909
UBI Cash Payments Reduced Homelessness, Increased Employment in Denver (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M] to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
274 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 80 points 3 years ago (20 children)

If people aren't forced to work to live then how can I get cheap labor for my shitty business that my dad gave me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 38 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    If people have UBI, you can get away with paying less though. That's how walmart does it; just encourage your workers to get welfare so they stay alive enough to work more

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    And that's honestly my proposal for it. Basically, create something like UBI (my preference is NIT) that ensures everyone is over the poverty level, eliminate minimum wage, and have benefits phase out for some reasonable definition of "living wage" (say, 2x the poverty level, maybe 3x).

    Working would never make you worse off, and people wouldn't feel obligated to take crappy jobs if the pay isn't there.

    We could also eliminate many other forms of welfare at the same time and just increase benefits accordingly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The only benefits that I think would have to stay, are those with "unlimited" downside, like healthcare.

    UBI can potentially replace specific benefits for housing or general living expenses, but it can't really replace healthcare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Agreed, I certainly wouldn't touch Medicare or Medicaid. I'd also probably leave unemployment insurance as is, and this would kick in afterward.

    But I think it could replace Social Security, food assistance, housing assistance, etc. And I think we could fund it by lifting the income cap on Social Security, but I'd need to run the numbers to be sure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    Raise their rent

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    Which we all know would happen IMMEDIATELY in lockstep with any widespread rollout of UBI, and any complaint would be met with half the country screeching "FREE MARKET REEEEEE"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    Guess we better institute rent controls first then

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.

    UBI can be an effective way to fight poverty, and would be an even more effective way to combat poverty if we implemented a Negative Income tax whereby all welfare programs are rolled into the funding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.

    Only if you assume that private landlords are the only way to supply housing.

    There is no reason to assume that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest revolution in history and led to an almost entirely equitable distribution of land ownership

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    And how did that work out for the estimated 15-55 million people that died of starvation as a result of the "equitable distribution of land ownership"?

    Source

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Wikipedia lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What a childish response. So the famine didn't occur because it's documented on Wikipedia?

    The reasons for the famine are well understood and documented. I don't think defending Mao is the way to go in regards to our modern housing crisis.

    The housing market issue is also well understood and documented. We know companies and investors have been buying more and more houses, driving up prices. We know wages have not kept pace with rising housing costs. We know the gap between rich and poor has been widening year after year. Why the fuck are we derailing the conversation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago

    First off, I'm not denying the famine happened, aim just denying Wikipedia's framing. The death counts are exaggerated and many were connected to devastation caused by the Civil War.

    Second off, I am not advocating we do mid 20th century agriculture practices and kill the sparrows after doing land reform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent