Hacker News Reader

> Simply giving everyone a check won't cause fathers to stay with their kids and won't keep gangs from filling in the power vacuum created by their absence.

That's true, basic income doesn't solve the problems resulting from the fact that the US is the most eager country in the world to incarcerate its citizens.

But neither does paternalistic welfare. Obviously.

> A check isn't going to replace work as a framework for structuring society nor give people the fulfillment that comes from work.

OTOH, an unconditional check -- unlike means-tested paternalistic welfare -- avoids providing an economic disincentive to work, and avoids hampering the ability of work to promote economic and social mobility.

> It's possible that paternalistic welfare is simply unworkable in practice. But I think advocates of basic income ignore the fact that there is a rationale behind paternalistic welfare that isn't addressed by basic income: that poor people lack more than just money.

The opponents of basic income ignore the fact that paternalistic welfare is a staggering failure at providing those things "more than just money", as well as being an incredibly inefficient mechanism for providing the money part.

Do you live in an inner city community? You're parroting out bizarre stereotypes (deadbeat Dads and gangs) as if they are the dominant phenomenon, which makes me think you don't actually live here.

I live in one of those "inner city communities" and basic income would be a godsend for a lot of people. I have been supporting one neighbor as he's trying to get on his feet, but it's incredibly costly to actually get a job. He needs money for housing, transit, clothes, food, all kinds of stuff to bootstrap him during the hiring, training, and onboarding process. It's hundreds if not thousands of dollars that you have to pay BEFORE you draw your first paycheck.

That's a guy who is doing everything right, except he has zero dollars in his pocket.

I can do it for one person, every few years. I would love it if the government would do it.

"Simply giving everyone a check won't cause fathers to stay with their kids"

At least in the UK there are currently financial incentives in the welfare system for single parents to a) become single parents rather than couples, and b) be paid by the government to stay at home and raise the child rather than the government paying for childcare while the parent works.

"A check isn't going to replace work as a framework for structuring society nor give people the fulfillment that comes from work."

Again, current welfare systems heavily incentivize the poorest people not to work. This is a key benefit of the proposed system, you keep most of every extra dollar you earn, rather than facing punitive marginal tax rates because welfare benefits are clawed back.

Your "paternalistic" welfare is often a beaurocratic trap.

That makes a lot of sense, -- Maybe our youth would grow up into better adults IF their parents--especially single parents had the means to support them withOUT taking a job. -- There should be the option of at least 1 full-time parent, whether it's in a 1 or 2 parent home.

As I understand it, the idea here is not really to replace work, but to make being un- or underemployed not be completely devastating. You're right that these communities' problems go deeper than money, but I think the poverty is still a blocking issue. You're not going to fix their society when the necessity to structure it around mere survival still exists.

Other things can improve when you're not stressed and struggling on minimum wage (or not wage at all).

Exactly, it's got to be harder to convince people to push your drugs when they aren't cold and hungry.

Arbeit Macht Frei.

Despite the evil connotations associated with this phrase post-WW2, I have to say that I agree with it.

people lack education and possibilities for long-term planning.

if you provide the second the first will follow. if you provide the first your other mentioned problems will go down.