this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
767 points (97.8% liked)

News

23667 readers
5655 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?

That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.

The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.

Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231221131158/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/750-a-month-no-questions-asked-improved-the-lives-of-homeless-people

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid 148 points 1 year ago (5 children)

$750 a month would improve the lives of plenty of people who aren't homeless too. Up to and including the middle class.

But I suppose a UBI is a non-starter everywhere in the U.S. but Alaska.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 65 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You want universal anything it’s an uphill battle because of the cattle shouting about the cost or some nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Those who will make more money with UBI will just be mad they get taxed slightly more.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Our corporate oligarchs already pitch a fit about collective bargaining, universal healthcare, and adjusting minimum wage to match inflation. I can't imagine they'd react well to a universal basic income except by raping the fading middle class even more.

[–] FlyingSquid 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The universal healthcare one baffles me because it would save businesses money and increase employee retention. But corporations still fight against it.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Having healthcare tied to your employer is both a way for companies to pay less while offering more benefits to entice new workers and also keep workers from fighting too hard for their own rights because now maintaining a job is directly related to health. If we had universal healthcare, companies would have to compete more directly on wage and that would cost them more. Providing healthcare, while negotiating for deals for said healthcare means they can say that they are providing more benefits than they actually pay for.

[–] GoofSchmoofer 14 points 1 year ago

And if people's healthcare isn't tied to their jobs there would be more people willing to start their own business increasing the chance of competition.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'll also add on two other factors:

The health care industry (insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospital administration, etc) make up a very sizeable portion of both the economy and the workforce. Gutting that will have very large knock on effects throughout the country

But the other aspect? While this has likely shifted a bit due to the republican jihad on medicine of the past couple years, the US has really good healthcare... for those who can afford it. Because with health care costs so high (even accounting for the bullshit insurance companies and hospitals pull), you can get paid quite a bit if you are a specialist in some form of medicine. For a lot of specialty treatments we are (or at least were) still one of the better places on the planet to "get sick"... if you can afford it. And countries like the UK have issues with preventative care simply because of how overworked health care workers are (on account of people being able to afford it...). You're a lot less likely to die if you get sick, but it is also "harder" to not get sick, as it were.

Personally? I think our health care system is so fucked that it is hard to do much worse. But hybrid models (I think it is Denmark that is often held up as a great example of this, but also grain of salt because Left Leaning Millennials have a massive chubby for anything "nordic") where you have a government provided/supplemented baseline "basic human rights" health care system but the ability for employers to offer premium care seem like the way to go.

Which is why I still prioritize UBI over health care reform. Because all of the above will result in a lot more people needing UBI. And while I acknowledge it is portrayed as a dystopia for a LOT of reasons, I still think the Martian model in The Expanse is probably what we as a society need. UBI and housing so that people aren't dying in the streets if they can't get enough shifts at Wendy's. But a strong incentive to still pursue higher education (the cost of which definitely needs adjusting...) or to work less than desirable jobs to be able to afford luxuries and a higher quality of life. Effectively a hybridization of "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as it were.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Because it also gives employees more freedom. Tying healthcare to employment is insane and extremely expensive, but it also creates a worse power dynamic

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

They fight against it because the benefits are more long term than they tend to think.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

It’s because there is no unified aristocracy. All those rich families are cordial but are out only for themselves. They can’t see that having all the menials healthy/housed/fed improves all their wealth.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would basically cover my student loan payments, so it would be equivalent to loan forgiveness for me. Improve is an understatement, that would actually allow me to save money. Right now my wife and I make slightly above area median income and we're just treading water financially. This would be a game changer. We could actually consider having a kid.

[–] thenightisdark 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For what it's worth 750 a month is probably less than what a kid costs. Depends on where you live but that seems decidedly low price for a kid

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It cost near $7k in healthcare costs when my son was born. That's $1750 a year so far...

[–] WoahWoah -2 points 1 year ago

It's more than that per month just for childcare, assuming they are anticipating they will continue to work. It's significantly more than that in food, Healthcare etc per month. If all you need is $750/month to have a child, than you can already have a child.

But the reality is, their lifestyle will eat that $750, and they'll continue thinking they can't afford to have a child. And, frankly, they probably can't. Children are for the poor and the upper-middle class and above. It's weird, but it's true.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

A non-starter unless it's building up pro fossil fuel constituency.

/murica eagle screech

[–] GrammatonCleric 4 points 1 year ago

Imagine having money, but still being stuck in Alaska.