4 ms·

Czech rep. had something similar for some time. There are two problems: One has to prove to be homeless. Have some distant relative or had income a few years

by jkot 11y ago

Czech rep. had something similar for some time. There are two problems: One has to prove to be homeless. Have some distant relative or had income a few years ago? Too bad, not homeless. And some people will demolish their own house. It is expensive to buy firewood, floor and walls can be used instead. House gets eventually destroyed, owner become homeless, gets new house...

bayesianhorse 11y ago
You'd have to have pretty crappy house and a very low income to make that trade-off even economically attractive. Let alone psychological. Most people prefer not taking any social benefits, even if it means losing out on money. Humans prefer to work for pay, rather than get paid for no work, within reason. So do most other species. Except cats.
learnstats2 11y ago
In my opinion these problems are very small compared to the root problem, and so they show that the system is working - they are exceptions that prove the rule. But we can easily improve this first iteration, for example: 1. Let's instead give everyone an untested basic income that covers usual living expenses. 2. Let's give people who are unable to buy firewood better {financial,medical,mental health,educational} support to buy what they need instead of waiting for them demolish something more valuable.
- jedmeyers 11y ago
  > and so they show that the system is working - they are exceptions that prove the rule. What does this even mean? How do exceptions prove the rule?
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    From Wikipedia: "the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes that a general rule exists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule The fact that the parent is complaining about a small number of exceptional cases proves that the system works well in the general case.
quadrangle 11y ago
That's why all these programs that have a cut-off are bad. We need universal Basic Income. We need socialized access to certain things: minimal food, water, shelter. These things cost less than it does to deal with a world that lacks them. If we could have public housing regardless of income, people with higher income will choose to forgo it to get something better. The problems come with the perverse incentives and bureaucracy connected with proof of status and arbitrary cut-off points.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I would rather say, "That's a bad thing about all these programs that have a cut-off." I don't think it's clearly such a bad thing as to make every such program net out negative.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Absolutely. The quality of having a cut off is negative and actually expensive as it creates bureaucracy. But it certainly doesn't negate the positive value of these programs today.

by jkot 11y ago

bayesianhorse 11y ago

You'd have to have pretty crappy house and a very low income to make that trade-off even economically attractive. Let alone psychological. Most people prefer not taking any social benefits, even if it means losing out on money. Humans prefer to work for pay, rather than get paid for no work, within reason. So do most other species. Except cats.

learnstats2 11y ago

In my opinion these problems are very small compared to the root problem, and so they show that the system is working - they are exceptions that prove the rule. But we can easily improve this first iteration, for example: 1. Let's instead give everyone an untested basic income that covers usual living expenses. 2. Let's give people who are unable to buy firewood better {financial,medical,mental health,educational} support to buy what they need instead of waiting for them demolish something more valuable.

jedmeyers 11y ago
> and so they show that the system is working - they are exceptions that prove the rule. What does this even mean? How do exceptions prove the rule?
- learnstats2 11y ago
  From Wikipedia: "the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes that a general rule exists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule The fact that the parent is complaining about a small number of exceptional cases proves that the system works well in the general case.

quadrangle 11y ago

That's why all these programs that have a cut-off are bad. We need universal Basic Income. We need socialized access to certain things: minimal food, water, shelter. These things cost less than it does to deal with a world that lacks them. If we could have public housing regardless of income, people with higher income will choose to forgo it to get something better. The problems come with the perverse incentives and bureaucracy connected with proof of status and arbitrary cut-off points.

dllthomas 11y ago
I would rather say, "That's a bad thing about all these programs that have a cut-off." I don't think it's clearly such a bad thing as to make every such program net out negative.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Absolutely. The quality of having a cut off is negative and actually expensive as it creates bureaucracy. But it certainly doesn't negate the positive value of these programs today.