 1% of recipients misspent it. 750,000 people blowing government money on heroin and hookers is a huge number of people. But a program with 99% efficiency -- where only 1% is misspent -- is also objectively really fucking efficient; a charity only has to spent 80% of its funds well for most people to consider it efficient. So do you care about a huge number or a huge fraction of people abusing the system? Personally, I'm OK with the idea of hundreds of thousands of people abusing the public trust if it means that tens of millions are bootstrapped out of poverty.
- Spooky23 13y ago

codex 13y ago

Given that human wants are infinite, why would someone with no job but a basic income not commit crimes to increase their income? They have plenty of time on their hands, and their social status would be a function of how much wealth they had beyond their basic income.

cmsmith 13y ago
The marginal value of money decreases as income goes up. So a crime that has an expected positive return when you have no money becomes less and less worth it as you become richer.
rndmize 13y ago
I would think people with basic income would be much less likely to commit crimes because a) essential needs can be met and b) they would have something to lose (freedom, time, money). Beyond that, there's something inherently silly about your question - perhaps its the way it assumes the worst of people. You might as well ask why don't teachers get tenure and leave as much teaching as they can to subs without being fired, or why don't programmers pass all their work on to elance or odesk and get some additional outside work to make more money. These things may happen on occasion, but I'm inclined to believe that most are not so mercenary/sociopathic.
spamizbad 13y ago
If I get a $270 check from the government every week (14K/year), what incentive do I have robbing a gas station, which will probably have less than half my weekly pay in the till (unless of course I carefully time my robbery). It would be like a developer who makes ~$85K/year breaking into someones bank account online and transferring just $800 out. And consider the punishment of that crime versus armed robbery. What you would likely see is people collecting wages off the books. People working odd jobs part time for maybe $250 a week and collecting their minimum income. Way less risk than crime; much better pay. This is bad, but nowhere near as bad as robbery or working the black market.
- pandaman 13y ago
  I doubt people who rob gas stations post often on the HN. But consider this: it takes money to vandalize as the spray paint does not grow on trees and even when you stole it you are missing an opportunity to steal something you could pawn/sell (like washing detergent or booze). Yet the vandalism does not stop. People don't join gangs to pay their bills.

shin_lao 13y ago

Your approach is simplistic. In France there is a kind of Basic Income. Yet crimes are still committed. The reasons why you go into a life of crime is not just a matter of getting food because you're hungry. Otherwise all poor people would commit crimes. Being part of a gang is a way for young people to exist. It's not just a question of money. It's also an occupation, because there's nothing else to do. And there is the remote possibility that you might become very rich. Which will never happen with living wages. These young people don't need money. They need a job.

cpursley 13y ago

"This seems like another argument for Basic Income." I stopped reading there. The reason black youths have high unemployment rates is their (typically unwed) mothers already live off a combination of section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, other govt. programs and whatever they can get under the table to keep their reportable income low. This produces an environment where one can not thrive - black children do not learn the value of work nor understand how society and the rest of the world works. More of this would make it worse. Social programing is problem. Why create more of it?

sequoia 13y ago
> The reason black youths have high unemployment rates is their (typically unwed) mothers already live off a combination of section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, other govt. programs and whatever they can get under the table to keep their reportable income low. Got a source, there, David Duke? FYI low-income/poor black youth ≠ all black youth.
- cpursley 13y ago
  Not all, I didn't say all. The source is my current home in Georgia and my wife's experience as a HS teacher.
  - WesternStar 13y ago
    Having lived in Georgia, I want to say acouple things. First you need to know that your beliefs and the beliefs of your wife are the reason that jobs that actually pay well will never come to Georgia. You can't educate what amounts to 30% of your population give or take if you think they are morally bankrupt. There is a reason corps move jobs to georgia when they want to pay less. Having gone to school in the south I will tell you that it is a really strange place. There was an expectation that as black person you would be stupid. Most of the black people I knew played along. I don't really get it.
    - cpursley 13y ago