cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/1021018
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/upliftingnews by /u/DyeZaster on 2023-10-05 17:58:02.
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/1021018
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/upliftingnews by /u/DyeZaster on 2023-10-05 17:58:02.
deleted by creator
Spend all the money that’s spent trying to find welfare cheats (and cost more than they could possibly save anyway) on basic income instead.
deleted by creator
Alaska is super progressive on that front. It’s not UBI per se. It’s closer to what the Saudis and some other oil-based countries do.
The basic argument is that oil, as a natural resource, belongs to Alaskans in common in the same way as air and water does. Oil companies must pay for extracting the resource, and part of that pay is directly remitted to the citizens. I think both Alaska and Alaskans should be getting more than they are, but that’s the general idea and legal justification as I understand it in practice, I believe it comes out to only a few thousand per year per person, but I’m not Alaskan and am open to correction on any of these points. It’s just something I looked into as a UBI supporter myself.
It’s sort of the Libertarian version of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, if public income can exist in Libertarianism. Give everyone cash now instead of having a public agency invest it for the future.
And yeah, it probably should be higher. Per person oil and gas income for the state of Norway was $24 000 last year (at the current exchange rate). Although I haven’t checked per capita oil and gas extraction.
No not our military! Then we’ll have nothing to brag about and threaten other countries with! We don’t need to spend money on education or human welfare! We need more guns! More tanks! More jets! More drones!/s
deleted by creator
So self-selected indentured servitude for the poor classes
“why don’t presidents fight the wars? Why do they always send the poor?”
Here’s the thing, there’s no need to cut back on anything, just be more accountable.
So you don’t support Ukraine?
Try looking at who they chose to give money to as they usually are not the chronically unhoused who represent much of the unhoused population
deleted by creator
Given the results mirror other experiments that target successfully recent unhoused people I suspect they aren’t targeting “the most vulnerable” and that phrase is the author’s choice.
If you work with unhoused people enough you would know “the most vulnerable people” aren’t lacking for money as much as they frequently are fighting significant mental illness. One guy that used to sleep in the parking lot if a store I worked at, Eddie, wasn’t just homeless and an alcoholic. Eddie was incredibly prone to violent hallucinations and handing guys like him $1k a month isn’t changing that.
They are almost certainly targeting the recent homeless who has a job or recently had a job, has a credit history, and the ability to get off the streets and just needs money to do so.
Im not saying we shouldn’t look into this as a solution to part of our unhoused problems only that we shouldn’t restrict other programs meant to address chronic homelessness in favor of this.
deleted by creator
To be considered homeless, you just need to be without a permanent place to live. Some people are living in their car and still employed, some are couch-surfing, some are sleeping on the sidewalk and have severe drug/mental health issues.
Housing first/financial aid is great for the first two people I mentioned, it’s not too helpful for the third. People often look at trials like this and think it’s an easy solution to homelessness while ignoring the problem just isn’t that simple because of that third group.
All that said, if the program does a simple evaluation to determine which group people fall into and gives money/housing to those best suited for it then it’s pretty much a no-brainer that it should be widely implemented. It won’t solve homelessness, but it’ll make a really big dent.
Most are homeless doesn’t describe their particular circumstances. There are people living in their cars who have jobs and credit histories who given a few grand can easily not be homeless . That is in contrast with the guy who is incredibly schizophrenic and constantly hallucinating who hasn’t held a job in years. That guy isn’t getting off the street because you gave him cash because he needs mental health care that he might not recognize.
Just saying they are homeless doesn’t describe who they chose and why.
You got a source? I found it’s only 30%
30% would count as “much of the population” IMO. I didn’t say most.
God I hate such empty bullshit. Of course the only group that got less, only 1/10th of the next group, saw by far the smallest gains. What a completely empty sentence.
It’s a study and they’re reporting the findings. That’s who science works, my guy.
One outcome could have been that those who received them most spent it all on cocaine and hookers. Now, some may say that’s gains, and some others may say that’s a loss, but in the end, they defined the parameters for what gains means, and cocaine and hookers ain’t it.
But more to the point, it has been demostrarte that wealth asking won’t give you the biggest gains. Just look up all the people who won the lottery and are worse off today.
It’s a finding. Not a statement. It’s an observation of the data. Opinions are not valid. If you feel that “of course that is obvious duuuhh” well you can’t actually make that claim unless you have data and the data reflects this. That’s how science works.
You are technically correct, but:
It shows that giving people $50 is not nearly as effective as giving them more, so the program should shoot for a reasonable floor on the amount per month.