Hacker News Reader

Comment by eanzenberg | Hacker News Reader

"Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.

View on HN

I think it becomes even more clear; when children living in poverty are living in a society where their basic needs are sufficiently provided for, you take away a great deal of the social stigma associated with engaging child protective services.

If a parent can't function when the basics are provided, then teachers, neighbours, and family members will be less inclined to use the excuse "but times are tough, and that person is trying hard to be a good parent".

IDK - I am inclined to think, having come from a broken home and having done community service for shoplifting food for me and my brother, if $parent (father in my case) can't get their shit together, the children would have been better off without them.

Given your experience, what are your thoughts on being provided 3 full meals a day within the public school system?

Context, I see arguing over the cost of various food programs that public schools provide. I come down on the side of "Yes, you should be guaranteeing kids are fed (minimally breakfast & lunch and if I had my way dinner too). Otherwise there's no way they're going to be able to focus on school." While the counter argument exists and is usually made from a financial standpoint, "Why should I have to pay taxes for other people's kids to get fed?" Which is, in my opinion, a short sighted viewpoint.

Socially, children are dependents. If guardians cannot feed their dependents adequately, they should lose their dependents. In the same way we find people guilty of animal cruelty all the time for the same reasons the same must be made of children.

The unfairness in the system emerges from when parents have kids through selfish motivation only to force society as a whole to pay the cost of raising them, when we may or may not have macroeconomic desire to have more children at any given time (and that desire changes, at the society level, all the time).

It is much more important to fix the actual problem - providing sufficient adoption and relocation systems to get kids out of dysfunctional households than to give them awful school cafeteria food and hope the problem goes away while ignoring it. Hunger is just a symptom of broader abuses that we should not just use state dollars to make go away temporarily. Having mentally and emotionally healthy fresh generations is probably the most valuable investment anyone can make.

> Socially, children are dependents. If guardians cannot feed their dependents adequately, they should lose their dependents.

I feel like I'm reading the beginning of one of those hunger game teen dystopia novels

> If guardians cannot feed their dependents adequately, they should lose their dependents.

If they cannot, then they should be helped to be able to. If they can but do not, then I'd agree that they should lose them. You're describing two problems with different solutions: Extreme poverty and outright abuse.

Adoption beyond infancy is rare, and I've never heard good things about the foster system, and I'd be loath to put kids into it, except as a last resort.

> The unfairness in the system emerges from when parents have kids through selfish motivation only to force society as a whole to pay the cost of raising them

Financial conditions for families change all the time. A parent looses a job and has difficulty getting a new one. The bread-winner in the family gets hurt, and the family has to limp along on a lesser income. You can't just ascribe unfairness to selfishness. Things aren't that simple.

What you're saying is that we should provided more robust child protective services. Those services would have the authority to determine if dependents were malnourished. If found to be malnourished those dependents would be forcefully relocated into a state (or private) run system that would feed, clothe, and educate them in the interim before they were placed into an adequate adoptive or foster home. At which point the state would pay the foster parent(s) a daily stipend which would be used to continue to feed and clothe the dependent until the point at which they reached adulthood. The state would also provide healthcare and continue to send child protective workers to the foster home to evaluate the home and verify that it meets the standards of an adequate home.

I agree that the solution you presented has the potential to help "break the cycle" so to speak. But inherently the cost of a program the magnitude of which was described is likely to be a large investment. Which, would suffer from the same perspective of economic unfairness as society would end up paying even more than now to raise other people's children. Due to the economic impact, those opposed would likely spin it as a government program to "Steal away and indoctrinate your children with agenda of the state." A subset of the population gets angry when any mention of taking their guns away occurs. How do you think people would act if it was their children? It doesn't matter if you're a responsible guardian, any talk of the state increasing its power to "remove your children from your home" is bound to strike an instinctual part of your brain.

Proposing "free breakfast and lunch" to solve the immediate small term problem of hunger within the school system to help reduce behavioral problems has a direct positive impact. The only real negative is the cost.

I grew up poor. Subsidized school lunch made sure I ate at least one decent meal a day (to be fair, parental mental health was a bigger factor than income at times). A lot of people grow up a lot poorer than I did.

> "Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.

Seems to me that with a universal unconditional benefit that is sufficient for adequate support of both parents and children (which, incidentally, I don't see as likely in any early-phase UBI, though over time it would hopefully grow to that level), failure to provide adequate support for children is, without exception, culpable neglect; interventions to address such neglect exist and are outside of the scope of the public benefit programs UBI would replace (though, if children are counted as beneficiaries with the benefits flowing to their legal guardian, you've dramatically simplified some aspects of the administration of those programs, as well, with a UBI.)

In my very limited experience of these matters, there is rarely a clear line between 'bad but acceptable parenting' and 'culpable neglect'. In the UK, a recent report suggested that child services spend so much of their time chasing the former, that the latter cases (which are much more serious) don't get the attention they need. As a result, children die in horrible circumstances.

So the question is a good one, and can't be answered with 'tough shit' quite that easily.

> In my very limited experience of these matters, there is rarely a clear line between 'bad but acceptable parenting' and 'culpable neglect'.

With a mature UBI, there's still certainly room for cases where there is ambiguity over whether culpability of the form represented by a criminal prosecution for abuse/neglect exists, but a lot less room for ambiguity (at least, compared to now) over whether there is a sufficient failure of basic parental duty to justify intervention to ensure the material adequacy of care for children.

> In the UK, a recent report suggested that child services spend so much of their time chasing the former, that the latter cases (which are much more serious) don't get the attention they need.

That's definitely true in the US as well. I don't disagree that these services need to be reformed and reprioritized, independently of the nature of the public benefit system.

But the problem with beneficiaries (parents or otherwise) blowing or trading their benefits without meeting their and/or dependents material needs exists independently of the nature of the public benefit system -- its quite clearly a feature of the status quo system -- so its not really an argument for or against any particular public benefit structure.

You're taking on a whole new rat's nest of complex problems if you propose to push a much larger set of children into "the system."

> You're taking on a whole new rat's nest of complex problems if you propose to push a much larger set of children into "the system."

I don't propose that, both because I think the size of the problem that would be addressed this way is no larger under a mature UBI than it is today (even if UBI makes the responsibilities more clear), and because I think a mature UBI would reduce other sources of children entering the system (both by reducing the social problems which result in children ending up in the system, and making it more likely that alternate, extended-family placements which are generally preferred could be found to keep children experiencing the kinds of problems which could result in them entering the system out of the system.)

And a whole world more if one way to increase your household UBI is to foster a child...

The US has a separate set of social services that deals with protecting children from abuse and neglect, which handles such cases. Basic income can't fully replace that because not all of what it does is about poverty, so don't expect them to go away if basic income is adopted.

It would replace welfare programs, not all social services.

If children are not being cared for, the state will still intervene.

I thought BI would replace all social services. That's how its cost is justified?

Why is it justified when it replaces all, but not when it replaces some? It only needs to replace enough, not necessarily all.

Because all is more easily defined than some. Some is always some, even as the number of programs increases after the initial purge.

> I thought BI would replace all social services.

Most proponents of UBI see it as, at least eventually, replacing some range of existing government means- and/or behavior-tested benefit programs and, possibly, some age- or disability-tested ones (in the US, most advocates would probably include, at a minimum, EITC, General Assistance programs, SNAP, TANF, Section 8 housing subsidies; some would also include Child Tax Credit, Tuition and Student Loan related credits and deductions, Medicaid, Medicare, and/or Social Security.)

I've never heard any advocate argue that it would replace all social services.

I think there is not any one set of concepts that can be called basic income.

Anyway, if people really are proposing that the state should give money away because then there is no need to protect children from bad parents, that's pretty stupid.

OF course not. Money can't stop adults from abusing children, or each other. Money only fixed money problems. We don't have Child Protective Services because parents are poor; we have them because some people are assholes.

Personally, I'd like to see us end the welfare programs for the rich.

> Personally, I'd like to see us end the welfare programs for the rich.

What welfare programs for the rich? The rich pay for everything. The bottom 60% net a negative ten thousand dollars. The next 20% break even (~$1000/year paid), and the top 20% pay out the nose.

ETA: Go read the report for yourselves: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

For example, Walmart makes so much in government subsidies and tax breaks, and they pay their employees so little that their employees have to live off food stamps. The Waltons (owners of Walmart), are one of the richest families in the U.S. Pretty easy to see the connection.

All payment social services, but not those that are doing enforcement activities. Replacing college loans, food stamps, welfare, etc. will save quite enough particularly if you pair it with actual fraud prosecution and verifying identity.

Child protective services are not social welfare, they're law enforcement. If they were merely social services you could turn them away at the door. You can't. If you try that, they come back with the police and a court order.

I'm a foster parent. BI will most certainly NOT eliminate the need for me. It's not about being poor. It's about not taking proper care of your children.

Financial benefits != social services

Short of internment camps, how does any welfare/safety net program address this?

Food stamps? After-school programs?

Food stamp administration has gotten better over the past 10 - 15 years, but as someone else in this discussion pointed out it is still fairly easy to turn food assistance into cash if you want to.

After-school programs only work if the kid actually goes to them.

Subsidized housing, day care, etc? Food stamps aren't a great example because you can sell them. You can't sell the $800 you save in subsidized housing. You can't sell a service.

> You can't sell the $800 you save in subsidized housing.

People sublease housing units without permission (and even outright illegally, even before considering rental contract limits) all the time. This includes units that are subject to one form or another of public support, whether its rent control or section 8. So, yes, you absolutely can sell (as for Food Stamp benefits, usually at a value less than the subsidy) the benefit you receive from a housing voucher.

For example, providing free breakfast & lunch in schools addresses malnutrition of poor children much better than providing the same resources indirectly through their families, especially in various cases of dysfunctional alcoholic parents.

The payments could be made weekly. That way if someone was irresponsible and blew their basic income on non-essentials they would only need to survive on whatever they had left for a week.

Also, there would still be a role for social services in getting kids out of harms way if their parents couldn't look after them, but basic income would be sorted out separately, without using means-based testing.

Michigander here. AFAIK, you can't just turn your Bridge card into cash. How does one purchase lottery tickets and drugs with welfare payments? The one way I can think of is hanging out with the high-school kids outside the liquor store and saying "I'll go buy you X if you go buy me lottery tickets and alcohol/go to your dealer and get me an O"

The market for trading benefits for cash/services/products is quite robust in communities where it is the norm to be on them.

I think you would be quite surprised - it's a very well developed shadow economy that has pretty well known "rule of thumb" exchange rates, money changers, runners, etc.

This will pop up in any market that offers non-cash items of value.

I think I would be too, which is why I asked. Do you have any concrete examples of such a market? I mean, I put one right in my comment. How else do you do this sort of thing?

EDIT: I'm not trying to call you out, I just want to know how these things are done. Being on HN, I've seen stolen credit card marketplaces and things like that. Do people put their welfare payments on something like that? Do you have resources like that?

What would a concrete example look like to you? They don't do these things on the internet or with apps, it's all face-to-face and word of mouth. I wouldn't bet on there being any academic studies of it either. Likely all we'll ever have is personal anecdotes from people who have been involved in these communities and somehow ended up spending much more time on the internet than is the norm there.

Someone else pointed out googling "tide as currency", and that opened my eyes. It made me realize that people doing this are working with pointers, not values.

All currency is a "pointer", not "value". That's the purpose of currency.

Try googling things like "food stamps black market"...

It happens, but it's only about 1%. How much time and effort should we spend trying to eradicate that last 1% of fraud?

[1] http://www.ktnv.com/news/busted-black-market-food-stamps

[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/19/food-stamp-b...

[3] http://thoughtfulwomen.org/2012/10/16/black-market-for-food-...

[4] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/16/investigation-unco...

[5] http://articles.philly.com/1994-06-02/news/25833443_1_food-s...

Did you read #3?

"sales of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program vouchers brought in $858 million in cash in the 2009-2011 period"

That's almost $300M/year just for SNAP benefits. $300M here, $300M there, and pretty soon, you're talking real money.

> on HN, I've seen stolen credit card marketplaces and things like that. Do people put their welfare payments on something like that?

Sometimes, yes, people sell EBT cards online (a quick googling finds numerous reports of this being done on Craigslist and Facebook.)

Othertimes, they convert benefits to concrete goods, which are then sold at below-market prices to convert into cash to by things that would not be allowed by the benefit program (or traded directly for other goods, with the seller of the other goods either using the traded goods or selling them for cash.)

Yep, I did some reading since my original post and came to the conclusion I'm just naive.

Google "tide as currency". It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Huh. Thanks, I think. Not because of you, but because of humanity.

Theft and onselling of stolen goods is enough to make you question humanity? You really are naïve.

Yeah, that's why I said so before you did. Thanks?

Here in Baltimore, the usual benefits fraud method involves small shop owners willing to claim false purchases to a given value, then disburse an equal value in cash partly to the benefits claimant and partly to themselves as a profit - so, yeah, you actually can just turn your SNAP card into cash, albeit at a sizable discount. No doubt the same is true of a Bridge card.

They can simply sell the card at a discount to what it's worth. The buyer can then use it to purchase goods that he needs and pocket the difference, or resell them at normal retail or more. It's a huge problem.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/06/fraud_ri...

"tough shit" sucks when your parents blow all their regular income, and their foodstamps, and still leave their children in poverty.

what part of the fact that money was handed out changes things?

I've brought up this idea before. Have part of the UBI of children go into a fund that they can then access at 18 to use for schooling or whatever they please. With CPS helping with neglect cases while they are young, the child then isn't stuck in perpetual poverty, because at age 18 they will have savings and full UBI in hand to make their own life. The money not in the fund either is used responsibly for child rearing by the parents, or foster parents if it comes down to that.

It's a laudable goal, but giving a bunch of (mostly) naive, uneducated kids a lump sum of cash is a recipe for disaster. There would instantly be an industry focused on parting them from that money, one that would be extremely profitable and mostly not related to education.

We might call that industry the education industry.

Giving kids lump sums and then convincing them to part ways with it for questionable ROI is already a massive problem.

Wait, we do that already? I don't recall getting any significant amounts of money when I graduated high school! I feel so cheated.

Anyway, there does seem to be a problem with loaning kids lots of money and then parting them from it, but that's a different issue.

You weren't given cash, but today kids are given an essentially unlimited amount of government backed loans to pay for school - the availability of which has caused education costs to skyrocket.

This can happen when the income is earned, too. And there are independent safety nets for it.

Just thinking of this on the fly but could you have certain things that you cannot spend BI dollars on like this? Or after layering all these restrictions you've essentially recreated the previous system?

If you blow your guaranteed income on vices, you are unfit to be a parent.

I see no reason such parents should keep their children.

So you just give money to people with no strings attached, and when they spend it however they like, you take their kids away. That is pure evil mastermind, a bit like imperial British did with Aboriginals in Australia.

I don't see how you can possibly consider that evil. What's evil is taking money to gamble instead of making sure your children have food.

If they have the means (thanks to basic income) to provide for their children and still choose not to, how can you possibly argue that person is a fit parent?

We theoretically already have Child Protective Services to take children away in that case. Child abuse includes "[failing to] provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision."

On the other hand, there's the darwinist approach...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com