Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

oregonlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#51

Post by paulryanrogers »

jmward01 wrote: post #47
yunnpp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?

There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I w…

I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs.

Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#52

Post by paulryanrogers »

Adiqq wrote: post #30
Antibabelic wrote: post #4

Libertarians who want the impoverished to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" don't realize what that takes. Nobody deserves to live without a home. We need successes like these so that as many people as possible can get assistance.

Ostrom provided the solution to the tragedy of the commons: self-organizing, collective governance. It is no coincidence that Agile is a convergent solution to the exact same principles. We were told for decades that the only options are the state or the market, Ostrom proved that false. But we don't live in an evidence-based world, we live in one shaped by power dynamics. We have the blueprint for collective prosper…

Christianity had plenty of problems before capitalism became a thing. IMO both need to be heavily regulated, certainly not given special privileges or a blank check to consolidate power.

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#53

Post by threethirtytwo »

luafox wrote: post #27
threethirtytwo wrote: post #16

> More than half of participants were women, while 30% were male and 18% identified as transgender or gender inclusive. Why were the ratios not representative of actual homeless demographics? Most homeless people are biological men by an overwhelming majority. Maybe transgendered people and women seek more help? Or the people conducting this study were biased themselves? As a result, I don’t think the results univers…

From the article: > The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period. Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & gende…

>The program prioritized underrepresented populations.

Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless.

What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#54

Post by threethirtytwo »

duskwuff wrote: post #21
threethirtytwo wrote: post #16

> More than half of participants were women, while 30% were male and 18% identified as transgender or gender inclusive. Why were the ratios not representative of actual homeless demographics? Most homeless people are biological men by an overwhelming majority. Maybe transgendered people and women seek more help? Or the people conducting this study were biased themselves? As a result, I don’t think the results univers…

This program specifically targeted homeless youth; it seems plausible that the demographics of that segment might differ from the larger community.

This makes sense, targeting youth likely has a higher chance of a better outcome?

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#55

Post by hellojesus »

iamrobertismo wrote: post #44
jmward01 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now s…

> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.

Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits.

The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#56

Post by Kuraj »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #53
luafox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period. Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & gende…

>The program prioritized underrepresented populations. Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless. What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?

Queer people are at a greater risk of being estranged from their families, if nothing else.

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#57

Post by gamblor956 »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #16

> More than half of participants were women, while 30% were male and 18% identified as transgender or gender inclusive. Why were the ratios not representative of actual homeless demographics? Most homeless people are biological men by an overwhelming majority. Maybe transgendered people and women seek more help? Or the people conducting this study were biased themselves? As a result, I don’t think the results univers…

True, but most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse, so giving them money doesn't address the cause of their homelessness in any way.

The targeted populations were primarily homeless for economic reasons, so the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the simplest/most efficient solution was just to give them some money.

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#58

Post by pseudocomposer »

Kuraj wrote: post #56
threethirtytwo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The program prioritized underrepresented populations. Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless. What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?

Queer people are at a greater risk of being estranged from their families, if nothing else.

I guess the flipside of this is, do we want poor/homeless people from groups our society dubs “overrepresented” to only be able to find help from organizations that specifically serve selected “overrepresented” groups? Are there no obvious bad sides to that?

Because you can’t really have the one without the other.

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#59

Post by hubber »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #32
nkrisc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, further study is warranted. They should do it again with a larger cohort for longer and with more objective measures.

Larger and larger until we're just flat out testing UBI is fine by me. If you want to test UBI, there's no better way than implementing UBI.

[flagged]

Re: Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

#60

Post by hellojesus »

soco wrote: post #46
jmward01 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now s…

I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...

How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question.

I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.

Post reply on HN