4 ms·

I think we need Basic Housing in addition to Basic Income.

mdorazio 10y ago
The two are largely the same thing. If you have basic income, you can spend it on cheap housing and effectively have Basic Housing with no additional administrative overhead. If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results. Homelessness is often tied to drug addiction and mental health issues, neither of which are really directly helped by free housing or free money.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results Where can I read about these mixed results?
  - ItsDeathball 10y ago
    Assuming that's a serious request, this is a decent summary and starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      "Concentrated poverty" This seems like a bad idea. Any culture that contains something of value needs to absorb new members a little at a time. A culture or scene that tries to absorb many new members all at once is going to be damaged or at least significantly changed in the process. So it would seem that scattered site housing is the new norm. Now, the problem is that it's harder for such residents to become part of the local community networks. (Often suburbia is distinctly isolating.) Some social organization similar to a church would seem to be the idea method of providing the residents a social network.
msandford 10y ago
While we're at it could we also get Basic Car and Basic Food and Basic Videogames? I could really use Basic Cable too.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  You say this as if giving people who can't contribute to society a place to live and recreational activities would be the downfall of civilization. Homeless are expensive as hell to have. They visit ERs instead of getting preventive care, not that they can afford either, they devalue property where they squat, they occupy emergency services like police when property owners complain, they spread disease, etc. etc. etc. You can joke about giving people a home like it's just going to ruin the country, but we're already subsidizing these people with emergency services, jails, and police. Just giving them a home with some basic amenities both gives them the chance to actually contribute and at the same time, and basic income allows them to manage their own money, even if they aren't earning it, to give them some semblance of dignity. And in almost every case studied, it's cheaper.
  - msandford 10y ago
    You talk as though all homeless people are in the same category; down on their luck folks who are just having a hard time pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of homeless people who are like that and who really do just need a helping hand and some support for 6mo or a year and they're back to being productive members of society. I won't argue with this because it's absolutely true! But there are also people who are homeless because of untreated mental illness, who "choose" to be homeless because they're too far out there to participate in traditional society. These folks (probably) need help, but just giving them a house and money for food isn't necessarily the answer. And there are also folks who choose to be homeless. People who think society is really effed up and that they don't want to be a part of it. I've met folks like this and talked with them at length and they know full well what they're doing, why, and whatnot. They're not down on their luck and they don't have any kind of debilitating mental illness; they have very well founded reasons for rejecting society and you won't convince them otherwise. They obviously have different values than most, but that doesn't mean they're crazy or wrong. If you give them a house they'll probably just laugh at the "idiots" trash it, spend the money profligately and continue doing whatever makes them happy. Pretending that you've got a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem is either incredibly naive or just downright intellectually dishonest. I'm not terribly interested in people peddling snake oil.
blaisio 10y ago
I'm not sure I agree with that. Basic income is much easier for the government to setup than basic housing. And people could just use their basic income to get housing.
Noseshine 10y ago
As someone who is for such programs in principle, and willing to pay even more taxes from my high IT freelancer income to support the parts of society worse off, still I am not in the mood for "simple" solutions. It was tried giving people housing. The problem is not doing that once - the problem is the ongoing process. Even in Africa the helpers switched to letting people pay for basic services instead of giving it to them for free, not because "capitalism", but because it turned out they didn't value free stuff and ruined or ignored it. Similar with the homeless, and in addition a large part of them has mental issues! If you want to have ruined housing, sure, just give them free housing now. But a solution that involves an entire well-organized system that takes care of them and the housing is needed - and likely a very flexible individualized one. Some may need almost constant help, for others checking on them occasionally and giving nudges and support is enough. "Basic income" is not a solution for this problem. Most of those people on the street are very likely to gain next to zero benefit from (just) getting money.

The two are largely the same thing. If you have basic income, you can spend it on cheap housing and effectively have Basic Housing with no additional administrative overhead. If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results. Homelessness is often tied to drug addiction and mental health issues, neither of which are really directly helped by free housing or free money.

stcredzero 10y ago
If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results Where can I read about these mixed results?
- ItsDeathball 10y ago
  Assuming that's a serious request, this is a decent summary and starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    "Concentrated poverty" This seems like a bad idea. Any culture that contains something of value needs to absorb new members a little at a time. A culture or scene that tries to absorb many new members all at once is going to be damaged or at least significantly changed in the process. So it would seem that scattered site housing is the new norm. Now, the problem is that it's harder for such residents to become part of the local community networks. (Often suburbia is distinctly isolating.) Some social organization similar to a church would seem to be the idea method of providing the residents a social network.

msandford 10y ago

While we're at it could we also get Basic Car and Basic Food and Basic Videogames? I could really use Basic Cable too.

FussyZeus 10y ago
You say this as if giving people who can't contribute to society a place to live and recreational activities would be the downfall of civilization. Homeless are expensive as hell to have. They visit ERs instead of getting preventive care, not that they can afford either, they devalue property where they squat, they occupy emergency services like police when property owners complain, they spread disease, etc. etc. etc. You can joke about giving people a home like it's just going to ruin the country, but we're already subsidizing these people with emergency services, jails, and police. Just giving them a home with some basic amenities both gives them the chance to actually contribute and at the same time, and basic income allows them to manage their own money, even if they aren't earning it, to give them some semblance of dignity. And in almost every case studied, it's cheaper.
- msandford 10y ago
  You talk as though all homeless people are in the same category; down on their luck folks who are just having a hard time pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of homeless people who are like that and who really do just need a helping hand and some support for 6mo or a year and they're back to being productive members of society. I won't argue with this because it's absolutely true! But there are also people who are homeless because of untreated mental illness, who "choose" to be homeless because they're too far out there to participate in traditional society. These folks (probably) need help, but just giving them a house and money for food isn't necessarily the answer. And there are also folks who choose to be homeless. People who think society is really effed up and that they don't want to be a part of it. I've met folks like this and talked with them at length and they know full well what they're doing, why, and whatnot. They're not down on their luck and they don't have any kind of debilitating mental illness; they have very well founded reasons for rejecting society and you won't convince them otherwise. They obviously have different values than most, but that doesn't mean they're crazy or wrong. If you give them a house they'll probably just laugh at the "idiots" trash it, spend the money profligately and continue doing whatever makes them happy. Pretending that you've got a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem is either incredibly naive or just downright intellectually dishonest. I'm not terribly interested in people peddling snake oil.

blaisio 10y ago

I'm not sure I agree with that. Basic income is much easier for the government to setup than basic housing. And people could just use their basic income to get housing.

Noseshine 10y ago

As someone who is for such programs in principle, and willing to pay even more taxes from my high IT freelancer income to support the parts of society worse off, still I am not in the mood for "simple" solutions. It was tried giving people housing. The problem is not doing that once - the problem is the ongoing process. Even in Africa the helpers switched to letting people pay for basic services instead of giving it to them for free, not because "capitalism", but because it turned out they didn't value free stuff and ruined or ignored it. Similar with the homeless, and in addition a large part of them has mental issues! If you want to have ruined housing, sure, just give them free housing now. But a solution that involves an entire well-organized system that takes care of them and the housing is needed - and likely a very flexible individualized one. Some may need almost constant help, for others checking on them occasionally and giving nudges and support is enough. "Basic income" is not a solution for this problem. Most of those people on the street are very likely to gain next to zero benefit from (just) getting money.