I wonder if rent would go up if ubi became a thing
The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, leading to almost totally equal redistribution of the land amongst the peasantry.
removed by mod
That depends on the housing market. If you have a surplus in housing, rent will remain stable because tenants will move if their landlord increases rent.
If you have a deficit in housing and more people look for a place to stay than there are available places, then tenants cannot move. Landlords and other businesses in deficit markets like healthcare will take all additional income.
“Those damn homeless and injuns get EVERYTHING for free”
-my racist and jaded ass coworker
OK, so you’re telling me that giving money to people who need it, is better than giving it to rich people?
I am Wage Slaves inner shocked pikachu. Same thing, just more sarcastic and massive eye brows.
Who would pledge 10% of their income to distribute as basic income? There is no need to wait until politicians implement it. We can start immediately.
Don’t be absurd. Systemic change is needed. Not individual charity.
What’s your plan for systemic change? If you have none, why not try systemic individual charity?
The average citizen will have to pay for UBI with taxes. Why not do it voluntarily?
What’s your plan for systemic change?
Tax the rich, redistribute wealth, stop treating basic human needs such as shelter and healthcare as profit generators.
If you have none
I did. Stop making stupid assumptions.
why not try systemic individual charity?
Please learn what words mean. There is no “systemic individual” anything.
The average citizen will have to pay for UBI with taxes. Why not do it voluntarily?
Because it doesn’t work, you walnut.
You don’t have a plan, you have a wish list. How do you want to achieve your list?
Using insults doesn’t refute my points. Why not coordinate as citizens?
You don’t have a plan, you have a wish list. How do you want to achieve your list?
I’m sorry, you expect anyone who disagrees with you on social media to write you a thesis on restructuring society, or you just ignore them?
It’s obvious that you just want to disregard what people have to say.
You haven’t actually written anything of substance, but I have to effortpost for you? Lol, bite me.
Using insults doesn’t refute my points.
You don’t have any points.
Why not coordinate as citizens?
Why do you think it hasn’t already worked? Why do you think charity hasn’t already accomplished what you say it will accomplish?
Perhaps because it doesn’t actually achieve systemic change. Because the people hoarding wealth do not voluntarily distribute it.
Maybe because the people who hoard wealth are like everybody else and too few want to share? Why expect the billionaires to share if normal people don’t share?
Right now is the first time in history since city state times that the citizens can talk and vote together.
If people choose to share their income, they can do it now. The debate hasn’t happened yet.
Maybe because the people who hoard wealth are like everybody else and too few want to share?
So then why are you suggesting voluntary charity if you know it doesn’t actually work? Are you being deliberately dense?
If people choose to share their income, they can do it now. The debate hasn’t happened yet.
It has happened, just because your head is wedged so firmly up your own ass that you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.
1K a month is pretty trivial compared to the cost of all the public money used to punish them (e.g cops). Even if you don’t care about the humanity aspect at all UBI makes sense just from a pure numbers perspective.
Don’t forget healthcare and existing social security!
But think of all the money prisons will lose!
I know it’s a popular sentiment, because private prisons are so in-your-face evil, but they’re not as ubiquitous as the population seems to believe.
Twenty-seven states and the federal government incarcerated 96,370 people in private prisons in 2021, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population.
Yes, that’s too many. Yes, we need to ban these things at the federal level. But let’s not forget the grift from state and local prisons, in many cases worse because they can’t be as readily audited.
$1,000/mo. is not UBI, not like it’s usually discussed. I’d go for widening this program, let’s keep the experiment rolling until it pans out or collapses.
I’d love to show this to people who say “but lazy people will be getting paid for nothing” or “competition is human nature” that capitalists made the fuck up, but it’ll probably go over their heads, or they’ll conveniently say that the test was not done properly
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The results, so far: Participants who were sleeping on the streets at the start of the experiment — now with more money in their pockets — said they were feeling safer, experiencing better mental health, and enjoying access to more stable and welcoming living arrangements.
An entrepreneur, he made his money off Wooden Ships — a clothing company that specializes in sweaters for women — and an investment in Tesla that skyrocketed during the coronavirus pandemic.
Commentary on homelessness often focuses on mental health and addiction, perceived as the chief drivers of a spike in people sleeping on the streets in cities from Sacramento, California, to Jacksonville, Florida.
But the Pew Charitable Trust wrote in a recent analysis that research had “consistently found that homelessness in an area is driven by housing costs.”
While cautioning that this was only an interim six-month follow-up for what is a yearlong program, the researchers nonetheless found stark and encouraging changes in participants’ material conditions.
That material gains were seen among all groups suggests at least some of the improvements may be attributable to something other than cash, such as increased access to other services during the study period (the researchers don’t speculate).
The original article contains 835 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The cruelty is the point, so this isn’t likely to be expanded.
Poverty is a lack of money, that’s it. Tax the rich, help the poor, grow the middle class.
I think my biggest problem with these tests (not the idea of UBI) is that they go entirely based on what the recipients say. There’s not really any indication that fact checking is done to confirm they actually are living somewhere now, or they did get their cars fixed, etc.
I’m confident that the money helped, because obviously it would, but I wish we could get some actual solid data on how much it helped. The cynic in me believes that desperate people getting 1000$/mo will embellish how much it helps in order to keep getting the money, when in reality they need 1500$ or 2000$ to afford housing in Denver.
Isn’t that like… Objectively wrong?
Dear Faust, even in Soviet Union idea of studio apartments were too cringe, so normal apartments were used for mass housing.
I’m not sure what definition of UBI you’re using, but not all forms of UBI need to cover the entirety of living expenses. UBI is just having income without strings attached. This very study is showing that even small amounts of money can help people get out of shitty situations.
Also as someone who lives in Dever, it’s not that expensive. Sure $1500+ is what you’ll pay around LoDo, but there are plenty of cheaper places.
Rent is only high because of artificial scarcity of real estate. The scarcity only exists because building new housing is decided neither by supply and demand nor central government planning, but by the people who accumulate more capital if housing isn’t built.
: “Did you just suggest walkable communities with plenty of brownstone townhouses? Whoa WTF I love regulations now!”We really need to push for the feds to step in and start constructing government housing against the will of the NIMBYs and local and state governments then.
California has finally started forcing local governments to build more housing to stop the NIMBYs bit it’s still going to take so many years for housing to catch up even if they start now.
We tried ubi during lock downs Here and it not only failed catastrophically but our government had to give up on billions of dollars people aren’t eligible for it caused catastrophic nearly unrecoverable inflation and people are now walking away from their mortgages that they can no longer afford
Recent inflation was actually caused by lending rates dropping to zero, investments being made on that basis and now that lending rates are normalized costs are increasing, and now prices are increasing to maintain profits.
You dropped these (,…)
But in all seriousness, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
do I hear an uneducated Canadian boomer?
You sound like a bigoted hateful idiot. And no.
He’s just said that cause you quack like a duck dude
The government giving out money to people so that they could stay housed/fed did not cause record inflation. The capitalists massively hiked prices, then said that inflation made them do it. They then declared record profits afterwards. Capitalists scooped up all that money with ease. They then did their little song and dance of, “We’re all in this together. We’re just widdle beans trying to survive like you.”
If the government doing stuff for people over a 2 year period causes massive amounts of inflation, wouldn’t decades of handouts to capitalists cause record hyper-inflation? Inflation doesn’t happen because the government does stuff. Inflation happens because capitalists will pounce on any opportunity to eek more money out of you, then blame you for having too much money.
Similar experiments in Vancouver: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/30/canada-study-homeless-money-spending
Ontario: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-mcmaster-report-1.5485729
Turns out, socialism ain’t that bad eh?
That isnt socialism, the proletariat doesn’t control the means of production.
I think you are confusing socialism with communism.
Are you in a political organization that is explicitly socialist? Have you read any literature by any notable socialist author?
I know the answer to both is no. Because I know you’re confusing yourself as someone who is informed about what socialism and communism are.
Yh a lot of mfers on this site need to actually read some theory.
Love too go down to the government store and order an extra large socialism
UBI is socialism? Without any price caps on goods and services it just gives capitalists another excuse to raise prices.
deleted by creator
what. Social programs are not socialismHexbear expressing opinions 🥴
what
Socialism, in an extreme simplification, is a mode of political and economic organisation in which the workers own the means of production, and receive the full value of their labour. While social welfare programs are often attached to that, they are not socialism in and of themselves, nor are they a prerequisite to socialism (but it is nice to have).
Inherently, the funding of social programs must be derived by taking value away from capital and redistributing it to the public. In general, social programs might not be socialist, but in the particular case of UBI it’s literally a direct redistribution of (some) surplus value from capital accumulators to society. Just like how the term “capitalism” today doesn’t describe a perfectly capitalist economy, the term “socialism” has been co-opted to refer more to progress towards socialism… In that regard, I think UBI programs are distinct from typical social programs (i.e. expanding universal healthcare further does not make a society socialist, nor does improving support for homelessness) in that they are direct progress towards socialism (i.e. expanding UBI further literally redistributes value entirely from capital to society and basically achieves the goals of social ownership).
I’m pretty sure you have literally no idea how taxes work.
Y’know what? That’s fair.
My understanding has been that the entire point of a progressive tax system is to sap money from the wealthy and redistribute it towards the public good. Whether that system works is debatable, sure.
Point being, actual UBI would require significant tax hikes and closing of tax loopholes which predominantly target the wealthy. While that may lead to capital flight, it’s not a bad thing. As a whole, UBI wouldn’t be a small step but a massive stride towards achieving socialism.
UBIs can be a good part of socialism, but not necessarily an essentialist value of it, though it’s not as well-utilized under capitalism…
If Feudalism means the rule of Feudal lords, by ownership of the land and thus crop rents, and capitalism means the rule of capitalists, by ownership of capital and thus profit
Then with socialism, it’s the rule of society, by communal ownership (state or not) of our industry towards societal goods, such as food, shelter, etc. and avoid the crises that come with it
If you reform the system without changing its system, it will rhyme up its mistakes all over again (do the same action but with worse effect to society)
Btw though: don’t most of the ideal Socdem countries, whom you call socialist, in the West rely on exploitative unequal “exchange” , and the Socdem countries of the Global South are slandered and sanctioned, the most extreme example being Venezuela?
I’m totally in favor of UBI it just needs to come with rent control, food price controls, healthcare, etc. And it needs to not be paid for by taxing the working class
deleted by creator
in the US you could call anything socialism and people would automatically hate it
deleted by creator
99.999999999% of the homeless are homeless because they don’t have enough money.
Depends where you are.
That is pretty much bullshit. From a brother in law that died of substance abuse and another I house for same reason, nearly every homeless person I have met has had some type of substance abuse. Being you are making that claim, do you have a source to back it up?
Addiction Disorders: The relationship between addiction and homelessness is complex and controversial. While rates of alcohol and drug abuse are disproportionately high among the homeless population, the increase in homelessness over the past two decades cannot be explained by addiction alone. Many people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are clearly at increased risk of homelessness. Addiction does increase the risk of displacement for the precariously housed; in the absence of appropriate treatment, it may doom one’s chances of getting housing once on the streets. Homeless people often face insurmountable barriers to obtaining health care, including addictive disorder treatment services and recovery supports. Source
The prevalence of mental illness and substance use among those experiencing homelessness is clear, but Kushel cautions that the vast majority of mental illness among the study participants is anxiety and depression. It’s likely the lack of resources exacerbates those conditions, rather than the illness causing the homelessness, she says.
“I think that the driving issue is clearly the deep poverty, that the median [monthly] household income for everyone in the household in the six months before homelessness was $960, in a state with the highest housing costs in the country,” she says. Other studies have noted that the end of pandemic stimulus payments and rising inflation has led to rents outpacing wages. The study notes that in 2023, California had only 24 units of affordable housing available for every 100 extremely low-income households.Source
Just because you know one or two people that were homeless and also had problems with addiction, doesn’t mean the addiction caused their homelessness.
So you were totally lying when you said 99.999 percent were homeless for reasons other than money.
It wasn’t me that said that, and that’s not what they said.
Edit: I should really refresh the page if I’m going to spend so long reading the sources.
Sorry was not you. Point being stands though. Your source does not help his post but negates it.
It’s not like it’s that expensive to determine who’s homeless because they don’t have money. Solving homelessness isn’t a single golden bullet.
deleted by creator
They gave the money to people living on friends couches. That is not exactly homeless but was considered a roommate at one time. Ubi is universal. It is in the name. Give it to every person regardless of status and see how effective it is compared to the money spent. I bet it is a poor return.
Pretty much they’re giving money to people who are most likely to be transitionally homeless and then claiming success even though most if not all of the participants wouldn’t be homeless after a year anyway.
You read the first study? The money was not given to those that has substance abuse, mental health symptoms or alcohol abuse because they felt they represented a small portion of the homeless. Was given to people that were sleeping in friends house and some in cars and didn’t abuse alcohol or drugs. That is a joke of an experiment and in no ready ubi. Not does it indicate on any meaningful way how it is paid for as it doesn’t include everyone.
The second study found only 3/4 of the people continued to work and ultimately the 150 million dollar program was cancelled because it did not appear to increase contribution to society in any economic way.
“No shit”
People without money mostly need money.
Somehow this is surprising and confusing… primarily to people who cannot imagine change.
