Hacker News Reader

Comment by shortrounddev2 | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a feel-good idea but one which would be better implemented by just giving people the money instead and letting them do what they will with it

View on HN

Except 133,000 individuals could not buy 133,000 chromebooks for the amount of money that it takes one entity to buy 133,000 chromebooks.

There’s plenty of free cash/food/shelter around for those who need it. Adding computers to the list is better than just slightly more cash.

>There’s plenty of free cash/food/shelter around for those who need it.

There's plenty, but very little is actually given to those who need it.

Ironically, the most recent survey in the special unhoused enforcement zone near me found that the number of people living on the streets was almost identical to the number of empty beds at the shelter.

A lot of homeless people don't go to shelters because they can be more dangerous than sleeping on the street

I really can't imagine how having a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard would be more dangerous than a tent on the sidewalk. I do know that 1-2 people per month get kicked out of the shelter for fighting, but not sure how that compares to life on the streets.

I think a bigger factor is that the tiny homes limit how much stuff you can bring (aka 1 bike per person, cant build your own structures on the land, no drugs, etc), which seems to be the most common reason people gave for not wanting to go.

>a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard

You are not describing any homeless shelter that I've ever seen. Usually they are very crowded communal sleeping facilities with barely any security and zero privacy. Theft and assault are a common occurrence.

> I really can't imagine how having a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard would be more dangerous than a tent on the sidewalk

One: many homeless people feel dehumanized by how they're treated by the staff, and

Two: homeless shelters are full of homeless people

Cash is more likely to be nefariously hopped on than computers, especially when the resale market for the computers is destroyed.

Right but the question is if the government knows what those 133k people need better than they do. There's also the administrative cost of such a system and logistics (if the government decides to ship or deliver the devices themselves). You could avoid having to pay government salaries for the people involved in finding qualified people, getting their info, auditing for fraud, etc.

Yeah, but it’s cheaper to administer cash outflows. Maybe the state can buy the books for $200 but they have to manage inventory, hire staff, etc etc.

So it’s probably cheaper to just cut checks to people for $300 even though the cost per unit is higher.

How can you be assured that those money are used on those ChromeBooks?

The same way you assure chromebooks aren’t ebayed.

Basically a percentage will be wasted.

But you give the money to parents who need a computer and trust them to get a computer.

Not everyone will do the right thing, but I think it’s more efficient, and less wastage, to just hand out money than to hand out chromebooks.

You can't, but it doesn't matter

I can assure you the state already has plenty staff on hand with plenty of training on giving out free stuff.

And even if they don’t: jobs program.

The state could administer other tasks it's good at more effectively if it didn't need to spend human resources on such a program.

>jobs program

so is the point to help the poor, or is it to pay government workers to do unnecessary work?

You repeat yourself.

In all seriousness, it’s amusing to see how many people in this thread want to apply capitalist principles to a welfare program. The two are opposite - the goal here is to lose as much capital as possible.

I'm not arguing for "capitalist principles" (if there were such a thing).

The goal with welfare is to do as much good as possible. I contend that by managing administrative bloat, you lose money which could otherwise be given directly to people and do more good. The goal should be to spend money as efficiently as possible, not to spend less money

The administration people are a key part of the welfare program. The bloat is the jobs is the welfare. The welfare is the jobs is the bloat.

Same goes for healthcare, the TSA (gvmt in general), much of realty… the list goes on. Basically anywhere you look around and wonder what the hell so many workers are standing around for.

Employment is the number one mechanism of promoting welfare. (and the only one with lasting impact)

> jobs program

Bastiat would like a word.

133,000 free laptops, but some employees is where he interjects?

I believe you could do more good for the same price if you just gave people cash instead of implementing an administrative system to manage distributing laptops. Just give people money and they can buy what they need

The idea is people get Chromebooks, not that people get something of the value of $300.

That's the debate. What if you give someone a Chromebook instead of $300 and they cannot afford to repair their car. On the other hand giving someone a Chromebook can have a bigger impact than many other ways they could spend $300.

I can't think of any good scenarios from buying a bunch of crappy Chromebooks for any purpose. What's the best that can happen?

I think the idea is that internet connection is a basic necessity in modern society. A chromebook can help you look for a job, pay bills, etc. For kids it's an educational lifeline.

I actually did all my CS work via a Chromebook in 2013 with a VPS I ssh'd into. Coded everything in vim with makefiles. Was a crucible, but these days I use IDEs

If they need a laptop, they'll buy one. If they need something else, they'll buy that instead

See my comment. The goal wasn't to give people $300.

Why

The insatiable social spender:

>No you can't just give parents money to go buy food for their kids, they will buy drugs. We need adult humans to prepare free lunches for children.

>Why can't you just give them money? They know what they need most

No skin in the game here, I just always found this thinking contradictory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com