UBI Cash Payments Reduced Homelessness, Increased Employment in Denver
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.
您正在查看单个对话串。
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?
UBI is socialism? Without any price caps on goods and services it just gives capitalists another excuse to raise prices.
That's not true. You're thinking of social programs. Socialism is when workers own the means of production.
If this was socialism, America would have already done a military coup in Denver.
in the US you could call anything socialism and people would automatically hate it
Hexbear 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.
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
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?
That's a fair point, but I'd like to clarify that I'm not calling socdem countries socialist. I think there's a difference between socdem policy and UBI in terms of their impacts on the economy, on the social contract, and on politics.
Oh ok... I think the main pt is that UBI and Socdem policies are similar in that, while not inherent in Socialism, they would be better executed under it, as a policy...
Yep, I see your point. UBI is inherently inefficient in a capitalist system, and so the comparison isn't really fair.
That isnt socialism, the proletariat doesn't control the means of production.
Love too go down to the government store and order an extra large socialism
Yh a lot of mfers on this site need to actually read some theory.
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.
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.
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.
From the source of link 3:
Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants
- Lost or reduced income: 12%
- Conflict among residents: 9%
- Didn't want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
- Conflict with property owner: 7%
- Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
- Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
- Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
- Breakup between residents: 4%
- Participant's substance use: 4%
- Other needed more space: 4%
and also:
To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).
FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure
All
- $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
- $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
- Housing voucher: 90%
So while "not enough money" might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.
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.
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.
