Hacker News Reader

Comment by guard-of-terra | Hacker News Reader

"annual cash grant of $10,000—with no work requirements—to every adult over age 21."

And why is that?

Imagine you're 18, you've finished your high school and look up to three years of busting your ass in McDonalds instead of attending some education courses because you for some bizzare reason don't qualify for getting money like everybody else does.

Then there are single moms who don't get anything for their children.

Obviously we see and example where a smart man didn't stop and think, instead throwing in an "over 21" no-brainer.

View on HN

>single moms who don't get anything for their children.

Which is good, because then there's no incentive to produce many children just to cash in their basic income. Being a single mom in Western nations is mostly a business model anyway (either the father or state has to pay and considering that more than 70% of break-offs are initiated by the woman), and it usually results in children who are more prone to become criminals and dropouts.

We can disincentivize having each next children so our family converges on "mom, dad and 2-4 children", which would be pretty nice actually won't it? While building some savings for those children, larger when there's a lot of them.

Western nations sponsor single moms and get a surplus of single moms, that's what BIG ends.

>Being a single mom in Western nations is mostly a business model anyway

Can you expound on this?

> Then there are single moms who don't get anything for their children.

This is an example of a problem that's easy to state, but not at all easy to solve. If we give money to single moms with no strings, this may provide incentive to have more children (an idea with substantial evidence). If we create a disincentive to address that problem, someone will surely accuse the state of promoting racist policies or trying to engineer a change in the genetic makeup of the population.

Well, I've figured a solution here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6310186

That's not a solution. If the single mom gets the money, she has an incentive to make more children. If the children get the money, they have an incentive to become (as the saying goes) "children having children."

She doesn't have an incentive of having more than N children, after which payments degrade considerably.

if N is 2, what you subsidy is normal healthy families.

> She doesn't have an incentive of having more than N children, after which payments degrade considerably.

Meaning she gets less money than she got for the first few. But not no money, just less.

> if N is 2, what you subsidy is normal healthy families.

Normal healthy families of social parasites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman

She also have to spend on children. Let's not count extreme examples because you could also sell children for organs, could not you?

Social parasites are bankers and lawyers, why do you bring moms here, hello!?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com