[cenobyte]

As a programmer from a bad family, group home, foster family background myself.

$1k per month without working or struggle would have destroyed me.

Imagine all the weed and whiskey I could have bought for that? (Which is what I would have done)

Instead of working I would have been lazy.

Homelessness and hunger was my major motivator and made me work in fast food while dreaming of computers.

The lack of struggle would have crippled my drive.

[toomuchtodo]

25% of foster kids end up homeless after aging out of the system. Direct cash transfer value is mostly proven from a social work/benefit perspective. Sure, coaching and counseling through social services must also be provided to help underprivileged humans take care of themselves and reach their full potential, but cash benefits help, full stop. The moral hazard argument needs to die. There is a difference between struggle you can overcome to grow and plain ol’ suffering that will kill you, or cause you to kill yourself.

[Difwif]

No they have a point and you're covering your eyes and ears to the problems you make. I received $20k when I was 16 for reasons related to my mothers death. I did not spend that money wisely at all (literally drugs). It's one thing when we're talking about fully developed adults (the 25yo kind, not the 18 ones) getting a UBI and another when we're talking about kids in bad environments with poor mentors.

I wish someone would have taken that money from me and put it in college fund or IRA at the very least. Likewise this is a wellfare program for kids and we should ensure it's spent on their wellfare.

[LMYahooTFY]

The responses that completely ignore addiction and mental health need to die.

Can you address what the parent described about mental health and addiction?

Would you rather invest $10k into someone who has shown you they're reliable, or someone who has shown you they are unreliable?

Please answer both questions.

[edgyquant]

> Direct cash transfer value is mostly proven from a social work/benefit perspective.

There is basically nothing in social sciences that are a consistently reproducible fact. “Mostly proven” is Orwellian double speak akin to “the science is settled”

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

The research on the effects of cash transfers are not universally positive. This study found a significant negative effect on employment: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4375359

We are in the “needs more research” stage of this question, not the “tell the people who are asking to shut up” stage.

[bko]

You should check out the movie reversal of fortune. It follows a homeless dude that was given 100k no strings attached. He was specially chosen as he did not have any substance abuse issues. Despite that the story has a sad ending but it does humanize the struggle as you grow to like and empathize with the guy while the slow rolling train wreck carries on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_of_Fortune_(2005_fi...

[fastball]

Proven? At what scale?

[encoderer]

it is a way to help individuals while harming society as a whole.

[papercrane]

Studies like this are important to separate data from anecdotes and conjecture.

There are a lot of comments and conjecture that this will kill drive and increase drug use, but without actual data those are just hypothesis.

It is an interesting question around ethics of studies though. I'd be interested to see the ethics review for this study.

[Difwif]

I commented elsewhere that this happened to me. I might be an anecdote to you but I'm living out a case study from my perspective. I actually fully support things like a UBI but we can't ignore the problems it creates and damage it will cause. I know a huge point of the UBI is a lack of means testing but even Andrew Yang's proposal included an basic age cutoff.

Personally I think we need to accept that there should be some means testing but it just dictates whether the individual has control of the funds today or whether it goes into a trust that can only be used on specific things (food, shelter, recovery programs, etc.) and becomes completely available after some conditions are met (like a retirement fund).

[slg]

The idea that $12k is enough to allow you to be lazy and not work in Los Angeles is completely ignorant of the cost of the city. That is a third of a full time minimum wage job. That money is going to stop a lot more people from being homeless than it will cause people to quit their job.

[gameman144]

I agree that that's the hope. One also has to consider, though, that instead of transitioning from homeless to housed, the infusion of money might transition some folks from homeless to homeless with a budget to fuel addictions.

[candiddevmike]

> Instead of working I would have been lazy.

Isn't that what folks who don't have to work for a living do? Why is it frowned upon for poor people to do the same?

Although IMO $1000/month probably means you only have to work 1-2 part time jobs to get by, nowhere near lazy territory, especially in LA.

[sickofparadox]

I believe its frowned upon for people of all social classes, but there's less discussion about those who "don't have to work" because taxpayers are not funding their lives.

[Obscurity4340]

Thats why its dumb to wait until people are already basically formed before we introduce them to adult things like paying bills, having a budget, using a good forecasting app to be able to understand how each choice affects you and being able to see the bigger picture that arises from all the discrete small transactions. That last one is more my thing but I honestly don't know how anyone functions without it regardless of how well they're doing.

[thomastjeffery]

You are not everyone else.

If I didn't have financial support from my family, I would be homeless or dead today.

No amount of motivation is enough to overcome my executive dysfunction (ADHD).

[RC_ITR]

Would a $1,000 raise at your job have been as devastating?

Surely you're not implying $12k/year in Los Angeles (a county with c. $3k/month median rent) is going to create a class of willfully unemployed former foster-kids with no drive?

Should we also ban parents sending their kids money for the same reason? Or are foster kids uniquely prone to laziness?

[jstarfish]

You're proving his point.

$1k isn't enough to do anything with, so it's going to get wasted on vice.

Go give 1k to a homeless guy...he'll still be homeless, and probably dead thanks to what you enabled.

Qualify them for food stamps or something if you want to help. Cash always leads to trouble.

[sickofparadox]

Surely the difference between a $1,000/month raise at your job and a government stipend of $1,000 is that to continue to receive the extra $1k from your employer you cannot drink and smoke yourself into oblivion? While with the government stipend you can, which I believe is what the commenter you are replying to was getting at.

[Eumenes]

> Should we also ban parents sending their kids money for the same reason?

How is that anyway comparable to the county government giving monthly welfare checks to a niche demographic of the population?

[WalterBright]

When I was young I couldn't afford rent, so I had roommates. It was normal back then for several individuals to rent a house and share it.

[matwood]

I appreciate your point, but would have 1k/month have actually changed your struggle or motivation? Or to put another way, why weren't you spending all the money you did make on weed and whiskey?

[smcg]

That was then this is now. The recipients are 21-23. They need a place to live. 1000/month barely covers rent now.

[raegis]

> $1k per month without working or struggle would have destroyed me.

Are you claiming that most 21-year-old L.A. residents would be destroyed by $1000/month? I've lived in L.A. for more than 20 years, so I somewhat know the culture. My guess is the overwhelming majority would use the $1000 for a car payment and insurance. And I'd bet serious money on it.

[malfist]

Oh please, this is just repackaged "Don't give poor people money, they'll just spend it on drugs" drivel.

Even if you're telling the truth, you're advocating a state where people suffer because you personally couldn't handle a tiny bit of welfare.

[prosqlinjector]

> because you personally couldn't handle a tiny bit of welfare.

If there was a segment of the population who "couldn't handle" welfare, where do you think we would find them?

[PpEY4fu85hkQpn]

This is welfare queen Reagan-era propaganda. Pure nonsense.