Hacker News Reader

Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

How can we, as a society, support our future during its most vulnerable time (childhood)? How is it possible that we still have homeless children in a country with so much wealth?

(I'm seriously asking. I want to know how many other similarly bright minds aren't being supported to their full potential due to circumstances not their fault, and what public administrative techniques have been proven to work or not work and why.)

View on HN

> How can we, as a society, support our future during its most vulnerable time (childhood)? How is it possible that we still have homeless children in a country with so much wealth?

The argument goes like this:

> Because why should I care for someone else's child and why should I shell out money because someone decided to have children even though they shouldn't have ?

Taking it further, it's because when we offer goodwill, we want it to have strings attached. When you support someone else through charitable donations, you want certain restrictions on it.

For example, I don't want to support some kids' religious education, because I think religion is a form of handcuffs. When we give to a homeless person, we don't want it used for drugs.

In general, we want our giving to support our values. With other people's children, especially children in a different socioeconomic group, that's unlikely.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting conditions attached to handouts, everyone has their own moral system. I see nothing wrong with helping support two children whose parents have been unable to earn due to injury / illness. If a single mum with 9 kids has a history of having more children while demanding hand outs then I'm not do keen.

Children in poverty should not have to rely your discretionary, strings-attached, judgement-laden charity. They need good public services fully funded by your mandatory, fair, and sufficient taxes.

I live in a very heavily taxed nation and across the board, we are seeing all our government services degrade more and more. I pay over 50% direct tax and all our services are crying out for funding. The ability to fund these "good public services" is dependent on having a large tax-paying base.

Social security and welfare is 36% of our federal budget. Education is only 7%. We have free universal healthcare and that's only 16%.

There is a literal culture here of living off support and having large families. You get more funding for larger families. The children tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents. Exponential math is taught in high school, it doesn't take much to see how this ends up. I understand your human argument for these children but I'm concerned with our ability to look after families in 20 years time, or 50 years time.

The counter-argument goes like this:

Prudent or not, the deed is done; the child is here now and has real needs now. Get over punishing the child for being born and do the right thing.

The counter-counter argument is that not giving someone your money isn't "punishing" them, it's just retaining consent over your finances which everyone should have a right to do, without shame.

The counter-counter-counter argument is that, in a society of interdependent individuals, ownership is a limited right which may be curtailed in the face of substantial harm to that society, e.g., in the way that poverty amounts to a higher burden to the interests of ensuring the nominally inalienable right to life than the costs of ameliorating poverty would be.

How much of "your" money is an indirect result of previous generations' sacrifice so that you can have a better life?

I don't think previous generations were particularly altruistic toward the poor. In general people "sacrifice" for their family or themselves, not for others.

Perhaps, but at even the most basic understanding of economic incentives you have to see how it's not that simple if the parent is still in the care of their pre-existing guardian.

So, which do we consider more important: some kind of theoretical economic nudge, or actual children without homes, without adequate food, healthcare, and education?

> Because why should I care for someone else's child and why should I shell out money because someone decided to have children even though they shouldn't have ?

The worst part of this is it naturally encourages classism. Only wealthy people should have children, only wealthy people should have pets, etc.

> Only wealthy people should have children, only wealthy people should have pets, etc.

I'd be happy if we could get an equal reproduction rate across all income demographics, i.e. more children for wealthy people. As it is we seem to be inadvertently running a selective breeding program against those most capable of thriving in our society. We should stop doing that.

Well, that would require investing in sex education, financial education, and contraceptive distribution for poor people. So, we're right back to square one.

> "why should I care for someone else's child"

Because those children will grow and join society. When you are old, some will be your doctors and some will be the attendants pushing your wheelchair. They will vote and drive, form opinions and act on them. They will work, or not, and will require more or less in public services. They are not going to disappear, regardless of how you view their parents.

Today's children will be the society around you. Make it a strong one.

It's a good question to ask, and a subject that needs to be addressed. However, I don't think the answers will matter much in this specific case because the boy and his family are refugees. That comes with its own peculiar issues (and political biases).

FWIW, he was living in a shelter, so housing was being provided.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com