Hacker News Reader

Comment by DawkinsGawd | Hacker News Reader

You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make. At least that is my experience. Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness, etc, etc, etc. Thinking back I do not know anyone in my neighborhood who was genuinely a hard working person with no vices. Hard working people with not vices don't live in the slums and generally can support their basic needs. Yes there are those occasions were an acute emergency happens and support is need but that is an atypical story. Giving $1200 check to someone without food and shelter most definitely isn't going to provide them food and shelter. It will more likely go to a stamp bag, scratch off, 40 ounce, etc.

Yes, we need to help these people. Mental health, substance abuse, etc do not make people "bad". But giving someone a months worth of rent/food/utilities/clothing in cash is going to be disastrous

View on HN

In my experience, your characteristization of why people are poor is wrong and ignores the daily struggles the working poor faces. I agree that most people are flawed but that's because we are not taught in school how to deal with adversity or how to live life. People in general have poor critical and analytical thinking skills, and get trapped in a vicious cycle with no hope for a better life.

I grew up poor and my mother worked to get us into the middle class. As an adult, I have been poor and wealthy, and have good friends that are decent people but are trapped in a system of poverty, or a community of gangs and a cycle of jail. Life is incredibly hard and it's not as easy as saying that poor people have vices.

Last year, I'd buy breakfast for homeless friends on Hollywood Blvd. then go eat the free breakfast on the 28th floor of the Ritz-Carlton Residences. I lived there and I can assure you, wealthy people are as crazy, addicted and ignorant as any poor person. The amount of criminality and corruption within the 1%, and how the police and even retired high-level government officials protect them, is astonishing.

I wrote a previous comment on why I think if rich people were smarter then there'd be less poor people. We need a society with better systems where there's less friction and challenges for people to overcome. And for many reasons, I see Basic Income as one of those better systems.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469080

Assholes aside, since turning an asshole into a non-asshole is an incredibly complex issue, people I've known who are like the ones you're describing tend to not like their situation, dream about and periodically pursue having a better life, but are utterly incapable of making a chain of steps towards that better life when it's so much harder to climb than it is to stay down in the ditch. The level of competitiveness in our world also means there's many people above them who have it in their interest to keep them down and dependent (as their livelihoods depend on it).

One would hope with a lessened burden and greater freedom for the millions of Americans who aren't like that, social support and community would increase. MOOCs and the like would get more support. More people would pursue experimentation. More people people would do it right instead of getting shit done. More people would be free to stop giving themselves to processes they know are unethical.

These people you're describing are only a problem to kill off / suck dry in the world we live in now. In a world of basic income, they'd at least have a chance of getting help from the people around them that do care, have a well-developed sense of empathy. Having said all this, I totally agree that giving a lump sum of money to the people you're describing is indeed a terrible idea, will have bad outcomes.

> Thinking back I do not know anyone in my neighborhood who was genuinely a hard working person with no vices.

You're mistaking correlation for causation, which many do and is why this debate is so polarizing. Many people develop vices because they are neglected, as a coping mechanism/self-medication for their hopelessness. With more resources, they have more opportunity and don't need to self-medicate as much. This effect has been studied.

> Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make. At least that is my experience.

That's the crux of the question. It might turn out that you were in a pocket of the poorest decision makers around, and that most people will do a lot better than they did. Or it might turn out that you're exactly right, and all we're doing is funding drug dealers and lotteries. That's why we need studies like this.

If you are an engineer I would expect a better capability of root cause analysis than that. Your list of things there is entirely comprised of things that are largely outside of the control of individuals.

"Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make."

* Drug addiction

Yes, a person can choose to use drugs. Usually the choice is made under intense peer pressure and at a young age. We won't let children under the age of 18 be bound by contracts, but we still stigmatize them with poor choices made when they were often younger than that. Once drug use becomes drug addiction, it is no longer a choice and is excruciatingly hard to break out without external help.

* poor budgeting

Yep, budgeting is important. It's a shame that this isn't given top billing from about grade 4 on. Budgeting isn't just about managing monthly income and expenditure, it's about forecasting, and understanding financial risk management. Unfortunately, at least in the US, the education system is pretty abysmal, and it appears to be difficult to actually get students through school in some parts of the country.

* gambling, alcoholism,, mental illness, etc, etc, etc."

These are actually all tightly linked to the word "illness". Gambling is often a learned behaviour that is linked with poor risk management and financial planning knowledge (see previous section on budgeting). Alcoholism is learned behaviour, that like gambling depends on poor impulse control, and addictive tendencies which are both physical and mental illnesses (or just illnesses once you get past the labelling stigma).

"Hard working people with not vices don't live in the slums and generally can support their basic needs."

Turn on the news, or better yet, read a couple of socio economic studies -- especially ones whose conclusions you find distasteful (it helps break your personal filter). This is flat out false - it is hard to support your basic needs when minimum wages are too low, finding full time work is hard, and there is a glut of skilled professionals who can't find work in their field, so they take up all the entry level jobs.

If you are actually an engineer you should be capable of composing a better comment than what you wrote here simply by thinking it through first.

Did you read about his/her background? Sounds very dismissing of that.

Yep, I too came from a poor background, went to university, then became quite successful and left that economic bracket behind. I work in software and security engineering, and coupled with good investments am in a very solid financial position. I have also spent a good chunk of the last decade studying and learning about the root causes of poverty and it largely cured me of my "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps" mentality I had as I started to escape from the mess that my childhood was.

I've been poor, too (spent years in my youth in a family on public assistance and in public housing.)

I too got an education (mostly in public policy), now work in software, and am now in far better socioeconomic status.

I don't find the GP's description of the causes of poverty accurate -- or even internally consistent, nor do I see GP's background (or my own) as some kind of privileged position to comment on the issue from.

Wow, this is extremely condescending with no actual backing information.

The fact of the matter is, people make bad choices. People who make bad choices are more likely to be poor. Lack of impulse control is extremely prevalent in poor communities. Like the GP, I was poor, I know poor people, and 95% of them are just shit at thinking long term.

The educational system fails people sure, but why does that mean we should give $1200/mo to people who do not have the necessary discipline to use it appropriately? CCTs have been used extremely effectively, and do combat this problem on a structural level.

There is actually a huge lack of skilled professionals in blue collar fields. We import mechanics at a ridiculous rate. This is true throughout a large portion of the world -- a SKILLED mechanic in Mexico can earn roughly the same wage as a skilled mechanic in the U.S...

It is hard to support your basic needs because you need to budget appropriately and you don't have extra money to spend -- but a large portion of poor people spend it anyway. I can't tell you how many of the people I know will drop $30 on some alcohol, drugs, club cover, concert, when they know that they'll be struggling to pay rent at the end of the month.

If you're actually an engineer you'll realize that most problems are multi-faceted and flat out telling people who have lived in a situation that some poorly researched secondhand analysis (i.e. the joke that is modern Sociology) is more relevant is absurd.

> The fact of the matter is, people make bad choices. People who make bad choices are more likely to be poor. Lack of impulse control is extremely prevalent in poor communities. Like the GP, I was poor, I know poor people, and 95% of them are just shit at thinking long term.

This is true of most Americans and is incredibly condescending. The poor are better with the money they do have than the middle class by a huge margin IME. The poor by and large don't blow their money on "fine dining" or new cars. They change their own oil. They don't spend over $100/month on cable TV packages. You can find exceptions to all those of course, but they prove the rule IME.

You're right, they blow their money on not-so-fine dining (my poor friends think McDonalds is cheaper than "Real Food").

Saying that it's true of most Americans obscures the systemic problem of scratch-offs and 40s on the weekend. And there is clearly a difference when you're doing these things with disposable income and doing it when you do not have disposable income -- one indicates a problem, and I don't think that it's an economic one.

I know middle income people spending their money on craft beer on the weekend and not participating in their company 401K. Or living effectively paycheck to paycheck. They may have "disposable" income, but only in the sense that they can float emergency spending on credit.

So yeah, there's a difference, but it's one of privilege.

Bad long-term financial decisions aren't exclusive to the poor.

You grew up poor. That doesn't mean your new middle-class peers had to learn the same lessons you did. They aren't middle class because they're smarter, more disciplined or have a better work ethic. They're middle class because they were born middle class.

Wanting to improve class mobility is one thing. Blaming the poor for not doing so on their own is another.

By "being born middle class" you mean that they were taught skills that allow them to be a contributing and self sustaining member of society.

Life isn't fair but those skills can be individually learned.

No. I don't. I mean that they had the most important safety net of all: Family with the will and ability to help financially.

I'm genuinely curious what financial life lessons you think a middle class kid is learning that a poor kid doesn't understand at a much deeper level.

My own experience is that (some) middle class kids succeed despite their own failures (dropping college classes before the grade becomes part of record stands out in my mind), and then attribute their success to their superior work ethic and intellect.

If most poor people fail to move up the class ladder, then in their same situation you're just as likely to fail. It's either that, or believe yourself somehow innately superior. I can't really think of a third option. It's like the adage about being surrounded by assholes.

You're right. Life isn't fair. But that doesn't mean the person cleaning my house isn't entitled to financial stability. I'm not religious, but I can't think of a secular version of "but for the grace of God".

Wow, this is extremely condescending with no actual backing information.

The person being responded to provided no actual backing information either.

The impact of poverty is more than just being poor, it can also affect your state of mind. There are studies that show people who have grown up in poverty have (on average) less self-control than those who grew up without experiencing poverty. I'll dig up the study so you can see it for yourself.

EDIT: There are a bunch of studies related to poverty and self-control in this article:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-motivated-brain/201...

Does it matter in if it's the drug addicts fault that he is a drug addict or not?

The parent shared his opinion on if a basic income is going to help that person or not.

You could instead describe how you believe a basic income would actually help such a person instead of starting a discussion about morals.

> Giving $1200 check to someone without food and shelter most definitely isn't going to provide them food and shelter. It will more likely go to a stamp bag, scratch off, 40 ounce, etc.

At first, absolutely, for some significant percentage of the homeless. Anyone would be a fool to think otherwise. And yet I still strongly support the idea because I think think a bit farther than that, and not just because many will rise up to the opportunity.

You can't even casually approach the issue without considering the cycle of poverty. It's equally foolish to doubt that; higher-income areas don't magically produce harder-working, more responsible kids.

A UBI allows more opportunities for those that do want to rise up. A UBI provides drastically more stability for kids, taking away the major dragging force that causes so much violence, homelessness, and instability. So many low-income parents are away all the time working shitty jobs. You can ignore it all you like, but these people are in shitty situations from the beginning.

And ditch the personal narrative. It doesn't help. I grew up poor (rural, not urban) and got educated, etc. Yet, looking back, my situation wasn't too bad; my mom was always around, education was a priority, government programs offered a lot of help, and ultimately the state paid for a lot of my education. I am very much the exception that proves the rule, and almost without fail, any time I meet someone like you describe yourself, I find they had lots of advantages, too. Sure, not as many as someone from the middle class, but not nothing.

> But giving someone a months worth of rent/food/utilities/clothing in cash is going to be disastrous

San Francisco used to give out cash to homeless, and realized that it didn't work well. So Gavin Newsom (previous mayor) started the "care not cash" program, where cash was replaced with services.

[Citation needed]

http://bfy.tw/62Z4

> ... mental illness ...

This is hardly a "decision somebody made".

No, it's the reason the bad decisions get made. Same as alcoholism, drug addiction, and other "vices". Some may stem from initial poor decisions in the past, but they're all good contexts for why continued, daily bad decisions are made that serve to keep the person in poverty.

We ought to support NAMI (http://www.nami.org/). They're a large, slowly growing non-profit organization of doctors, families and researchers that is trying to get the US to shift the way it deals with mental illness from the bottom up: identification, treatment, support, public perception, everything.

Protip: This would also help with our mass shooting problem, too.

None of the things in that list were themselves decisions. They were causes of poor decisions. Do you dispute that mental illness can be a cause of poor decision making?

It can be.

True or not, it doesn't matter for the purpose. If somebody is mentally ill, it doesn't matter what the cause is or who we can blame it on, it's still the case that cutting them 4 figure checks monthly is not going to magically get them out of their situation.

Some widely used illegal drugs are known to cause mental illnesses for some. MDMA, magic mushrooms and LSD just to name a few.

I've always been curious about hallucinogen effects but I chose to never try it because of the risks.

What about inverting the status quo and deducting UBI for each child you have (with a grandfather clause of course)? The problem would solve itself in a few generations. You've gotta work and plan if you want to have kids. If you want to party for your entire life, go ahead, but you don't get to leave kids behind for the rest of us to deal with.

On the one hand I like the incentives of this, but on the other hand it further punishes the children of people who can't plan well.

At which point CPS intervenes. The other piece of the puzzle would be high quality orphanages, operated with expectation that the chidren will not be adopted, instead dedicated to providing the best possible environment for development.

Our current system tries to fill the role of the orphanage as best it can without taking the children away from their parents, and I don't think it works for anyone involved. Bad parents are enabled, poor kids rarely overcome their upbringing and continue the viscious cycle, well adjusted kids from stable homes have their education disrupted and often violence inflicted on them by the poor kids, and it only gets worse as time goes by.

Can the cause and result be (at least partly) reverse? That is, poor people is poor not because of their poor decisions, but being poor let them make poor decisions. Or maybe it's a feedback cycle. I don't have first-hand experience, though; just an impression from a book[1].

If being poor is a part of a cause, then guaranteed safety net may break the malicious cycle. But yeah, just blindly betting it seems too naive. That's why we need social experiments, right?

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Hand-Mouth-Living-Bootstrap-America/dp...

>But giving someone a months worth of rent/food/utilities/clothing in cash is going to be disastrous

If the poor can destroy our society because we cut them a check, we're fucked as it is. Who knows if BI is implemented "no strings attached cash", but it's not impossible to imagine outreach groups to get people to spend their money more wisely.

And despite the help, some of them will continue to buy vices. You cannot help those people until they decide they want to change. But this small waste of BI is not a strong argument against BI.

I mostly agree with GP, but "disastrous" as meaning destroying our society is pretty over the top all right.

People spending their BI money on vices instead of food and shelter isn't by itself an argument against BI, but it does call into question the supposed advantages of BI. We're supposed to be able to eliminate cumbersome, complex, admin-heavy welfare programs in favor of BI, thus making it an overall savings of taxpayer money. If many people spend all of their BI money on vices and are still starving on the streets at the end of the day, then we need the old programs back again to feed them, and we're just spending money on nothing.

I don't believe many people will be buying vices to the point that they also can't eat, but I also don't think BI's adoption will shut down soup kitchens and other benevolent places (nor stop people panhandling, but it certainly may change everyone's opinions on giving to panhandlers).

I don't mean to sound cold, but it sounds like the person your describing is at such a point that they simply can't care for themselves and need to be hospitalized.

BI is will certainly stop them from starving if the payments are very frequently (weekly or even daily). If they blow it, they will soon learn their lesson until their next "paycheck".

> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.

I don't think there's a strict cause and effect relationship there.

Some of that is due to the traditional monthly nature of payments and expenses, which is beyond some people's planning horizon. How do you think it would change if everything (both BI deposit and rent payment) were weekly, or even daily?

UK/US/AU/NZ have weekly salaries, welfare, rent and it works pretty fine

I've seen London rental advertisements list weekly prices as a way to conceal their cost, but I've never heard of anyone taking payments weekly. Do council-provided flats have weekly bills?

New Zealand also calculates weekly. For example, a landlord can only ask for two weeks "up front" (aside from a bond). Weekly is common outside the US, whether advertising-only or otherwise.

yip. spot on

Well, it's a study... I can totally see giving someone $1200 once will not going to food and shelter. But just maybe, over time, it'll relieve what may be a sense of hopelessness, or other complex social factors that leads people to poor decisions. And it may not help for 100% of people in that socieconomic bracket, but optimistically I think it could help a large number of people get out of a bad cycle.

No, it's literally called enabling, and it doesn't help people's problems. There's a reason why you're told to cut off funds to people who have problems like this.

> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I don't think there's a cause and effect relationship there.

Somebody else suggested that payments should be divided into smaller amounts and disbursed more frequently. So instead of getting $1200 one a month (or whatever the amount is), you would get $20 every morning and $20 every evening. How do you think that would work in the neighborhood you grew up in?

ACH's around the nation are in love with this idea.

You might have a point there, daily payments could turn the best of us into daily drunks.

Personally, I learned being moderately frugal from having a large (for a kid) stash of cash in the bank (piggy and otherwise). "Do I want X more than I want to keep the money?" is a very different kind of question than the two separate "Do I want X? Do I have the money?" that I observe in people who never had that chance.

Maybe something like annual/1460 a day (for not starving) + annual/24 a month (for regular bills) + annual/4 once a year (to keep that long term thinking sharp) could be the best pattern. Somewhat foolproof, but not unnecessarily fool-creating.

> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

Serious question... By this logic have I plateaued in the middle class because I like to pay for and watch Netflix while having a few beers on the weekends instead of managing an investment portfolio for better returns or working on another startup idea?

I didn't at all, you just wanted to read that I did.

To recap, UBTs work better than most people expect. Within the extreme poverty bracket there are many people who actually use UBTs better than we anticipate. UBTs aren't a silver bullet, CCTs better address poor decision making and the deeper rooted issues which cause a cycle of poverty.

You, and many current welfare proponents, cling to the belief that the _majority_ of those on welfare would poorly allocate their funds, but again, this has been shown to not be the case (at least not to the degree we expect) time and time again.

I encourage you to actually read the Economist article...it is quite good.

I will also point out that while I cannot comment on the psychological benefits, I believe there to be strong economic benefits to a UBI over current welfare.

And finally, UCTs aren't the answer to everything. A UCT/CCT combination I think is inevitable to address the deeper decision making issues of poverty.

If most people born in poverty remain in poverty, while most people not born into poverty do not enter poverty, then it is self-evidently not the fault of the born-poor that they remain poor.

> Poor people are mostly poor because of the decisions they make. At least that is my experience.

Your experience is anecdotal and does not match reality, your view is called the just world fallacy.

Thanks for your comment, I also grew up in a poor immigrant family (non academic parents) and was able to move to the top 0,5% and fully agree with you.

My personal experience is that the problems poor people face (at least here in the West) often originates in their own lack of self control, impulse control, ability to cooperate and ego.

I fear if we take away all outside pressure to be productive and yes, to some degree conform to society, we will create a disaster for all of us.

Giving free stuff to someone is the worst you can do for anyone. Giving opportunities helps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com