[JDiculous]

One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery.

UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong to society, you are deserving of a modest respectable standard of living, and you are entitled to some of the proceeds of the wealth generated by the land with which you've been excluded.

[lanevorockz]

I believe you haven't worked with homeless people much, but the problem with homeless is NOT poverty. People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief.

Hard problem to solve and it wouldn't be fixed by universal income. We tried convincing homeless people to go into shelters or to at least care a bit for themselves ( free self catered infrastructure like showers ). Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society. Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to.

[pnutjam]

You are talking about a small percentage of the homeless, plenty of poor people would be helped by this and saved from becoming homeless. They could afford to stay in their rural hometown instead of making their way to the cities where they can currently get help.

[JDiculous]

Yes UBI would not "fix" homelessness or poverty, but it dramatically improves things.

> People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief.

What an insulting generalization of homeless people. Is that how you rationalize it in your head - these people find "relief" in sleeping on the sidewalk because they couldn't find their place in society?

Did you ask those homeless people why they didn't want to go to the shelter? I remember speaking with a 60+ year old homeless woman in NYC once who told me she refused to go to the shelter because it was filled with crazy people. Also you have to check out of the shelter every day, and if you don't check back in by a certain time, then they can't let you in. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many would prefer to sleep on the streets than deal with that.

> Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society.

This is why I'm a proponent of a jobs guarantee. Anyone who wants to work should not be denied the opportunity to do so.

> Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to.

Yes, because all homeless people are drug addicts right? /s

[rorykoehler]

While I agree I think Ubi would help regardless.

[clSTophEjUdRanu]

I look at it from a selfish perspective. These "lowlifes" actually drag society down. It benefits me if they are helped.

[asdkhadsj]

Yup. I don't agree on the perspective but you're totally right. My wife works in a state with issues like this, and her very modest city (capitol, but not as big as SF or Seattle) has enough homeless people that all sorts of crime is on the rise. Restaurants were closing (before COVID..) because people wouldn't go to the restaurant anymore. There were literal camps in parking lots and the police did nothing.

I personally think it's a sad state of our society that we let this happen. These people are either in need of help, or mental help. This is not an acceptable way of living.

1. Give help to all those who simply need some help. 2. Give mental help to those who cannot see living in filth is not a healthy state of being. 3. Let the people who just want to live "free" go live in the woods and form a co-op or something.

I unfortunately see no reason why camping on the streets or next to interstates should not be strictly enforced. But to manage this, we need social programs for #1 and #2. These people aren't all criminals, we can't simply lock them up in jail/prisons. It would also exploit them to do so. We need human programs focused on helping people, and fast.

[Shivetya]

Poverty and homelessness will not be solved by throwing money around. It only can be solved if society is willing to understand some people need to be told what to do each step of their lives. It will only be solved if people realize that we will actually have to build housing and make people live there. It will only be solved when people realize that once you get them housed you may need to insure their dietary needs are properly met which means someone else choosing what food is provided. Then after the basics of housing, food, and health, are taking care off, then you can just hand them money to do with as they need. The real bugaboo is when someone realizes that China's one child rule may have been too utopian in a future world, as in assistance may come with restrictions on even starting a family or curtailing family size.

All UBI programs tested or suggested really are nothing more than allowances and cannot solve the problem. The problem is not cheap nor universal. The universal part should be, you cannot fall below this threshold, not that everyone gets the same benefits. That is only being done to sell it when people should just be told, some people need no help currently. It will be there should they need it but right now they don't.

We have many of our problems for two reasons, governments which do not respect the property rights and personal rights of their citizenry and also that there are just people in this world who cannot operate on their own.

[chipsa]

Can't go below a threshold. Cool. So threshold is $12k or whatever. Person could work, and get $200 a week. So they get $50 a week in benefits. Or they could not work, and get $250 a week in benefits. So why work? Working more or less in the very low income range doesn't make any difference. So they won't. Not at a 100% income tax rate.

That's the point of having it being a fixed amount: you can tax the regular income, so the effective amount they get decreases as they work more, but you don't have perverse incentives to not work.

[DubiousPusher]

Especially in our time now when the relative cost of these things is so low. And worse even still is the atrocious conditions in jails and prisons in the U.S. wherein we often end up depositing people who need not be there if simply supplied necessities at a much lower cost without incarceration.

[patrickaljord]

We have UBI in France "RSA" (€556 with no kids, €839 with one kid and €1000 with 2 kids and then €223 per extra kids), we also provide free lodging (logement sociaux) with free healthcare, transportation, electricity and more. We still have a huge amount of homeless people. I believe it is more of a mental issue for people who chose to remain on the street, at least in France but I know it's the case in the US too. Most sane people can find a job and a cheap room to survive. Those who don't usually have mental issues no UBI can solve. I don't know how this can be solved, maybe force people to go to mental institutions? Doesn't sound super glamorous either. The only countries that seem to have solved this problem are either super cold countries or countries where they jail them away.

[sub7]

Agreed that everyone deserves a basic standard of living as a human right but disagree that UBI is the path to that.

Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work. It's the road to ruin.

My suggestion is a set of hospitals, schools and housing that is super basic but sufficient to give people dignity and opportunity. These would be free for anyone, paid for via taxes on capital gains.

[zentiggr]

It's funny that you say a class of beggars would be created, when most UBI scenarios I've read about show that people tend to try to improve their situations in whichever way makes the most sense...

some who can finally afford basic water food and housing start seeking medical/psych help they couldn't afford.

Some get more schooling to improve their employment prospects.

Some buy a car to start saving themselves hours a week on public transportation and therefore have more time to live.

And a small percentage don't get it and squander it.

You see the policy turning into a UK-style dole... I think you don't see the enormous benefits that reaching the point of 'having enough' can provide.

I've recently started making more than I have in the rest of my life... and besides finally paying down our household debt, and accomplishing the cash-starved household repairs, I'm starting to look at volunteering and truly giving to charities _because I can_.

Just providing basic services doesn't give people the same options, the mobility to do with their lives what makes sense in their circumstances.

[sub7]

I really want capitalism to give you a wage to do all those things. I understand it's been cronified and monopoloies have fucked over a whole lot of people.

The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born. We need to enforce fair markets, fair wages etc.

For those at the very bottom, I want dignity, a free education, and if still unsuccessful access to a low skill job that can pay basic bills.

[charlesu]

Should we pay people to dig ditches and then fill them just so that they're working? The relative gap between high skilled and unskilled labor will only increase. At some point, a large portion of society's labor will become worthless. What then?

Capitalism is about the accumulation and use of capital. It's amoral. It doesn't care about the unemployment rate, poverty rate, or health outcomes. It is just fine with child labor and seven day work weeks. It will offshore labor, hire contractors, and use money for buybacks before investment if the numbers make sense. Capitalism is not the answer here. Policy is. And that's fine. We can have both.

[hobs]

And what about when automation makes more and more human work obsolete? And when will the power imbalance in capitalism actually produce fairness? Ever?

You are going to have to find a different way to solve those problems than wage slavery.

[dangravell]

> The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born.

You write that as if it's some kind of natural law, as if the second clause is _obviously_ more absurd than the first. It's that the case and, if so, why?

[sub7]

When you decouple income from output or wages from work, you're essentially devaluing work and incentivizing people to work less or (more destructively) work worse.

It's not an absurd thought at all, it's a very natural solution to propose in environments like we have today. It's also been tried in many different countries in many different time periods. Leads to failure every single time.

[rorykoehler]

I don’t understand why people with more money should have such outrageous levels of power over those with less. That’s all capitalism is. Coercion through artificial constraint.

[khafra]

> Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work.

I don't know if you realize this, but beggars already exist. There are literally people standing by the road with signs asking for money. Presumably many of them can also vote.

UBI just eliminates the physical and emotional toll of standing outside all day holding a sign, asking for money. Does that make the road to ruin you envision more likely, or more dire?

[sub7]

I grew up in India, I know beggars and begging better than most. I even helped one sell books on the road and now he has a bookstore and his kid is in college. I handout food all the time. But never, ever cash.

UBI will not solve begging, as much as you want it to. But giving people a clean room to stay in, good basic healthcare and a free education might.

[kevinwang]

1. Everyone already has voting rights though, and those in poverty are already incentivized to seek welfare, so how would UBI "create" that?

2. How does your suggestion prevent that?

[sub7]

There's a big difference between money and money that can only be spent on a certain set of services.

As far as I know welfare is still food stamps etc i.e. not cash.

[DagAgren]

People know what they need to spend their money on. Telling them what they can and can't do with it is both patronising and counter-productive. Let the person who is affected by the choices make the choices.

[sub7]

Patronizing and counter productive is giving people money for nothing. It's telling people that they're useless.

You should read up on the beggar networks in India and the exploitation that occurs when you handout money for no work.

[wonderwonder]

If everyone is getting a set amount of money every month, its the opposite. Its telling them that they are valued and that society knows they are a human being and is trying to at least provide them with a roof and food. It allows them a base from which to improve themselves. It gives breathing room.

Study after study have proven that the greatest indicator of where you end up in life is where you start. Start in poverty odds are you will end there.

Its pretty hard for a single mom with 2 kids that works 2 jobs to also go to school, interviews etc. and make a better life. Especially when so many of the low skilled jobs provide no benefits. If she slips once, she is homeless.

Ensuring she has at least her basics met allows her to drop the second job and figure out a way to go to school or learn a skill. Or at the very least it allows her to spend time with her kids each night working on their homework and giving them a chance to break the poverty cycle.

[Goronmon]

Patronizing and counter productive is giving people money for nothing. It's telling people that they're useless.

I would disagree that a person "use" is defined solely by the type of job they have.

[pnutjam]

Sounds suspiciously like a centrally planned economy. Hmmm... Where have I heard that vilified before...

[jtmarl1n]

"Food Stamps" these days is a debt card that can only be used for certain food items. Very similar to an HSA. It is actual dollars in an account now.

[mattrp]

Thank you for articulating this. Outside a crisis, I don’t think we should have a standing policy like this in the United States. If you consider the issue from a first principles argument, each citizen of the United States is essentially an equity owner and the government are the managers. Power of the managers comes from its owners. We are unique in the world in this regard. There are other democracies sure but none that I know of who get their power from the people. It’s universally the other way around. Government is given all the power and whatever rights the people have come from the government. It is because of this, that in the US, an individual must be an independent self governing being. If the individual is not self governing then it is impossible for the individual to confer rights to the government. If the government becomes a source of universal income then the sovereign individual is potentially weakened and here’s how: ubi is not economically sustainable. At the beginning it may be available to everyone but eventually it will be curtailed. Means testing may be one way but social credit scores may be another. What stops of government from saying if you go to that protest your income eligibility score could drop and you might not receive an income next month or at all? Income without doing something to earn it is a form of coercion — a coerced people cannot be free. And while I have no problem with folks in Australia who want to try it, for myself, a citizen of the United Stares, I have grave concerns that ubi is but a gateway to less freedom rather than more.

[JDiculous]

> Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more

Given that UBI increases would be coupled with tax increases, I don't actually see that being the case.

[bsenftner]

I also disagree with UBI for the premise that it does not fix any of the underlying causes of wealth inequality - in essence, it is a free ticket for the corrupt to continue business as usual. We need to address the nepotism and the crony-capitalism that maintains the status quo in the same families generation after do-nothing generation.

[sigzero]

No, it is not a human right. It might be the right thing to do but it isn't a right you have.

[Guest42]

A very strange and inaccurate philosophy.

[jimmysacks]

Its allowed to continue because some are mentally Ill and refuse to get treated (and we can't force them into treatment) and some make poor life decisions like having multiple children with no means to support them (you have the freedom to do this).

You can't just give money to someone mentally Ill or will just squander the money and continue to make bad decisions. We will still have just as much poverty and homelessness.

[eckmLJE]

Just as much? Mental health crises are exacerbated by desperate conditions like not having a home. The two are linked and keeping someone with bipolar disorder who has just lost their job from ending up on the street in the first place would head off a lot of cases of individuals going off the deep end in the face of despair and nowhere to go.

[jimmysacks]

Do you have proof that not having a home causes mental Illness and not the reverse?

[JDiculous]

Are you kidding me? We literally dump our mental health patients on the streets. [1]

How many of the homeless in SF/NYC that you see have kids with them?

The mental gymnastics people go through to justify homelessness and poverty is sickening.

https://www.kqed.org/news/10737399/nevada-to-pay-san-francis...

[gph]

"In a national survey, 60 percent of homeless women and 41 percent of homeless men had at least one minor child, but only 39 percent of women and 3 percent of men lived with any children (Burt et al., 1999)" [1]

Most homeless people have had children, they just get taken away from them.

[1]https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/homeless-children-update-researc...

[jimmysacks]

You didn't read my post.

We should be forcing the mentally Ill into treatment, not giving them a choice to stay on the streets.

[MrLeap]

1000$ a month to every adult wouldn't reduce poverty and homelessness _at all_? Not a teeny tiny bit? Economics sure is unintuitive.

[jimmysacks]

It might help for a short time, until inflation catches up and that $1000 wont go very far.

[akdor1154]

You seem to be suggesting that everyone stuck in poverty is there because they are mentally ill or are incapable of making good life choices... which is outrageously false.

[jimmysacks]

I guess a third option is that they dont have the mental capacity?

I've lived on minimum wage for many years. It takes discipline to not buy booze, drugs, and electronics, and not have children that I know I can't afford.

I know many people that would be considered poor and they refuse to stop buying luxuries.

I would consider these poor life choices and the cause of a large percentage of poverty.

[madengr]

Many will turn right around and spend it on drugs.

[nkrisc]

Honestly, so what? Most will not and those that do will have less car stereos to steal to get their fix.

The real problem is that some people just can't get over the fact that some other people are just going to use drugs no matter what, so we might as well reduce the total harm involved for society.

[forkexec]

Shame on you. Your hateful and ignorant stereotypes are defective victim blaming and based on myths. The US has almost no mental healthcare system because JFK was assassinated before the transition to community-based residential treatment centers could be stood-up. Reagan destroyed what remained and condemned the mentally-unwell to neglect and misery.

[rfrey]

I agree 100% with your world view but downvoted you due to the unnecessary hostility. That kind of rhetoric is not debate or discussion, it is ring-fighting theatrics to get the crowd cheering for you.

[jimmysacks]

I agree. My point is to force these people into state hospitals and get them help.

Shame on the liberals for getting rid of these facilities.