Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwal37 | Hacker News Reader

You're not alone in thinking that. It works[1], and it's cheaper than the current revolving door of policies and support systems. The problem seems to be that people have a strong negative reaction to "undeserving others" getting things "for free".

[1] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...

View on HN

It's sickening to me that most US citizens seem to prefer watching people die on the street than give them things they "do not deserve".

I have good news for you. US citizens don't actually like watching people die on the street, not even the ones on the right.

Right, they close their doors and avert their gaze

That's very easy to say on your very comfortable chair.

Arguments on both sides here are about what people "like to do" - with hyperbole in both directions. But the fundamental problem is with what people actually do - and given the scale of the problem, and apparent lack of solution, it doesn't seem unfair to say that not enough is being done. Quite a large chunk of the non-homeless population in the US is living in a relatively precarious situation[1], which leaves them both practically unable to help and presumably also afraid of ending up on the street themselves. Hence it's not unreasonable to expect the response to come from governments, like Utah's did.

1: https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-...

bourgeois ideology is contagious, sadly.

And why?

Well, it is important to avoid creating a culture of dependence. We've seen how that can backfire on us in Africa. So it's not totally irrational.

Maybe some of us prefer not deincentivizing work and creating an even larger subpopulation which is entirely dependent on government and won't be employable for generations?

We live in a reality where resources still require effort and capital to extract from the environment. A society can only support so many through welfare before it collapses.

The subject is a little more nuanced than watching people die out of some kind of jealousy.

And an economy can only be so rapacious of honest hard-working citizens before it collapses.

Me included - which is why I would provide the bare minimum, and would provide it directly as services rather than dish out benefits for people to spend in the economy. One of the most depressing things on TV here in the UK is a genre of poor people documentary porn which show benefits recipients who commonly have a Sky TV subscription, massive flat screens TVs, latest consoles and phones, plenty of money for ciggies and booze etc, and that appear deeply averse to work but are not so averse to intellectual effort that they aren't able to understand the intricate details of the benefits system necessary to keep their benefits flowing in. Unfortunately I think the only way to discourage this dependency culture is to make working aspirational - and how do we do that? Attitude change yes, but I would argue also making life on benefits less attractive, whilst still remaining humane.

I always thought that experiment was in some senses actually kind of damning. On the one hand it's a success, 91% reduction in chronic homelessness, that's good. On the other hand, how was it not a 100% reduction!? I think it really does validate some of the reservations & criticisms. 9% of the homeless population remained homeless even when everything was provided. That is striking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com