UBI can Reduce Homelessness

[The Hammer]

Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.

UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.

www.businessinsider.com

As the title already states, giving homeless persons cash payments helped them get back on their feet, off the streets with some even getting full time employment.

So what's the problem with this method of assistance?

 

[Heyo]

So what's the problem with this method of assistance?

It doesn't fit into the world view of greedy people who think poor people don't deserve assistance.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It doesn't fit into the world view of greedy people who think poor people don't deserve assistance.

This.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't fit into the world view of greedy people who think poor people don't deserve assistance.

I'm greedy, & believe they don't deserve assistance.
But I favor the UBI because the positive results are
worth the cost.

Being undeserving doesn't mean we shouldn't
help them. It makes us all better off in many ways.
Punishing them is wrong...which is what both Dems
& Pubs currently do, eg, persecuting the homeless.

 

[Heyo]

But I favor the UBI because the positive results are
worth the cost.

That's the kind of pragmatism I like with people on the (traditional) right. But together with identity politics (too) many have become dogmatic (a traditional fault of the left).

 

[Kfox]

Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.

UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.

www.businessinsider.com

As the title already states, giving homeless persons cash payments helped them get back on their feet, off the streets with some even getting full time employment.

So what's the problem with this method of assistance?

The best way to increase something is to provide cash incentives to engage in it. I think the money would be better spent to provide them with food and shelter. Giving them cash will only incentivize homelessness.

 

[Heyo]

The best way to increase something is to provide cash incentives to engage in it. I think the money would be better spent to provide them with food and shelter. Giving them cash will only incentivize homelessness.

You don't understand the idea of UBI. UBI is thought of as a payment that every citizen receives, just for being a citizen. I.e. there is no incentive to be homeless to get the UBI.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

The best way to increase something is to provide cash incentives to engage in it. I think the money would be better spent to provide them with food and shelter. Giving them cash will only incentivize homelessness.

Walk me through the logic on this.
Do you think people are actively choosing to be homeless and if they just "choose" to not be homeless we would end homelessness tomorrow? Do you think UBI would cause homelessness rather than simply stop some people from falling into it? What is the through process behind someone being like "I have a little extra money. I'm gonna go live in a ditch now. My dream life really."

 

[Quetzal]

I'm greedy, & believe they don't deserve assistance.
But I favor the UBI because the positive results are
worth the cost.

Being undeserving doesn't mean we shouldn't
help them. It makes us all better off in many ways.
Punishing them is wrong...which is what both Dems
& Pubs currently do, eg, persecuting the homeless.

Yep. When the politicians are in the pockets of the super greedy it doesn't matter what party they represent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. When the politicians are in the pockets of the super greedy it doesn't matter what party they represent.

Blaming the wealthy is specious.
Harming the homeless has wide appeal
in the masses, eg, booting them from
anyplace they can be seen & heard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"I have a little extra money. I'm gonna go live in a ditch now. My dream life really."

Duhhhh. I know I wish someone would give me a bit of money so I could go live on the streets and know the bliss of not knowing where I'll sleep.

 

[Quetzal]

Blaming the wealthy is specious.
Harming the homeless has wide appeal
in the masses, eg, booting them from
anyplace they can be seen & heard.

My thought was that the widening wealth gap would potentially make homelessness worse (certainly doesn't make it better). Those who benefit the most from this gap widening are the wealthy. To blame them entirely is an oversimplification as well as inaccurate, of course.

That said, you are correct that locals are just as aggressive toward the homeless (and on a more personal level).

 

[PureX]

Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.

UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.

www.businessinsider.com

As the title already states, giving homeless persons cash payments helped them get back on their feet, off the streets with some even getting full time employment.

So what's the problem with this method of assistance?

No one wants to pay for it. The rich won't, the poor can't, and everyone else is already paying for EVERYTHING as it is. And even if we gave people enough money to actually rent an apartment, it would only drive the cost of rents up beyond their reach, again, because there just isn't enough housing to keep the prices down. And no one wants to build housing for poor or working people. The big money is in building housing for the well to do.

 

[The Hammer]

No one wants to pay for it. The rich won't, the poor can't, and everyone else is already paying for EVERYTHING as it is. And even if we gave people enough money to actually rent an apartment, it would only drive the cost of rents up beyond their reach, again, because there just isn't enough housing to keep the prices down. And no one wants to build housing for poor or working people. The big money is in building housing for the well to do.

We could reallocate some
Of the taxes we already pay out of our overly bloated defense fund.

 

[PureX]

We could reallocate some
Of the taxes we already pay out of our overly bloated defense fund.

SOCIALISM!!!! GOD FORBID we should allocate housing ACCORDING TO ACTUAL NEED, instead of greed!!!!

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

Another point is the only time I have ever seen a good argument against UBI was from a leftist. And it was that even if we did give everyone a UBI rent would just go up by a proportional amount and that we wouldn't actually better the lives of anyone. And TBH I think there is some merit to that. So having UBI along with something, even if its temporary, to curb the inflation that would surely happen afterwards. Mathematically inflation shouldn't happen since we aren't injecting more money to a closed system but supply and demand would bee dramatically shifted if the majority of people came into extra money that was substantial enough to allow them to live better lives.

But the point is that it should have to. After the economy re-settles from the shock we could probably lift the gates so that scalpers didn't permanently double rent over the course of a year.

 

[Quetzal]

Another point is the only time I have ever seen a good argument against UBI was from a leftist. And it was that even if we did give everyone a UBI rent would just go up by a proportional amount and that we wouldn't actually better the lives of anyone. And TBH I think there is some merit to that. So having UBI along with something, even if its temporary, to curb the inflation that would surely happen afterwards. Mathematically inflation shouldn't happen since we aren't injecting more money to a closed system but supply and demand would bee dramatically shifted if the majority of people came into extra money that was substantial enough to allow them to live better lives.

But the point is that it should have to. After the economy re-settles from the shock we could probably lift the gates so that scalpers didn't permanently double rent over the course of a year.

The economic picture needs to be considered for sure. But I would suggest this is a critique against the capitalist demand for ever-increasing value. I don't know what the answer is.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

The economic picture needs to be considered for sure. But I would suggest this is a critique against the capitalist demand for ever-increasing value. I don't know what the answer is.

For sure. The alternative to UBI in this particular discussion was collective ownership of the means of production as a whole. They were simply arguing that UBI still allowed for a ruling class that will use any and all means to continue to exploit the working class. It wasn't a critique in favor of continuing down the path we are on currently.

 

[Revoltingest]

My thought was that the widening wealth gap would potentially make homelessness worse (certainly doesn't make it better). Those who benefit the most from this gap widening are the wealthy.

What benefit do you see to the wealthy
by keeping people poor & homeless?

To blame them entirely is an oversimplification as well as inaccurate, of course.

That said, you are correct that locals are just as aggressive toward the homeless (and on a more personal level).

Some common ground?
Woohoo!

 

[PureX]

Another point is the only time I have ever seen a good argument against UBI was from a leftist. And it was that even if we did give everyone a UBI rent would just go up by a proportional amount and that we wouldn't actually better the lives of anyone.

I'm pretty sure it would better the lives of the landlords.

And TBH I think there is some merit to that. So having UBI along with something, even if its temporary, to curb the inflation that would surely happen afterwards.

The one thing that Ameican capitalists fear most, and will fight tooth and nail to make sure it can NEVER happen, is the government setting prices on behalf of the well being of the citizenry. Because that flies in the face of the most profoundly held tenet of capitalism: to gain the maximum return on the capital invested. Which has nothing to do with maintaining the well being of the citizenry.

Mathematically inflation shouldn't happen since we aren't injecting more money to a closed system but supply and demand would be dramatically shifted if the majority of people came into extra money that was substantial enough to allow them to live better lives.

That's just it. Supply andd demand would NOT be shifted, only the price point would change. The only way to shift supply and demand is to increase/decrease demand, or increase/decrease supply. We don't need to give people money for rent. We need to build lots more affordable housing, and give people decent paying jobs.