Live data from Hacker News

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

abc7.com

1–10 of 97 posts

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

#5
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.

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

#6
post #5

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…

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.

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

#7
post #5

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…

Would a $1,000 raise at your job have been as devastating?

Surely you're not implying $12k/year in Los Angeles (a county with c. $3k/month median rent) is going to create a class of willfully unemployed former foster-kids with no drive?

Should we also ban parents sending their kids money for the same reason? Or are foster kids uniquely prone to laziness?

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

#9
post #7
post #5

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…

Would a $1,000 raise at your job have been as devastating? Surely you're not implying $12k/year in Los Angeles (a county with c. $3k/month median rent) is going to create a class of willfully unemployed former foster-kids with no drive? Should we also ban parents sending their kids money for the same reason? Or are foster kids uniquely prone to laziness?

Surely the difference between a $1,000/month raise at your job and a government stipend of $1,000 is that to continue to receive the extra $1k from your employer you cannot drink and smoke yourself into oblivion? While with the government stipend you can, which I believe is what the commenter you are replying to was getting at.

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

#10

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

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.

Post reply on HN