4 ms·

I am not a sociologist but I do believe the strong should assist the weak but handing out cash to a set of people who may have disabilities, addictions, severe

I am not a sociologist but I do believe the strong should assist the weak but handing out cash to a set of people who may have disabilities, addictions, severe IQ deficits or otherwise may be a "fast curtain" to a "bad second act." I believe offering free food and shelter would be far less expensive and a better investment. Example: 25% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, what would they do with free money? http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org/ http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org/ 40% of the food supply in the United States is wasted and thus could be possibly reclaimed or reistributed: http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts The Federal government has plenty of land. Micro houses would be a one time cost and shelter should be built very inexpensively. A Finnish micro house costs under $11,000 http://www.gizmag.com/finnish-micro-house/22580/ http://www.gizmag.com/finnish-micro-house/22580/

nosuchthing 11y ago
Investing in free mass transportation, health care, affordable/free higher education, affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. Basic Income seems like it would inevitably lead to inflation especially since 'fiat money' economics are so prone to emotional speculations. (cryptocoin systems have not yet seemed to develop anything usable for large scale economies). As a nation, investing in and developing infrastructure is attainable and maintainable where as simply giving cash out is much riskier, especially at the scale for all citizens. This of course comes with the risk of shady cronyism for the contracts and vendors whom build and maintain these projects.
- intopieces 11y ago
  > affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. We give people food stamps, they sell them for less than they're worth for cash. We have public housing. It's called "The Projects" and they're generally known as the rough area of town. Both of these services cost taxpayers exorbitant amounts in administration. If we eliminated most of that and just gave people cash, we could let them spend on what they need. Because they know better than we do what they need, and their needs are much more varied and specific than one agency could ever cover. There would be inflation, yes. But inflation in itself is not a bad thing so long as wages keep pace with inflation. They haven't. A minimum income would bring people with almost-no spending power into at least the bottom. And poor people don't save their money -- they spend it, often at local businesses.
  - omnomrentier 11y ago
    Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supply of deteriorating housing stock. This model of BI (replacing existing programs) is nothing but a giveaway to landlords, which I assume accounts for the PR juice behind it. It's possible to have social housing that's not terrible or stigmatized. Having moved from the US to the Netherlands, the contrast is remarkable. Social housing here is integrated in most neighborhoods, not a "hood" of its own. There are definitely exceptions of course, but even the Schilderswijk or Bijlmermeer are very pleasant places compared to most NYCHA projects. It's mostly just rent-regulated housing, be it owned by non-profit housing corporations, coupled in case of direst need with a subsidy payment, and with agencies responsible for placement. Not, actually, much different the administrative structures present in most American cities. The main difference appears to be first an explicit goal of avoiding segregation, and second, scale. Most rental housing here is in the social sector, so the benefits extend beyond the very poor, which is critical for avoiding stigma and maintaining political support. Replacing landlord oversight with cash payments to tenants is not going to do anything to improve the lot of the tenants. I'd rather see the US invest directly in expanding affordable housing integrated with neighborhoods. Unfortunately, this is a political loser until a majority of voters stand to benefit directly from it. Things are going to have to get a lot worse before that happens.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      "Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supply of deteriorating housing stock." Rents are a matter of supply versus demand. There is a tremendous supply of housing. What is limited is desirable housing - and a big part of that is housing somewhat near a stable income. A basic income - even a modest one - would seem to radically increase the supply of housing near a stable income.
      - nosuchthing 11y ago
        Building low cost municipal housing within commuting distance to large cities would be significantly more productive as a long term economic and city/nation infrastructure investment than the BI alternative of low income citizens being forced out of city centers and into undesirable real estate areas.
- thinkahol 11y ago
  It turns out the "sensible alternative" has been tested against the "just give people money" thing and it consistently has higher costs and worse outcomes. It shouldn't be surprising that bureaucracies are inefficient. If justice and democracy prevail I predict the participatory budget will approach 100%.
eru 11y ago
Actually, people have tried. Giving cash seems to work better in general than more restricted forms of charity. See eg http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...

nosuchthing 11y ago

Investing in free mass transportation, health care, affordable/free higher education, affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. Basic Income seems like it would inevitably lead to inflation especially since 'fiat money' economics are so prone to emotional speculations. (cryptocoin systems have not yet seemed to develop anything usable for large scale economies). As a nation, investing in and developing infrastructure is attainable and maintainable where as simply giving cash out is much riskier, especially at the scale for all citizens. This of course comes with the risk of shady cronyism for the contracts and vendors whom build and maintain these projects.

intopieces 11y ago
> affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. We give people food stamps, they sell them for less than they're worth for cash. We have public housing. It's called "The Projects" and they're generally known as the rough area of town. Both of these services cost taxpayers exorbitant amounts in administration. If we eliminated most of that and just gave people cash, we could let them spend on what they need. Because they know better than we do what they need, and their needs are much more varied and specific than one agency could ever cover. There would be inflation, yes. But inflation in itself is not a bad thing so long as wages keep pace with inflation. They haven't. A minimum income would bring people with almost-no spending power into at least the bottom. And poor people don't save their money -- they spend it, often at local businesses.
- omnomrentier 11y ago
  Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supply of deteriorating housing stock. This model of BI (replacing existing programs) is nothing but a giveaway to landlords, which I assume accounts for the PR juice behind it. It's possible to have social housing that's not terrible or stigmatized. Having moved from the US to the Netherlands, the contrast is remarkable. Social housing here is integrated in most neighborhoods, not a "hood" of its own. There are definitely exceptions of course, but even the Schilderswijk or Bijlmermeer are very pleasant places compared to most NYCHA projects. It's mostly just rent-regulated housing, be it owned by non-profit housing corporations, coupled in case of direst need with a subsidy payment, and with agencies responsible for placement. Not, actually, much different the administrative structures present in most American cities. The main difference appears to be first an explicit goal of avoiding segregation, and second, scale. Most rental housing here is in the social sector, so the benefits extend beyond the very poor, which is critical for avoiding stigma and maintaining political support. Replacing landlord oversight with cash payments to tenants is not going to do anything to improve the lot of the tenants. I'd rather see the US invest directly in expanding affordable housing integrated with neighborhoods. Unfortunately, this is a political loser until a majority of voters stand to benefit directly from it. Things are going to have to get a lot worse before that happens.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supply of deteriorating housing stock." Rents are a matter of supply versus demand. There is a tremendous supply of housing. What is limited is desirable housing - and a big part of that is housing somewhat near a stable income. A basic income - even a modest one - would seem to radically increase the supply of housing near a stable income.
    - nosuchthing 11y ago
      Building low cost municipal housing within commuting distance to large cities would be significantly more productive as a long term economic and city/nation infrastructure investment than the BI alternative of low income citizens being forced out of city centers and into undesirable real estate areas.
thinkahol 11y ago
It turns out the "sensible alternative" has been tested against the "just give people money" thing and it consistently has higher costs and worse outcomes. It shouldn't be surprising that bureaucracies are inefficient. If justice and democracy prevail I predict the participatory budget will approach 100%.

eru 11y ago

Actually, people have tried. Giving cash seems to work better in general than more restricted forms of charity. See eg http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...